…and this is a 
Kenneth Howell was an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. He is not being rehired at the end of his contract, apparently because he has been accused of hate speech against gays by a student. He had written an email to his students defending the Catholic position on homosexuality, and a friend of one of the students wrote to the university and the media accusing the professor of "hate speech", of "indoctrinating students", and "limiting the marketplace of ideas".
I hate to say it, but I think the student was wrong. I read the professor's email, and I don't think it is hate speech at all.
It's stupid speech.
A letter that condemned students, that threatened students if they didn't agree with his views, that discriminated against a segment of society, or that denied people full participation in the culture for their views or background or private practices…that would be hate speech. This letter, though, is a pedantic and polite explanation of the views of the professor and of the Catholic church and of his interpretation of utilitarianism, and in fact is careful to say that he isn't condemning any individuals. We can't endorse using this kind of discussion as an excuse to expel people from academia — we want professors and students to be able to communicate freely with one another, without fear of retaliation. I see no sign that the professor was discussing the matter in a way that disrespects any of his students.
And the student complaining was doing so poorly. The professor's ideas made him uncomfortable. He disliked what he said. He thought the professor was insensitive.
Those are not good reasons. If a student is never made uncomfortable, that student is not getting an education.
Bad reasons are given, but I still think UI made the right decision in not renewing this guy's contract. Kenneth Howell is in ignorant fool who mistakes his religious dogma and his personal prejudices for knowledge.
Here's an example. Keep in mind that this fellow is a professor, supposedly teaching college students something about philosophy. Here he's trying to explain why homosexuality is wrong.
But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.
One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.
REALITY, huh?
Here's reality. A penis fits nicely in the hand, and a hand is usually better at stimulating the clitoris than a penis in the vagina, and our anatomy is such that our arms are of the right length to comfortably reach our genitals. Therefore, masturbation is a moral sexual act. We can extend this to point out that a man's hand can stimulate a clitoris and a woman's hand can stimulate a penis, and therefore, mutual masturbation, as is being practiced by tens of thousands of teenagers on this Friday night, is also a rightful act. There is no practical difference in anatomy or physiology between mutual masturbation between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, so these acts are also entirely natural.
This reasoning can be extended to a great many sexual acts: oral and anal sex, frottage of various kinds, fantasy play, sadomasochism, etc. There are more aspects of male and female anatomy in which they are alike than in which they differ, and in fact the only act which can be uniquely performed by a male and female couple is penile-vaginal intercourse. So this one act out of many is all that this professor can point to in order to justify heterosexuality as the only proper interaction, but this requires ignoring the majority of human sexual behaviors. I have to wonder if all Catholic teaching permits in the bedroom is genital-genital contact. How sad for them.
Complementarity is also an invalid requirement. Men have lips and a tongue; women have lips and a tongue. It seems to me that a lot of heterosexual couples acquire a great deal of pleasure from kissing, despite the fact that the anatomy of that portion of their bodies is largely interchangeable (in an abstract sense, of course). Is this wrongful? Or are we forced to agree that the equivalent kissing between two men or two women cannot be judged by the nature of the act to be in violation of natural moral law?
I would entirely agree with Howell on one point: complementarity of the psychology of the two sexual partners is an important part of healthy sex. Unfortunately for his premise, psychology is not so strictly sorted with the genitalia; just as there are many women and even more men with whom I would be miserable and stressed to share a bed, there are people who have a great deal of difficulty finding the necessary complementarity of desire in partners of a different sex. This should be the most important criterion in a sexual partner, whether you can find joy together, and it's often independent of all that meat below the neck. Although that stuff helps. And the brain often finds arousal in surprising places.
Howell's ideas about homosexual practices are embarrassingly ignorant. He doesn't know, so why does he profess to know? This myth that homosexuality involves taking the roles of man and woman is one of the oldest and silliest claims around — it's not usually true (although it can be, since sex seems to throw out all our rules and expectations). Gay men are attracted to men, lesbians are attracted to women, not to clumsy impersonations of the sex they are less interested in.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals do not engage in actions for which their bodies are not fitted. If they don't fit, they can't do them. I mean, really.
The health argument is completely wrong. Many homosexuals will engage only in the kinds of activities that heterosexuals would call heavy petting — this obviously isn't a problem. That good Christian homosexual, George Rekers, reportedly achieved arousal and orgasm from massage and a "long stroke" which did not involve extensive genital contact at all. And most of the sexual activities carried out by gay men are also carried out by heterosexual men with their female partners. You just can't isolate gay practices as unnatural without also condemning a great many heterosexual practices.
Also, if we're going to judge the rightness of a sex act by its health consequences, then lesbians are the most natural and moral of us all. They have the least risk of transmission of sexual diseases, do the least physical damage to each other's delicate tissues, and are not going to get each other pregnant, which has incredibly deleterious effects on a woman's health. In fact, the worst thing you can do to a woman sexually in terms of her health is for a man to put his penis in her vagina. Talk about violating the structure and health of a human body!
Of course, later in his silly letter Howell tries to claim that sexual reality is all tied up in procreation and cusses out that great Catholic evil, contraception. Again, he has a blinkered view of sex: some of the best reasons to have it are love and fun. But then, Catholics always seem to forget those.
I think it entirely reasonable to boot Kenneth Howell out of UI because he's not very bright and doesn't meet the intellectual standards I expect of UI professors. Of course, part of the reason for his weird shortcomings is the fact that he's a professor of religion who is spitting up Catholic dogma, and one big problem is that a respected major university is offering courses in Catholicism taught by its adherents as serious philosophy, rather than teaching it as cultural anthropology by someone who can maintain a little distance from its weird precepts. Kick Howell out, but send the Catholic theologians packing right after him.
Education
Comments
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 9, 2010 8:49 PM
A penis fits nicely in the hand
so does...
a banana!
ah, where's old Ray when ya need him for a laugh?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 8:58 PM
A penis fits nicely in the hand
And as a gay man living in North Dakota, I say "thank evolution for that!"
Posted by: Friend of Icelos
|
July 9, 2010 9:02 PM
Ah yes, reality. Fascinating subject, that.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:03 PM
The student's complaint, well, yeah, PZ's right.
However, I'm not sure Howell has any claim. He's adjunct. Every adjunct contract I've had has made it quite clear that there was absolutely no guarantee of future employment, no matter how good my teaching or research may have been.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 9, 2010 9:04 PM
His whole religious philosophy goes farther than just "complementary" partners, those "complementary" partners are supposed to have sex only if there's the possibility of procreation. As a childfree person, I end up lower than low, per my refusal to breed.
Catholics in general seem to have real problems with the whole consent business.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
July 9, 2010 9:05 PM
I must assume that you are including possible complications due to pregnancy here. But I think that if you take into account infertile women and men, effective birth control, and modern OB/GYN medicine, this claim becomes highly debatable.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 9, 2010 9:05 PM
I should have mentioned that. Adjuncts are the powerless serfs of academia, so he can't do squat anyway.
Which is a whole different problem that ought to be fixed...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:08 PM
I should have mentioned that. Adjuncts are the powerless serfs of academia, so he can't do squat anyway.
Which is a whole different problem that ought to be fixed...
Particularly as more and more universities move toward relying on adjuncts. They're wonderful for administrators who only care about budgets: no benefits, get rid of 'em if their raises get too big, etc. Ain't it great how management ideals are being brought over from the business schools!?!?!
Posted by: KillJoy
|
July 9, 2010 9:08 PM
I'm always amused by the habit people have of conflating 'bottom' (ie: the receptive role in anal sex.) and some sort of femininity. As if womanhood, or manhood for that matter were somehow simply defined by who is putting what body part in who. I have been asked, quite unabashedly, and quite seriously, "Which one of you is the woman?" After staring at the questioner for a few moments with what I hope was a withering glare, I responded with "Neither. We're both men." Which confused his poor little brain. When I bottom, I'm 'playing the role of the woman'only in the sense that I am being penetrated.
It is difficult for some people to understand that you can be a man who likes having a penis in side him. And you know..still be a man. Im pretty sure there is something to be said in there about these types of people being shamed, and frightened by women and womanhood, and entirely insecure in their own sexuality. But I will leave it to the other more eloquent posters. I have a frozen burrito to eat. Oh, and beer to drink.
See? Frozen burritos and beer! Its difficult to get much more manly than that! XD
KJ
Posted by: koyote_ken
|
July 9, 2010 9:12 PM
And here I wasted all that time hanging out on the streets learning about sex.......I should have been on Sb......
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:12 PM
I'm always amused by the habit people have of conflating 'bottom' (ie: the receptive role in anal sex.) and some sort of femininity. As if womanhood, or manhood for that matter were somehow simply defined by who is putting what body part in who.
But this is the core of so much homophobia as well: het men's terror of becoming "the woman." After all, men fuck and women get fucked. If a gay man even so much as looks at a straight man....well that's almost like fucking because the straight man is being placed in the feminine role, that of object for someone else's erotic pleasure, and that's a bit too much for a lot of men to handle.
It's not always "who's the woman?" It's also, "I know he's looking at me," and that leads to the gay panic defense and similar.
And we faggots? Not real men; bitches really. Gender traitors on top of it.
Homophobie is strongly linked to misogyny.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 9, 2010 9:12 PM
Yeah, the student shouldn't have been trying to get the guy fired because he's offensive. He should have been trying to get the guy fired because he's STUPID.
Which I am pretty certain was the point you were making, but I figured it might help to simplify the terms for those who would miss it.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 9, 2010 9:13 PM
What a morally corrupt letter Howell wrote! He tries to bend everything to his preferences. As usual, those who claim moral righteousness are the most immoral and corrupt like Howell. I would not want him to be my teacher.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 9, 2010 9:14 PM
A penis fits nicely in the hand
continuing humor vein...
It also apparently fits nicely in frog mouths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwegzhXAqaQ
another consent issue?
:)
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 9, 2010 9:16 PM
Whenever there's an argument from dogma, the law of unintended consequences is ready to join the fray. (Yeh - very mixed metaphor.)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:17 PM
What a morally corrupt letter Howell wrote!
It relies on Catholicism. Why would we expect anything different.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:20 PM
countdown to piltfuck.....
Posted by: Jeremy
|
July 9, 2010 9:21 PM
He's a professor of philosophy, but doesn't understand utilitarianism. Fire him for incompetence in his supposed area of expertise.
In particular, utilitarianism says that an act is moral/immoral depending on its overall effect on social welfare. The person performing the calculation gets no special weighting in the calculus. Utilitarian morality does not depend on point-of-view.
Yet, Howell writes
Congratulations, Professor! You've shown that selfishness is bad! Give the man his PhD!
After that, he goes off the deep end, as PZ already said.
[Citation needed]
Posted by: KillJoy
|
July 9, 2010 9:21 PM
MAJeff:
I agree with you completely.
You put into words what I was hinting at toward the end of my post, but was unable to clearly articulate. Fear of being feminized is pretty much the root of homophobia. Men who view women as something less than themselves, objects to be used, weak and impotent...fear being put into that role. Its a reflection of their own attitudes toward women. And any man who would willing put themselves 'in that role' and even *Gasp* enjoy it, clearly cannot be a real man.
Its a sort of emotional castration for them.
KJ
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 9:24 PM
MAJeff, have you ever taken a vacation to Pen Island? It has an astounding array of just the right sort of pen for any occasion.
Posted by: 01jack
|
July 9, 2010 9:29 PM
Tell the Doc he ain't doin' it right.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:29 PM
PENS!
I just pulled out my Lamy yesterday, for the first time since I left Boston. Damn, it felt so good to write with a fountain pen again.
Posted by: heatherly
|
July 9, 2010 9:31 PM
Consent is important but
ARGH. Nonono, there is no "but" at the end of that sentence. What kind of...
oh, Catholic. Yeah, never mind.
Posted by: MoonShark
|
July 9, 2010 9:31 PM
Natural and moral? Minimal risk of damage? PZ clearly doesn't use "prolapse" as a search term on the 'tubes :p
More surprising is that he omits "tentalce" from his lesbian searches =:O
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
July 9, 2010 9:32 PM
Men are such interesting creatures...Many men are so afraid to be thought of as "gay" or not macho enough. Men worry about the length and breadth of their penis. I guess this is one time (some) women have it easier(?) I feel complimented when either sex is interested in me. I have been asked out by both men and women over the years. Since I am in a long term monogamous relationship, I politely turn them down, but it is still nice. Another reason religion messes people up, they can't even relax when they have sex with someone.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 9, 2010 9:32 PM
Shorter Howell: I think what gay men do in bed is icky and god thinks so too.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 9, 2010 9:33 PM
Piltdown was just banned, again. It's going to take him a few minutes to go through the rigamarole of acquiring a new ID before I can ban him again.
Posted by: raven
|
July 9, 2010 9:33 PM
Yeah, the guy is very stupid.
Catholics themselves pay no attention to the priests anymore, especially about birth control. The Catholic birth rate is identical to the national average at 2+/family. Like any other sane, normal adults, they plan their families.
The No Birth Control rule isn't in the bible either. It is something a Pope made up a few decades ago.
But really, what in the hell is UI thinking. They hire a Catholic bigot to repeat Catholic dogma, they have to expect a Catholic bigot to spout hate like a demented robot.
PS Countdown to Piltdown, the other demented RCC robot in 10 9 8 7 .....
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 9:35 PM
MAJeff:
Yes, and yes to everything in your post. I'd go so far as to say homophobia isn't just linked to misogyny, it's actually a subset of it.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:37 PM
I'd go so far as to say homophobia isn't just linked to misogyny, it's actually a subset of it
You've read your Suzanne Pharr?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 9, 2010 9:39 PM
MaJeff:
Yep. And everyone knows there's nothing worse than being a woman. Homophobics always do a twofer on the hate front, they don't see women as full humans and gay men are even worse, because they "choose" to be women.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
July 9, 2010 9:43 PM
What he means is that a given man cannot be interchangeable with a given woman, and by extension, that men as a group cannot be interchangeable with women. However, I'm sure he has no problem with the idea that one woman is basically as good as another to a man, and that a woman has no problem with viewing men much the same way.
The whole idea of Natural Moral Law is a joke. It's a euphemism for "must make more babies." It has nothing to do with health and everything to do with maintaining sexual guilt and enforcing unintended procreation. That's what happens when people take it upon themselves to define REALITY who eat crackers and sip wine while they honestly believe they're munching on Jesus meat.
Posted by: raven
|
July 9, 2010 9:45 PM
Howell was a bug eyed, raving idiot.
OTOH, he was just regurgitating standard Catholic dogma in a class about...standard Catholic dogma.
So, how does one explain standard Catholic dogma without coming across as a drooling lunatic?
Unless someone thinks it is all a bunch of arbitrary rules made up by warped notvirgin old men and no one pays any attention to it anymore.
While true, that isn't going to go over with a subset of the university population either and someone will complain about that.
Really, maybe they should just leave it all where it belongs, in the churches.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 9, 2010 9:46 PM
I guess I knew this already, but the homophobia ⊂ misogyny business makes me realise just why it is that I enjoy gay porn and femdom - I buy into the stereotype to some degree. (I assume my preference of drawn pr0n to the real stuff is an issue of consent, but perhaps I'm just a paraphiliac.)
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 9:48 PM
No, I don't know who that is, but if you recommend her, she's going on my reading list.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 9:53 PM
It's from the early nineties, but Suzanne Pharr wrote a small book called "Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism."
Suzanne fucking rocks. I've done a LITTLE organizing with her. She just kicks ass.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 9:55 PM
Thanks Jeff! Will be buying it.
Posted by: leepicton
|
July 9, 2010 9:56 PM
Thanks, Josh, and MaJeff, and Killjoy, for a fascinating observation of the link between homophobia and misogyny. As a het female, I don't think it ever occurred to me, blithely bumbling along in my bubble of borgeois relative homogeniety. To be able to look sideways at something for a change is a great treat.
Posted by: subbie
|
July 9, 2010 9:59 PM
I don't imagine that it would surprise anyone who knows what my name means that I'm rather into Femdom, but I will admit to being ooked out by male homosexuality. My ookiness doesn't prevent me from firmly believing that homosexuals ought to be entitled to the same rights as anyone else, and I honestly don't think it's some irrational fear that all gays want me. I think it's more a factor of not being exposed to homosexuality, as it were, during my wonder years, so I'm just not used to it.
In any event, whatever gets you through the night is all right. Different streaks for different freaks.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 9, 2010 10:07 PM
Maybe I just have large hands.
Posted by: rbweinberg
|
July 9, 2010 10:08 PM
And on what planet is telling a segment of humanity that there *existence* is basically a violation of Natural Moral Law not part of "discriminat(ing) against a segment of society"???
Yes, it's stupid speech. It's probably not advocating violence directly enough to the point it's analogous to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, so I'm not sure *I* would classify it as hatespeech (using that strict definition). But if you are going to use the broader definition, and include discrimination, how is this NOT discriminatory?
Posted by: Matt Keefe
|
July 9, 2010 10:11 PM
I think we should all draw diagrams for Professor Howell and send them to him in the post.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 9, 2010 10:12 PM
And on what planet is telling a segment of humanity that there *existence* is basically a violation of Natural Moral Law not part of "discriminat(ing) against a segment of society"???
It's Catholicism so it can't be. Q.E.D.
Posted by: ussromantics
|
July 9, 2010 10:16 PM
A well-argued demolition. Apart from everything else he seems to flout the is/ought distinction [though I've never been terribly convinced by that distinction anyway], saying that morality should be based on reality, then going on to say what is 'appropriate'. The reality is that homosexuality has been around as long as we've been around [not to mention the non-human examples], with no evident harm done to our rampant species.
In one sense it's good to have this guy around - he makes it so easy to feel superior, to him and to Catholicism generally.
I think he should be sent for corrective therapy to bonobo-ville [somewhere in the Congo, I think?] to see what he makes of all those eternally, delightfully aroused mutually masturbating bonobo lasses.
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
July 9, 2010 10:17 PM
I don't get the "ookiness" bit...Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexuality runs in my family. I am convinced it is some type of genetic thing. My sister is Lesbian, my daughter and Grandmother is/were Bisexual, my cousin is Gay and I'm pretty sure I am Heterosexual. Nothing two consenting, mentally healthy adults do can ever be construed as "ookie." You just have to get over that. I grew up raised by a Grandmother who had "girlfriends" and "boyfriends." It seemed natural to me that people loved each other. Luckily, I was also raised agnostic/atheist.
Posted by: davidhortonsblog.com
|
July 9, 2010 10:20 PM
It is curious that a professor's ideas about "Natural moral law" and "reality" in relation to sex between consenting adults include no reference to the fact that "homosexual acts" are not uncommon in the rest of the animal kingdom. Which rather suggests that they are, you know, natural. Unless, perhaps, you think that the species Homo sapiens is not an animal, but surely a professor of philosophy wouldn't believe THAT would he?
Posted by: davidhortonsblog.com
|
July 9, 2010 10:22 PM
Good heavens, three of us say the same thing simultaneously. A miracle or psychic powers?
Posted by: jidashdee
|
July 9, 2010 10:23 PM
I believe this was Psalm 1024:Pi
Where Onan erred was by placing
Er’s heirs in Tamar’s hair.
You can try it if you dare,
But if you do you should beware.
The cervix is of service only if it serves its purpose.
The measure of a man must not be spilled upon a hand.
Before you run a batch place it firmly in a snatch,
And do the job to its completion lest you’re scheduled for deletion.
Almighty God is not amused when a member is abused.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 9, 2010 10:27 PM
subbie:
If that makes you sleep better at night, fine. It reads like one hell of a cop out to me. My husband didn't have any exposure to homosexuality, he grew up mormon, with a mother who regulated his life and exposure carefully. We had separated for a short period back in the early 90s. He had flown to SoCal to help me out with something and wanted to go out that night. I said I had an engagement with friends. He said "Okay! Can I go along?" I told him I didn't know how to say this, but my friends were all gay and we would be going [gay] barhopping.
He had that automatic 'ick' thing kick, then put on his brave face and said "Okay, that's okay. Can I go?" So, he went. 3 hours in, he was a major hit with my friends, on various dance floors constantly and flirting shamelessly. The ick factor lives no more.
If you really think your ick factor is lack of exposure, then go get some exposure.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 10:29 PM
I honestly don't get the ooked-outness either. This is not to pile on anyone, or accuse them of being stupid or bigoted (really). We don't get to peer inside someone's head and tell them what they ought to think, so I'm just observing.
But, I hear so many straight men say they have a visceral "yuck" reaction to gay male sex, and it strikes me as bafflingly disproportionate. I'm not sexually attracted to women, but women's bodies don't gross me out. I'm not squicked at the thought (or the sight of, in porn) of women having sex, with all their womanly parts in display. It leaves me indifferent, but it certainly doesn't disgust me, and not nearly to the degree that many straight men claim to be really put off by the sight of a penis (or more than one penis).
What gives?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 9, 2010 10:34 PM
Even for religious "reasoning" that was really dumb.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 9, 2010 10:39 PM
Could be wrong but I interpreted the subbie's ookiness* as a reaction to sex between men. The act itself, as it were, not the orientation. Doesn't really freak me out, but its just a matter of taste. Some people think spiders are icky, too**. I find yogurt repugnant, but didn't eat it growing up. Its not a moral judgement against yogurt and those who eat it. Just makes me gag a little to think about it. I don't think anyone would call my disgust a cop out...cause what the hell am I copping out of?
*I'm assuming that I actually know what the fuck this word that I have never seen before means.
**Incomprehensible, I know, but I have met some of them.
Posted by: jeffasselin
|
July 9, 2010 10:41 PM
Pretty much how it is. Sex is only allowed for the specific purposes of reproduction.
Oh, and getting pleasure from sex? Satan's work, and an "invitation to sin".
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 9, 2010 10:43 PM
Does it matter is subbie is 'ooked' out by the thought of homosexuality? He/she's clearly not a bigot, and suports their rights, so... what does it matter? There's a lot of things that gross me out, like mud-bathing, but you don't see people telling me to go watch people mud bathe and talk to mud bathers to I'll stop having a visceral "do not want" reaction.
I'm not stopping mudbathers, subbie's not stopping gay people... does the ookedness matter?
Posted by: Ternon
|
July 9, 2010 10:57 PM
What an excellent response from a straight guy.
I'm gay myself but never really considered having anal sex, it's just something I'm not interested in.
And this fuckwit bases his whole idea on anal sex. Good that he is not rehired with sloppy ignorant thinking like that.
For fuck sake, is it so hard to spend a few minutes on google to learn the things you admit you don't understand.
Oh, I guess his superstition prevents him from doing that.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 9, 2010 10:58 PM
ut, I hear so many straight men say they have a visceral "yuck" reaction to gay male sex, and it strikes me as bafflingly disproportionate.
the opposite of ooky?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 9, 2010 11:01 PM
The measure of a man must not be spilled upon a hand.
because...
every sperm is sacred.
Posted by: Akira MacKenzie
|
July 9, 2010 11:06 PM
I agree with PZ. The professor's comments are not "hate speech" per se, but does show someone who is too wrapped up in their dogma to think straight (pun semi-intended).
That said. I can also understand the student's reaction. It's easy and justifiable for members of a historically repressed group to get offended by comments like this. I'd certainly get pissed off if one of my instructors were to go on a tirade about the evils of atheism. I wouldn't demand his job for it.
The answer to rotten speech, be it hateful or just plain stupid, is MORE speech.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 11:07 PM
Kieranfoy:
No, it doesn't matter. That's why I prefaced what I wrote with this:
I do, however, find it an interesting topic of discussion. You may not.
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
July 9, 2010 11:11 PM
Too Much Information Dept:
My parents have been devout Catholics their entire lives. My father completely avoided any discussion of sex during my teenage years, and I never received the "birds & bees" lesson either. If my sexuality is the North Pole, my Dad's is the South Pole -- he completely mystifies me in this regard. He seems almost immune to the urges that give me restless nights every week.
Mum gave me a clue recently, however, in one of our widest-ranging conversations ever: My Dad has never received a hand job... EVER. At least not from her. And I seriously doubt he's ever been unfaithful to her, either.
I didn't query Mum any further after this incredible revelation, because I was too busy attempting to close my wide-open, astonished pie-hole.
My how times have changed. Gotta admire Mum for
coming cleanfessin' up!Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 11:11 PM
Also, on topic, PZ's right that what the prof. wrote is not "hate speech," as others have pointed out. I don't even really know what "hate speech" is, and I'm very uncomfortable when people jump to use that card when someone says something stupid or bigoted. I've had to deal with a lot of fundie homophobe assholes - or people who are merely deluded - in my life, but I'd rather see their arguments demolished in discourse than by an appeal to "hate speech." All other things being equal, of course, and taking into account the relative power of the speaker/professor/agitator in context.
Posted by: MJP
|
July 9, 2010 11:21 PM
Honestly, looking at the CRANKISH CAPITALIZATION of words like NATURE and REALITY, I can see why it might come across as hateful. It's certainly not a "pedantic and polite" letter, to be sure.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 9, 2010 11:23 PM
Well, I get "ooked out" (I usually use the word "squicked" to signify a sort of reflexive revulsion with no conscious moral judgment) by a lot of kinks that really turn other people on. And I've known people who are squicked by mine. So I can imagine being squicked by gay sex pretty easily, if I just transpose my feelings on - for instance - golden showers onto gay sex instead. Everyone has their own idiosyncratic preferences and triggers. But to be less trivial, my guess is there's some kind of cultural conditioning responsible for the widespread nature of gay male sex as straight male squick, and I'm pretty sure it's exactly what you'd expect.
@subbie,
*waves excitedly* I suspected you were family, but my friends tell me I jump to those conclusions too easily. So I tried not to make assumptions about what your name meant.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 11:28 PM
So can I. But "hateful" is not="hate speech," a specific category that invokes illegal behavior.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
July 9, 2010 11:36 PM
"Deleterious"? And he heard it from a "physician"? Where did that physician go to school? Liberty university?
Now assuming he is right, there is another thing I can name that is far more deleterious than homosexual acts: smoking. Should we ban smoking? The fact that you do it of your volition doesn't count, obviously.
And exactly how are a man and a woman "complementary", if you take procreation out? A man and a woman past their mid 50's are not any more complementary that two men are. Should we stop them from having sex, then?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 9, 2010 11:45 PM
Stephen, #60:
"Mum" and "wide open pie hole" should never appear in the same sentence.
This has been a public service announcement.
Posted by: irresistibledisgrace.wordpress.com
|
July 10, 2010 12:04 AM
I don't know how this was only mentioned ONCE (well, I only saw this in one comment),
but this guy teaches a class on Catholic beliefs.
HOW is he going to be fired for teaching what Catholics actually believe? It doesn't matter if you think it's hateful (which fortunately, PZ doesn't go that route). It doesn't matter if you think it's stupid (PZ does go this route). For a class that introduces Catholic thought, this is par for the course.
What if this kind of decision were precedent elsewhere? What if creationists stormed science classrooms saying evolution is is "stupid." Should science teachers that teach evolution be fired? No...because regardless of what one thinks about it, evolution is *par for a biology course*.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkt6Nfb5ZW2CGtg6XZkjdIvayuJiC-CFIE
|
July 10, 2010 12:05 AM
Is "ookiness" something to do with orangutan librarians?
Posted by: PS9
|
July 10, 2010 12:06 AM
#66 - "'Mum' and 'wide open pie hole' should never appear in the same sentence."
Did you mean that in a sexual sense, or as a contradiction? (I.e. "keep mum" means not to talk, while "pie hole" is a euphemism for the mouth of someone talking.)
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
July 10, 2010 12:08 AM
#6 The Science Pundit
Needing the services of a doctor to deal with the problems that may arise from "normal" sexual contact hardly is a selling point of how innocuous and harmless it is. Not to mention the risks and side effects of most kinds of birth control. The one with the least side effects for women is the condom which is often the one that men hate the most and depends on the man to use properly and consistently.Having a great tube of flesh that someone pisses out of, covered with sweat (because tucked between two hairy sweaty thighs), stuffed into a sensitive part of your anatomy that is perfect medium for culturing germs, is not ideal.
But, evolution had to make do with what it had and, if you got the right guy, the good out weighs the bad and one copes with the inconveniences.
Sorry about the diatribe, but I really get pissed off when people like Howell highlight the horrible consequences of "unnatural" sex, but completely overlook the consequences of "natural" sex. Mostly because it might spoil his fun if he thinks about it, and, hey, most to the problems of "natural" sex affect a woman, and isn't that their just deserts because of "the curse of Eve"?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 10, 2010 12:13 AM
PS9:
Um, babe, what do you think?
:-)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 10, 2010 12:14 AM
The Catholic Church, an organization run by professional virgins*, has some very strange ideas about sex. The RCC hierarchy apparently make it a point of never having discussions with the laity.** The hierarchy not only don't know how people think and act sexually but they don't want to know.
*They may not be actual virgins but they are professional virgins. Virginity and chastity are requirements to become a Catholic priest.
**"Pray, pay and obey" is how the clergy feel the laity should act.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 10, 2010 12:17 AM
Genius brilliant, 'Tis.
Posted by: PS9
|
July 10, 2010 12:23 AM
What bothers me about Howell is his arrogance, the presumption of religious types in general.
Get a clue, Howell: The only person who has to obey your religion is you. If the gay people you're talking about aren't catholics, then either drink a big glass of STFU or drano. Your choice.
But that's much of the problem, isn't it? The religious want the ability to stick their noses into others' lives and tell them how to live, which is all the more galling considering the kiddie fiddling that priests do. The religious are utterly unwilling to clean up their own house.
Those aren't beams in Howell's eyes, they're concrete blocks, like the type used to build cathedrals.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 10, 2010 12:27 AM
Wins a New Internet.
But also, still drink Drano, even if the gay people you're talking about are Catholic. They're still being abused.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 10, 2010 12:29 AM
Thanks to the keen insights of Kenneth Howell, I know realize what the main definition of being female is. To be a female is to be a receptacle.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 10, 2010 12:32 AM
I took it to be the same as "ickiness", but further back in the mouth.Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 10, 2010 12:33 AM
Take heart, Fake Wife. At least in my house, you'll receive and display exotic flowers. If you were Howell's wife, you'd have to stand there at cocktail parties holding up a print of a Thomas Kinkdade cottage.
Your loving Fake Husband.
Posted by: Morse
|
July 10, 2010 12:34 AM
I think it's a little wrong to classify the 'squick' factor of gay male sex as a simple 'sexual preference' since I it downplays its cultural source and its cultural effect. This is not to say, in the end, that it's not simply a preference. However, it's a feeling that's deeply rooted and quite prevalent in our society, and I think it contributes a fair bit to anti-homosexual sentiment (I think most of the actual dogma, rationalizations, and zealots usually arise from other arenas, but when other arguments fail the retreat is often "Well, I just don't like it. It's icky."). I think the squick factor definitely a topic that warrants deeper discussion and understanding, since I think our culture could use some change in this regard.
That said, I'm not sure if I actually have anything to contribute. Even I possess a shadow of the squick factor, though I can't quite explain why. Some quick self-analysis shows that I'm mostly neutrally attracted to gay male sex, which does make it seem unattractive compared to my positive attractions to male/female and female/female sexual interactions. Actually participating in the act seems like it could interesting and lots of fun, but in terms of arousal/eroticization: men do almost nothing for me (I'm think I'm one or two steps above pure bi on the Kinsey scale). I think I do also rate men in general as slightly more 'unclean' than women(intentionally nebulous word for a nebulous concept), so the male/male pairing does no favors. Still, I think that the main source of any 'squick' I have is mostly inherited from homophobic cultural norms (ex. "watches gay porn" is an insult).
A little off-topic, I actually did known one gay friend who claimed to be repulsed by females. He taught me the beautifully descriptive phrase "meat curtains".
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 10, 2010 12:36 AM
@Janine, not that you haven't likely already read this, but it just seemed to fit so much that I couldn't resist,
-Woman-Identified Woman, by Radicalesbians
Posted by: seculargaytheist
|
July 10, 2010 12:37 AM
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 10, 2010 12:37 AM
Thank you, loving Fake Hubby. I shudder at the thought of being married to a man like Howell. And not because I am a lesbian.
*snort*
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 10, 2010 12:38 AM
Please, please don't have said that. I'm trying so hard to be an adult, and not to indulge in really stupid, puerile (but hysterically funny) descriptions of genitalia. OMG - must go put tape over my mouth right now.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 10, 2010 12:41 AM
Me too, Janine. Think how many women actually are married to men like that (and they are). Ugh.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 10, 2010 12:44 AM
Angel Kaida, I have not read that quote before but I am very familiar with the concept. A lesbian is not a real woman. But a real woman is not a self motivated human. If I wanted to become a real woman, I would have to become submit and serve a man and get fucked.
Sometimes, this line of thought makes my head ache.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 10, 2010 12:46 AM
Many people are total morons. That is all.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
July 10, 2010 12:48 AM
Josh (#83)
Just imagine them all being used in a serious manner in erotic roleplaying chatrooms.
Posted by: Icaria
|
July 10, 2010 12:49 AM
And here I thought we employed concepts such as utilitarianism and the harm principle exactly because organisations like the Vatican have utterly failing to provide a satisfactory solution to the is-ought problem, explicit to their 'natural moral law'.
Of course this guy shouldn't have lost his job but then again, I can't see why this subject is worthy of existence in the first place. If you're going to create a subject to brief students on 'Catholic thought', you damn well better scrutinise it to the same extent you would any other philosophy. That, or shift it to the anthropology department.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 10, 2010 12:49 AM
A.Noyd:
Please don't tempt me. Being good is hard and I'm trying.
Posted by: Icaria
|
July 10, 2010 12:52 AM
Damn it, that should be *failed, not 'failing'. Grammar fail.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 10, 2010 1:03 AM
I am so going to regret saying this because people can take this the wrong way but I have to say it.
A penis in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Perhaps this was a time for self censorship.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 1:05 AM
MaJeff @11
Yup, 100%.
And furthermore, this is why trans issues and sexuality issues are so intertwined.
A man who sleeps with a man has committed treason in the great war of the sexes and voluntarily "become like a woman" by becoming a sexual receiver (there is no consent, only doer and doee) and committed a grievous sin against the patriarchy.
A man who becomes a woman has ommitted treason in the great war of the sexes and voluntarily "become like a woman" and committed a grievous sin against the patriarchy.
They are one and the same in their trespass and so might as well be inter-changable. In their eyes, gay men and transwomen are one and the same, because they are both "men who are becoming women".
I always also note very firmly how much consent and love or at least thoughtfulness apply to their notions of sexual interaction. There is penetrator and penetratee, there is duty to the patriarchy, and there is often much imagery of war and the importance of clear distinct separation (complementary but starkly different, almost alien to one another).
But there is never love, there is never consent.
They do not understand sex.
But they worship rape.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 10, 2010 1:05 AM
@Morse,
Of course you're right, and I don't mean to downplay the importance of the oppressive structures that play into that particular trope. At the absolute very least, even if it would be nothing more than a harmless variation of preference on its own, it has become socially sanctioned and embedded in a highly problematic and dysfunctional way by our broken society - similar to how, for instance, a kink involving spanking isn't negative by itself, but the the Christian Domestic Discipline scene is deeply fraught with problems. Except in the case of the gay male squick (can that be a detective novel, please?) the oppressive and broken system is society at large, not a fringe group.
I'm just responding to Josh's puzzlement about the visceral reaction to gay sex by otherwise accepting straight men, by pointing out that it's easy for me and probably for him to understand, on an emotional level, how one could be squicked by something that isn't in any way morally bad. Utterly trivial and mostly useless point.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 1:11 AM
Addendum to myself @92
Note this also applies to their understanding of lesbianism as well.
Lesbians are feminists are women who have jobs and wear jeans are women who talk back ever are transmen.
They all are rebellious against their "natural" role under the patriarchy and thus desire to be men and to have penises of their own and the power they confer. They thus need to be put in their place by penetration or a fucking by a real man which will then remind them that they are penetratees not penetrators.
No, I'm not kidding. Listening to them try and explain lesbianism almost invariably reveals it well. They consider it one and the same to feminism and lesbian sex is seen as entirely about the use of a strap-on and as being "curable" by someone who is "man enough".
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 10, 2010 1:17 AM
No, I'm not kidding. Listening to them try and explain lesbianism almost invariably reveals it well. They consider it one and the same to feminism and lesbian sex is seen as entirely about the use of a strap-on and as being "curable" by someone who is "man enough".
Gee, this could be a scene out of a John Wayne movie where the woman is resisting, hitting and kicking, while in his embrace but succumbs to his kiss. It makes rape oh so romantic.
Posted by: nejishiki
|
July 10, 2010 1:17 AM
He shouldn't have been let go. He taught them the Catholic position on homosexuality. It's laughable, misinformed, and a 13 year-old can poke holes in it.
(note to catholic priests: just because 13-year-olds can poke holes in your theology doesn't mean you can poke 13-year-olds).
But, you know, the students got what they paid for. Who better to teach them than a true believer? The only real question is whether this course should have existed in the first place.
Also, as a complete heterosexual, the idea of having a muscular man with dreamy brown eyes hold me down and penetrate me with his swollen, uncut member is totally gross.
Posted by: marion.delgado
|
July 10, 2010 1:22 AM
Dr. Myers, as a God-hating curmudgeon you have undoubtedly led countless thousands into hell and damnation.
However I feel strongly that if you would promote the restoration of Stephen Baldwin, the Lord could express his mercy even to you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5St6vwWxny4&feature=player_embedded
http://restorestephenbaldwin.org
Think on these things!
Also, God made the banana to fit into the human mouth precisely to preclude sodomy.
Posted by: glenister_m
|
July 10, 2010 1:22 AM
Remind me never to get into a debate with you unless I have a lot of facts/research supporting my position.
That's one thing I really enjoy about this blog, not only will you point out when someone is being stupid, but you'll go through point by point why they are wrong, in many cases in ways I wouldn't have thought of. Always an educating read.
See you in Vancouver!
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 1:26 AM
marion @97
Sarcasm? I hope?
Goddamn Poe's Law, I really can't tell anymore.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 10, 2010 1:27 AM
::snortle::*
*with a mouthful of cider, no less.
Posted by: RichVR
|
July 10, 2010 1:42 AM
PZ you get me so hot when you write like this. You dog!
Posted by: petrander
|
July 10, 2010 2:00 AM
...and isn't it also a bit of a myth that all homosexual men engage in anal sex? I could easily imagine some, if not many or even most, homosexual men that are as groced out by it as I am? Or is the desire to be penetrated so important that one gets over these sensibilities? I am hetero myself, so I wouldn't know...
Of course, it is still people's own business, as long as I am not forced to watch or even participate.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 10, 2010 2:13 AM
petrander:
Yes, it is. More to the point, a great many hetros indulge in anal sex, so it's pretty damn silly to assign that one particular act to gay men.
Posted by: Autumn
|
July 10, 2010 2:13 AM
I, too, immediatetly thought of the "is one in the hand worth two in the bush?!" line, but then I thought, does anyone, male or female, actually still maintain enough pubic hair for "bush" to be an anatomical reference?
What happened to all the pubes in the last ten years?
Posted by: TCC
|
July 10, 2010 2:15 AM
As long as we are on the subject, maybe someone could give me some insight into this thing that I don't like about myself.
I fully 100% support LGBT folks, 100%. I do not tolerate bigotry of any sort in my presence and always call it out, even if it is in a very uncomfortable situation.
Same sex sexual acts do not bother me in the least.
What does bother me? Two men kissing, caressing, being intimate. It doesn't bother me in a sense that I think they shouldn't do it, it just creeps me out somehow. Two men engaged in a sexual act of any sort doesn't bother me at all, anal, oral, whatever, but two guys kissing and I'm creeped out.
I would really like to have some insight into this as I don't like it about myself and while I am aware of how incorrect the feelings are, they don't seem to go away no matter how much I wish they would or I try and figure out what might be going on in my head so I can address it with myself and get over it.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 2:20 AM
drink a big glass of STFU
mmm, mmm.
that's good coffee.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/41BVxgNnxYK3oMimuMaSsPKbcOfrm4dyoNw-#96cd3
|
July 10, 2010 2:24 AM
Sorry, PZ, but the issue seems to be, quite clearly, his alleged "hate speech" email. And that is, as you note, entirely a bogus issue, and letting him go on those grounds is serious business. Seems to me yet another example, of which there are far too many these days, of craven gutlessness on the part of university administrators.
Yes, I know he's adjunct and so is on a year to year contract that can simply not be renewed at the university's discretion, without any reason being given. But in this case, it seems clear there was a reason, and the reason was the ludicrous charge of "hate speech" leveled at him by a disgruntled student. Administrators with integrity and backbone would have, should have, refused to allow themselves to be intimidated and should have stood by their faculty member, adjunct or not, when the bogus charge was leveled. Were I working there, I'd have to wonder if they'd stand by me if a student made a similar groundless charge against me. And in a tight job market, if your faculty begins thinking that way, it can lead them to pull in their horns and play every situation safely and right down the middle of the fairway.... and so become poorer teachers.
His ineffectiveness, his scholarly qualities [or lack thereof], is inability to present an un-biased course: all legitimate questions the U. might raise when considering reappointment. But this time, in fact, he was let go for none of those reasons, but only because a student didn't like what he said, was made uncomfortable by it, and so charged him with hate speech.
Perhaps universities ought to require a medical exam of prospective administrators to certify that they are indeed vertebrates.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 2:28 AM
craven gutlessness on the part of university administrators.
could be, but I doubt we know the whole story here, either.
could be complaints have been lodged against the guy for years, and this was just the last straw.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 10, 2010 2:34 AM
TCC:
Maybe it's because if it's two men having sex, say in a porn flick or whatever, it's something you can distance yourself from, because it doesn't do anything for you sexually. So, that allows you to be indifferent.
Kissing is generally seen and felt to be an intimate act. Sex can be just sex, an act of release, but kissing, well, that's usually an act which indicates love. So, I'd say what bothers you is seeing an act which is indicative of deeper feeling, the type of feelings which culminate in an actual relationship. I applaud you for your support, but I'd guess here that at a certain level, it's freaking you out to think of LGBT people being in a relationship which is every bit the same as a hetro relationship and means as much. It's easy for a lot of people to dismiss gay relationships as pretty much non-existent, and use the "gays are insanely promiscuous" reasoning to be anti-gay. That's a projection on their part, coming from the old "guys can't keep it in their pants" trope. Kissing, though, kissing is part of the "omg, that's intimate, that's serious, they're in love" trope.
Posted by: DLC
|
July 10, 2010 2:43 AM
New and Improved, Religion!
Oppressing the masses since 400 CE !
Posted by: shonny
|
July 10, 2010 2:46 AM
I presume you know the difference between dogma and critical thinking?
If so you will see why your argument ain't valid.
Posted by: raven
|
July 10, 2010 3:00 AM
Just how does one explain Catholic dogma without sounding like a gibbering and occasionally hate filled idiot? Like Howell? Is it even possible?
They have elaborate rules and rationales about sex made up by warped old men who supposedly never had any. Virtually no one sane pays any attention to them anymore because they are divorced from reality, cause people huge problems and pain, and are just plain silly.
Everyone who is not Catholic is going to hell. Especially those upstart Protestants.
Jesus is a magic cracker that doesn't do any magic.
It is better to spread and get AIDS than use a condom. WTF, is this stupid or what?
Priests have magical powers because they say they have magical powers.
The Pope is god's best buddy on earth and can claim infallibility.
Probably there is more. I can never look too long as Catholic dogma without rolling my eyes and laughing.
Caholics themselves are just normal people and the vast majority (like my RCC relatives) don't seem to pay much attention to the priests these days. There is a huge gap between the members and the priests.
They aren't the only weird sounding religion. Protestants aren't much better and some of them are truly even more bizarre. The fundies believe that we exist in a sea of angles and demons having huge battles that spill over into the world of matter and energy. Which is just a warmup act because god will show up any minute and kill 6.7 billion people because he is an idiot who can't keep a universe running for more than 6.000 years.
The Mormons make the Catholics sound reasonable. And so on.
If a university is going to have classes on religious thought, it is going to sound like a mixture of hate, weirdness, and sillness, no matter which religion is being taught.
Posted by: Loreo
|
July 10, 2010 3:08 AM
Posted by: raven
|
July 10, 2010 3:09 AM
This sounds right. Probably there were other issues over a long period of time and this was the last straw.
As to what they are, who knows? Traditionally Catholics hate Protestants and vice verse and Catholicism didn't much care for the Jews either. These days in the USA that old, old conflict has died down. But not completely. Maybe Howell is an antisemitic and anti-Protestant bigot or the administrator is a fundie Protestant.
We don't have all the relevant information here.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x1CsKko.p.keyee5Rk.DLZd7ts9OdS.ilqZgGw--#2a28e
|
July 10, 2010 3:38 AM
As a teen I dated girls and kissed them. It always felt the same as kissing my grandmother. The first time I was kissed by another male it was like electricity. There are times where any intimate kissing is inappropriate. I don't think it's right for any couple, gay or straight, to makeout in public, but it doesn't bother me. Seeing men dancing with each other, however, was a big turnoff for a long time. I don't know why, it just bothered me.
I d
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 10, 2010 3:47 AM
yahoomess @ 115,
Why ?
Posted by: kaonashi.myopenid.com
|
July 10, 2010 4:56 AM
I love arguments about what's natural from people who are obsessed with the supernatural.
I wonder what this clown would make of homosexuality among animals and how it would relate to his views on what's natural and anatomically correct. Like... Blowhole sex?
Posted by: Kobra
|
July 10, 2010 4:57 AM
Okay, when people talk about gay men taking the role of the woman, they're usually talking about anal sex.
Does anyone know the chances of health problems arising from anal sex? Clearly they're possible but I've never been able to find a source for the rate of incidence of health problems caused by receptive anal sex.
Posted by: Myk Dowling
|
July 10, 2010 4:58 AM
So according to this guy's moral thinking, I can never have a healthy sex life again, due to my vasectomy.
I think I disagree with his moral thinking.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 4:59 AM
Does anyone know the chances of health problems arising from anal sex? Clearly they're possible but I've never been able to find a source for the rate of incidence of health problems caused by receptive anal sex.
that's because other than obvious common things like irritation, nothing is directly associated with it.
why would it be?
Posted by: Kobra
|
July 10, 2010 5:01 AM
Oh, I also have a comic that fits this story and the discussion it spawned:
http://www.kobrascorner.com/assholery/comic-05.php
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 10, 2010 5:03 AM
Maybe flatulence, if you're married to Mr XXL.
Posted by: Kobra
|
July 10, 2010 5:06 AM
@120: Wikipedia is being biased then.
Also, I think I'd rather be a bottom in a homo relationship and would need to know these things if there were any substance behind the claims.
Posted by: andrew.variability
|
July 10, 2010 5:14 AM
A few things. It may not be 'hate speech', but it still fits the definition of homophobia, given that he was spreading very tired stereotypes like 'one of them plays the woman' to his students in the guise of teaching them. That's worthy of some discipline in and of itself.
Then the stupidity aspect: if the wikipedia definition of Utilitarianism is of any worth - "the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings", how on earth can the professor suggest that a forty year old having sex with a ten year old, even if he or she agrees, will provide happiness/pleasure to the child?!
He also seems to ignore the health risks of heterosexual sex.
Posted by: Kobra
|
July 10, 2010 5:15 AM
@122: Haha I think I could live with that. :P
Posted by: Akheloios
|
July 10, 2010 5:28 AM
If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like "informed consent." Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that "informed consent" might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don't think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.
So the obvious conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia and beastiality isn't hate speech? This is one of the most common tropes used against equal rights for homosexuals, give them rights and soon the paedophiles et al. (who are actually exactly the same people somehow) will want equal rights too. It's pernicious, and it's logic of intolerance and hate is right up there with the old argument that equal rights for black people and the legalisation of inter-racial marriage will lead to a wave of 'white women' being raped by 'black men'.
But I do admire Mr. Howell's chutzpah in entering into the argument concerning the legal ambiguities of "informed consent" and how it can be problematic in evaluating the morality of raping children.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 10, 2010 5:28 AM
Well, duh; ask any electrician. O.o
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 10, 2010 5:29 AM
From Howell's email to students:
Really? If your system of morality requires lengthy academic study before you can decide whether it's ok for one person to love another, then your system is badly broken.
But that's Catholic morality in a nutshell, isn't it? According to the church, the ordinary layperson can't be trusted to make moral decisions unaided: they require constant guidance from the men in uniform, and this is a life-long requirement. Morality is difficult, so don't go thinking you can figure it out yourselves, you amateurs!
MAJeff:
That's an interesting perspective which I'd never considered before. I suspect you're right where male homophobia is concerned, but does it explain female homophobia? Women can be supporters of patriarchy, of course, so I suppose I'm asking how strongly homophobia among women is correlated with belief in what conservatives would call traditional gender roles.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 10, 2010 5:38 AM
On that note, "furburger" is pretty high on the list of words that should never be used in any context subsequent to this comment, ever, except in the course of promoting their non-use. O.O
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 10, 2010 5:51 AM
Oh, and as far as his dismissal goes, as I recall the academic freedom code at my university includes an item to the effect that faculty members are required to clearly distinguish between the facts and academic syntheses and summaries they're teaching as part of the course content, and their own personal opinions, when interacting with students. Repeated violations of that might be cause for not renewing an adjunct's contract and I find it very doubtful that this was an isolated incident.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 10, 2010 5:54 AM
It's an extremely efficient way of transmitting STDs. Other than that, the major problems stem from lack of lubrication and/or communication (IE, proper relaxation, slowing down enough to make the above possible, not having a ridiculously and PROUDLY inhibited partner in the first place...)
Posted by: ilari1234
|
July 10, 2010 6:22 AM
TCC @ 105
There’s probably not much insight anyone can give. I’m not sure even how much being exposed to it would help. It’s just a slight phobia that you have, and perhaps you can get rid of it the same way as any other phobias.
At least that is how it is with me, except that I am gay myself, out and about, and in a long-term relationship. Even after 20-odd years of immensely enjoying same-sex company and all that goes with it, seeing two men kiss is, to this day, slightly, uh, embarrassing. Which as an aside means that Brokeback Mountain was a weird experience for me; both slightly embarrassing with its passion and at the same time hugely exhilarating and liberating.
I am not sure you need to think that being creeped out by kissing men is somehow intrinsically or morally wrong; it just does not float your boat, and there’s not much more to that. As long as you realise, as you apparently do, that it is something you need to deal with.
I know, according to my statement, I am a homophobe homo. Doing off-the-cuff Freudian analyses about this would be too easy and pretty dilettantish, which is why this feels a bit off:
Caine @ 109
I’d say it is just a mental tick, a petty bump in the cranial wiring. A bit like seeing a spider sends a slight shiver down most peoples’ spine. And it is weirdly difficult to get rid of, at least has been for me (both the spider and kissing men thing).
Anyway, that’s my 2 ¢.
Posted by: "GrrlScientist"
|
July 10, 2010 6:40 AM
ooo, i like frozen burritos and beer, too. (well, sometimes. but i hate all these pissy german beers, though.) does that make me a manly man? at least sometimes?
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 10, 2010 6:49 AM
raven | July 10, 2010 3:00 AM:
You'd think trigonometry might provide a better solution to their problems ...
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 10, 2010 7:42 AM
lol. PZ, your "pregnancy is dangerous" observation was one of your dumbest comments ever. And I've been reading and posting since your pre-Seed days.
The life-time risk of pregnancy is 1 in 2800 with approximately 500 pregnancy-related fatalities a year (13 per 100,000 in 2006) in the US (which is one of the worst developed countries in the world in this area).
That's it.
Farming is more dangerous with 350 fatalities a year in a population of under one-million. You have a greater chance of dieing from a faulty exhaust system in your car or house (carbon monoxide poisoning) than pregnancy (about 700 per year). You have a greater chance of choking to death on your dinner (3,300 per year). You're 40-times more likely to accidentally poison yourself at home (over 8,000 per year) with medicine or cleaners.
And let's not even run to accidental firearm discharges, traffic accidents, drowning, fires, natural disasters, falls (15,000 per year, do we give up walking? lol) and other banal/uncontrollable ways to die.
Fact is, life has fucking risk just from the process of living. And people need to get used to it as the only guarantee you get in life is that you're going to die.
Posted by: quantheory
|
July 10, 2010 7:50 AM
As a bisexual I've never completely understood an ick factor for sex based on gender, but I did used to have a thing about men kissing (in fact, pretty much all the way up until my first crush on another guy, at which time I instantaneously wanted to actually do it). I can't really be sure, but my best guess is that growing up I was surrounded by the message that it was not only supposed to be gross but also ridiculous (as if gay affection was a sort of parody of straight affection). It was the ridicule which was the big issue, because it made anything gay socially contaminating. I also didn't like the idea of sexuality interfering with (infecting?) my male friendships, so perhaps a bit of disgust was a layer of mental insulation against being "too gay" around them. It's a purity/contamination sort of response (this was also a time when I had a hand-washing compulsion). Luckily I grew out of this anti-gay-affection sentiment very quickly, but I could see how if I was straight I might never get over that slight uncomfortable feeling unless I happened to be exposed to it so much that it became banal.
On a related note, I think that the "I'm not a bigot" sort of homophobia, the "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind where people think that any discrimination they support is OK as long as they just prejudiced and aren't burning with rage while they promote it, those people aren't really being convinced by the natural moral law arguments or anything else so intellectual. Instead they are trapped by a sort of cultural bait-and-switch, where they get lured in with the traditional warm lovey family values picture, combined with references to "God's plan" or some similar fuzzy idea that "natural moral law" is just a euphemism for, and that props open the door for demanding a particular sexual division of labor in relationships. This sexual division of labor is based largely on the sexist assumption that "normal" men and women act in totally different ways, and that they can't fill in for or even understand each other (I find this especially funny because I know so many straight people who are totally non-gender-conforming without even trying to be). If you buy into this, you don't need anything else to be homophobic, because it's already set out that "normal" relationships between "normal" people have to have both sexes to work. Of course, this also sets the stage for the battle of the sexes, complete with prejudice, humor, and bitter verbal sniping between spouses.
Anyway, the long story shortened here, is that the biggest problem is not people like Kenneth Howell who are rationalizing discrimination against gay people. They are a problem, but they are only springing the mental trap (or unwittingly showing off how trapped they are). The big problem, where the trap is set, is with the "traditional values" messages that are heavily laden with either overt sexism or lots of holes for sexist messages to fill in. You coat something with sugar and chocolate, and when your audience has their guard done you start to repeat the messages that they start to agree with, then you use those messages to draw them into your agenda later. Especially if you have the audience's entire childhood to work with.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 10, 2010 7:52 AM
@ 133,
I thought you were a weird one, this just confirms it.
Pissy, as compared to which beers that are not ADH-inhibiting exactly ??
Or is that just your way of saying you don't like the taste ? Like, of all german beers, since they all taste the same.
WTF lol
Posted by: Fred Price, The Cantankerous Cephalopod
|
July 10, 2010 7:53 AM
Hooray, First ever comment on Pharyngula, *FTW*
but seriously, wow, i think thats the first time I have seen ANYONE acknowledge BDSM as sane sane and consensual on anything but SM specific blogs, woohoo.
if looking for blogs on SM, i recommend SM feminist,http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/, and well, just google it.
peace out to all the nontheist freethinking members of the rainbow out there.
live life too the full.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 10, 2010 7:54 AM
"lol. PZ, your "pregnancy is dangerous" observation was one of your dumbest comments ever. And I've been reading and posting since your pre-Seed days.
The life-time risk of pregnancy is 1 in 2800 with approximately 500 pregnancy-related fatalities a year (13 per 100,000 in 2006) in the US (which is one of the worst developed countries in the world in this area).
That's it."
Hey, moron. the Key word is DEVELOPED. You want to compare Sudan pregnancy deaths or bring all the fucking history of childbirth into the picture.
Hey you know guns aren't deadly at all...because more people die in car accidents than are shot in Sweden.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 8:17 AM
Moggie @128
Pretty strongly, actually.
And female homophobia and hell, female misogyny in general can easily stem from the fact that women grow up in the same toxic and sexist culture men do and the fact that the patriarchy has been heavily selling itself as somehow beneficial to both men and women for a good long time despite being heavily damaging to both men and women (women more so, but men, pretty badly as well).
But yeah, female homophobia is often strongest in those with the most belief in gender essentialism and belief in "complementary gender roles".
Of course religion is often the biggest culprit. Religion often being the strongest and most blatant defenders of not only patriarchy, but ancient patriarchy.
Posted by: quantheory
|
July 10, 2010 8:20 AM
@MosesZD,Ing
Actually, Moses-man is being even more irrelevant. PZ didn't say anything about the death rate, only that pregnancy can be bad for women's health in general. I know several mothers who would agree with him on that point, if only because they find their bodies now have a much different fat distribution. Furthermore his comments are rather off-topic because PZ was only saying that pregnancy was a worse sexually caused health problem than anything specific to lesbians, not that it was dangerous in general. So the appropriate way to parody this is more like:
"The flu is not unhealthy because more people die from cars then the flu in Sweden. And people need to stop caring about dying even though you didn't bring it up anyway, because I don't have any sympathy for people who might want to postpone their inevitable deaths by a few decades."
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 10, 2010 8:23 AM
Also a case of "You're in pain? That' can't be *I* feel fine". Because that dipshit hasn't been and never can get pregnant he presumes there's no reason why a woman might want to avoid.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 10, 2010 8:32 AM
Kenneth Howell is an idiot. However, this letter was not "hate speech" or anything close to it, nor did it in any way justify the decision not to employ him.
Free speech, especially in academia, is incredibly important. When someone's ideas are wrong, the correct response is to engage them in free and open debate, not to force them out of the workplace. A person's political and religious views should, in general, play no role in decisions about hiring and firing. I realise that this guy only had a temporary position and that the university was under no obligation to renew his contract: but this letter was not a legitimate reason to refuse to hire him.
I'm an atheist, and a bisexual person, and a strong supporter of LGBT rights. But I also want to live in a free society where people can express their views openly, whatever those views are, without fear of retaliation or punishment. I totally disagree with the Catholic position on homosexuality, but I want Catholics to be free to express their views - just as I want to be free to express my view that they're talking bullshit.
Obviously, for people employed in positions of responsibility, there are some restrictions on speech which are legitimate. If this guy had been shouting homophobic abuse at his students in the classroom, then clearly he should not be employed. But he wasn't doing anything of the kind. He simply explained his views in response to a question. Those views are bullshit, and it's quite right to point out that they're bullshit: but in a free society, people should be free to talk bullshit, just as other people should be free to call them out on it.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
July 10, 2010 8:41 AM
Isn't "natural law" what Dawkins called the tyranny of the selfish replicators ?
Posted by: jan
|
July 10, 2010 8:43 AM
In memorian Allen Ginsberg. Let´s see how and if the ick or ook or whatever factor kicks in
Sphincter
Allen Ginsberg
(1986)
--------------------------------------------------from: Cosmopolitan Greetings: Poems, 1986-1992
--------------------------------------------------I hope my good old asshole holds out
60 years it's been mostly OK
Tho in Bolivia a fissure operation
survived the altiplano hospital--
a little blood, no polyps, occasionally
a small hemorrhoid
active, eager, receptive to phallus
coke bottle, candle, carrot
banana & fingers--
Now AIDS makes it shy, but still
eager to serve--
out with the dumps, in with the condom'd
orgasmic friend--
still rubbery muscular,
unashamed wide open for joy
But another 20 years who knows,
old folks got troubles everywhere--
necks, prostates, stomachs, joints--
Hope the old hole stays young
till death, relax
March 15, 1986, 1:00 PM
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 10, 2010 8:44 AM
In a way, I guess it's a clever synthesis of the "it's just not natural!" and "teh buttsex is bad for you!" canards. This "NML" he posits, though, could get really ugly really fast if applied universally. No more sports! It's not natural, and it can get you hurt!
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
July 10, 2010 9:09 AM
Wait wait wait, back it up.
What the hell is your point here, 'cos you're sounding suspiciously like a forced-birth proponent.
So the risk is lower than farming. So what? Does that mean women should endure the risk if they don't want to?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
July 10, 2010 9:18 AM
#135 MosesZD Well, FU! You can start by halving those statistics, because both men & women can die from other causes but only women die from pregnancy.
And religion & patriarchy through out history has done its damnedest to negate women's control of sex & pregnancy. Women are to be subject to men, available for his needs and if that causes them pain, suffering or death -- ehh, so what.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood because she saw women die in childbirth & from self-induced abortions because they had no right to use birth control or say "no" to sex with their husbands under civil and religious laws. A mans right to get his rocks off supersedes the feelings or risks to his woman (no rape in marriage).
This blatant misogyny was what first turned me off religion. Understanding the truly "natural" (evolutionary) reasons why women got the shitty end of the stick made more sense and no blame that women were only getting what they deserved. Nature did the best it could; one weighs the good (I actually got to bring new life into the world. WOW!) with the risks and inconveniences.
And fortunately, most men are usually so much better (more kinder, caring & decent), than society & religion have permitted them to be.
Posted by: Not Guilty
|
July 10, 2010 9:37 AM
@MAJeff @KillJoy When I run into LGBT who are misogynistic (they exist), I get very irritated since fear of feminization is the root of homophobia. It just seems totally contradictory IMO.
Great read with breakfast PZ; you always post the most interesting stuff for meal time!
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
July 10, 2010 9:53 AM
On topic, Howell actually got the concept of "Natural Law" wrong. "Natural Law" comes down through religions from Aristotle, whose physics stated that nature was ordered - from Earth, (composed of the four debased elements: earth, wind air & fire) at the center of the Universe; surrounded by the pure, perfect celestial sphere, composed of ether. Earthly life was ordered, too, with men superior to women; humans superior to animals; Greeks & Romans superior to barbarians & slaves; etc. This was not a human construct, but innate - it was how things were created. If you had asked Aristotle why a dog walked on 4 legs, he would have replied, "Because it is a dogs nature to walk on 4 legs."
Of course, the early church gobbled this up - one merely says the creator was God, and it fit perfectly with their theology.
So when xtians talk about things being "Natural", they really mean "how God meant the world to be", not how nature (which, of course has been debased & corrupted by the Fall) actually is. It is why they ignore the reality that animals engage in homosexual acts - not sinful, but a perversion of what God really intended. In man, who has free will, they are sinful.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 10, 2010 9:56 AM
Also the child birth morality is down in US and developed world largely because women can CHOOSE when to get pregnant. They don't get pregnant in situations where it kills them. Maybe we should add in people in the US and elsewhere who hurt themselves through pregnancy indirectly, like all those christian families that fuck themselves into poverty.
Posted by: jan
|
July 10, 2010 10:31 AM
re ing # 135 /lol. PZ, your "pregnancy is dangerous" observation was one of your dumbest comments ever. And I've been reading and posting since your pre-Seed days/
If I read PZ´s post correctly, and I´m almost certain I do, the "pregnancy" observation was meant to imply that "if you´re going to use as a criterium the amount of change/damage you can do to somebody else´s body, then the alternative you most favor (i.e. male-female sex for reproduction) is the most harmful/deletereous".
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/E3vmjNogmtRCX8R3yzFEQTxglQ--#edc77
|
July 10, 2010 11:09 AM
Just curious to know people PAY to go to school to be UNCOMFORTABLE?
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
July 10, 2010 11:35 AM
I'm always amused when arguments against gays completely neglect lesbians.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 10, 2010 11:36 AM
@yahoomess,
I paid (very little, but still) to go to school to learn, and even as a dumb freshkid I understood that would require me to become uncomfortable.
Posted by: Don Smith
|
July 10, 2010 11:41 AM
I have to admit to a small squick to men making out, but it is fleeting and I get over it pretty quickly. I fully realize it is my problem and not anyone else's. On the other hand I would be mortified if any reaction showed and I had caused offense.
I also don't think my ick factor should have any bearing on whether men can make out in public. I fully support equal rights for everyone. The best example I can think of is New Years celebrations. Why should gay couples have to not participate while all the other couples are making out? Excluding them is just plain evil.
Posted by: Rowen
|
July 10, 2010 11:49 AM
I came out at a very young age, but didn't know many other young gay folks. Even when I would hang out in Houston's gay community, I still didn't sneak into clubs or have sex, or stuff like that. So, when I first got a boyfriend/got to college I felt weird being in public. Similarly, when I moved to NYC and started seeing same sex couples walking around holding hands, it felt weird.
Why? Cause I spent years being told, even though I knew it was a bullshit response, that what I was doing was wrong. After a while of being around it, it felt normal and I am no longer afraid of the morality police locking me up.
I DO have hang ups about ANYONE sucking face in general public (clubs, bars, other places that are more devoted to adult sexuality, different story). I find it overly intimate, forcefully voyueristic, and just tacky.
Also, my favorite bad names for the female anatomy came from House, "Squish mitten" and "panty hamster."
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 10, 2010 12:10 PM
"@Jan #152
Please don't attribute that stupidity to me.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 10, 2010 12:24 PM
The Catholic church has always had a major problem with sex. The church denounces homosexuality, contraceptives, premarital sex, masturbation, abortion, artificial insemination, and voluntary sterilization. It also demands lifelong celibacy for priests, nuns, monks, and all others who never marry.
Occasionally, the church even shows signs of its old opposition to so-called "bad thoughts" about sex (i.e., thoughts associating sex with pleasure), and to marital acts of sexual intercourse engaged in for pleasure rather than procreation. Pope John Paul II urged husbands "not to commit adultery with their wives by desiring sex for its mere pleasure and the satisfaction of instinct." This nonsensical comment deserves the response one person gave to the idea of the pope, a lifelong celibate, issuing directives about sex: "You no playa the game, you no makea the rules."
Posted by: redrabbitslife
|
July 10, 2010 12:42 PM
Couple of comments:
Re: the squick factor over homosexuality- it apparently goes both ways. My med school class included a couple of gay guys, and one of them was exceedingly flamboyant (when I met him, he was wearing pink slingbacks with flowers on them). When we were learning to do gynecologic exams, he panicked about the idea of touching vulvas.
Re: health problems related to anal sex- the only thing I've ever seen that condoms don't protect from is HPV, which can lead to anal canal cancers. Gardasil/cervarix needs to be studied for this IMHO. My advice would be to get the doctor to do a rectal exam, which they ought to do anyhow if you're a man over 40.
Re: what they teach the Catholics. Having been a Catholic schoolgirl myself, they taught us to not have sex till marriage and not masturbate. That worked really well. We had 7 girls out of a class of 80 (boys and girls) drop out due to pregnancy in my year. They did tell us that condoms were against god's will, and they threw a fit when the kids lobbied for condom machines in the bathrooms after the pregnancy fiasco.
They, entertainingly, did NOT tell us we couldn't blow our boyfriends. :) I think they were terrified to bring up gay sex, anal sex, oral sex, and kinks, for fear of giving us ideas.
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
July 10, 2010 12:42 PM
# 157 Blatant PDA (public display of affection) is usually "performed" by young, inexperienced, new to sexuality "kids", they think they just "invented" sex and have to prove to the world that they are "cool" and have a sexual life now. Older adults who do this behavior, are just TACKY!
After reading all the posts, I see that even enlightened, educated people still have a few hang ups when it comes to sex, so don't be surprised by the sex freakazoid professor above.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
July 10, 2010 1:18 PM
In this country, at least, oral, not anal is the predominant form of gay male pleasuring. Gay haters seem to think that anal is the be all and end all of gay sex. A lot of gay men are adverse to kissing - don't know why, maybe considered too 'fem.'
Don't think Howell should have been fired. I am a defender of free speech.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 1:22 PM
Re: health problems related to anal sex- the only thing I've ever seen that condoms don't protect from is HPV, which can lead to anal canal cancers.
The issue with this, as well as HSV, is skin contact. Condoms will work, but only on the areas the cover, and herpes and warts aren't always (or usually?) confined to the areas covered by the condom (or dental dam).
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x1CsKko.p.keyee5Rk.DLZd7ts9OdS.ilqZgGw--#2a28e
|
July 10, 2010 1:42 PM
#116: See #157.
Bill
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 10, 2010 1:45 PM
@Kobra #118
Plenty of info on the rewards and risks(real or imagined) of anal sex here:
http://www.puckerup.com/
Tristan Taormino has a lot to say on this topic and seems to have done the legwork to be considered an authority.
@MAJeff #11
That is one of those things that just captures my mind. Never thought about it that way, but wow, it seems so simple and obvious now that you have enlightened me. Thank you.
Posted by: redrabbitslife
|
July 10, 2010 1:52 PM
@MaJeff: you're right and I have updated my info, thanks. Refs here:
for HSV: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/24/3100
for HPV: http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862004000600012&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
Summary: consistent condom use associated with lower rates of HSV acquisition in susceptible individuals, and faster rates of HPV clearance in infected women.
Go condoms!
Posted by: Iris
|
July 10, 2010 1:54 PM
Sorry if this is a derail, but I cannot let this go unanswered.
@135 MosesZD
No, see, this^ is one of the dumbest comments, ever.
And throwing out statistics on farming deaths as if this were comparable or even relevant is dumb - and despicable. Let me see if I understand you correctly: farming is more dangerous than pregnancy, therefore pregnancy is not dangerous?
Behind that 500 number there are actual dead women. Wives, daughters, mothers, beloved friends, who all died. I myself am extremely unlikely to die in a farming accident, whereas I am extremely likely to be a maternal mortality statistic if I get pregnant and attempt to carry to term. And you "lol."
Fuck you.
Life's full of risks ladies! And I'm here to 'splain that what you need to do is learn to suck it up!
There's at least one other guarantee in life, MosesZD: any time the reproductive issues of women are acknowledged on a popular blog, some arrogant asshole will show up to remind women that our only purpose in life is semen receptacle.
[/derail]
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
July 10, 2010 1:57 PM
MosesZD (#135)
You bring up farming, carbon monoxide poisoning, choking to death on dinner, and accidentally poisoning yourself as things more dangerous than pregnancy, but PZ was talking about pregnancy as "the worst thing you can do to a woman sexually in terms of her health. [bolding mine]" Now, unless you're talking about farming and the rest as part of sex, the relative dangers are completely irrelevant.
(quantheory already pounced on this, but I wanted to add mine anyways.)
Posted by: Tim
|
July 10, 2010 2:23 PM
The thought of having sex with another man is highly offensive to me.
The thought of eating peanut butter is also highly offensive to me. (Really!) Should I consider the eating of peanut butter to be a moral issue?
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 10, 2010 2:27 PM
I expect that many people who say:
Are using offensive in a different fashion than the people who say:
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 10, 2010 2:30 PM
@ my last post.
Not to say that I aggree with either statement. Peanut butter is awesome and buttered penis(wherever it ends up) is pretty ok by my standards too.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 2:37 PM
Go condoms!
And fuck the church!
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 10, 2010 2:40 PM
On toast, with Marmite?
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
July 10, 2010 2:47 PM
Favourite quote from (the sadly under appreciated) Destiny turns on the radio (from memory):
Posted by: Schenck
|
July 10, 2010 2:48 PM
What this professor said was idiotic (though it sounds like the whole course is idiotic), but the real shame is the student and the administration. It just reinforces why tenure is STILL needed in academics today.
#8 "[Adjuncts]'re wonderful for administrators who only care about budgets"
Indeed, I recall that the company my dad worked for was starting to hire more and more part-time employees, and college's are doing the same, more and more adjuncts.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 10, 2010 2:49 PM
But Caine, you should know that the bible doesn't actually give a shit for consent. They're only being good Catholics. ;)
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 10, 2010 2:56 PM
@Moggie
Whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 10, 2010 2:57 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak:
.And bad human beings. ;)
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 10, 2010 3:17 PM
Another invocation of Rule 34.
Posted by: leepicton
|
July 10, 2010 3:22 PM
Hypatia's Daughter:
Evolution to the rescue - again. The normal female vagina is beautifully adapted PH and germkilling-wise to put up with a fair amount of indignity that relates to human activities. Wash the outside of your body in the shower or bath, and that's all you will ever need to do. Unfortunately, some pharmaceutical companies decided that the normal female condition was too squicky and found a new area of insecurity to exploit. Remember the first female-specific douches? Not only did they not work, but women by the thousands ended up in their ob/gyn's offices with infections.
And yes, if you are on antibiotics, they will mess with your normal vaginal PH, raising the risk for yeast and other infections, and you will have to get treated. I have never douched, ever, for any reason, in my whole life and have had only one of those (easily cured) infections. I think that is why I probably have one of the healthiest sets of lady-bits ever, unlike many of my acquaintances. But what they do is none of my business, and I suspect they have been seduced into spending money for things they have never needed.
Posted by: jan
|
July 10, 2010 3:33 PM
sorry ing for misreading. Your #139 comment starts with a quote of mozes at #135. So when I scrolled back to check name I saw your name at the beginning of the quote both you and I don´t agree with. Sorry again
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
July 10, 2010 4:22 PM
This is going to sound very, VERY weird coming from the board's resident Wisconsin lesbian, BUT...I don't think what was done to him was right.
He's teaching a class on, what, the philosophy pf Catholicism? And he's a Catholic? Then DUHHHH, he's going to act Catholic! He believes his dogma. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it wrong? Almost assuredly so, else there's a divine deception orders of magnitude worse than buried dinosaur bones afoot. Is he a complete whackadoo when it comes to "natural moral philosophy" and utterly ignorant of (for example) gay animals as well? Yes.
But what he did isn't hate speech, and he doesn't deserve to be fired for it. And no, PZ, he doesn't even deserve to be fired for being a moron; he's a moron, but he's being paid to teach being a moron, and he's doing his job.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
July 10, 2010 4:40 PM
Moggie (#173)
Now that's offensive. Marmite is disgusting.
Posted by: D
|
July 10, 2010 4:45 PM
Not quite. He was in a Rel. Studies Dept (well adjuncting for.), not a divinity program. So he was actually being paid to teach about what morons believe, to use your parlance. It would be hard for us to judge if he was doing that well.
Posted by: KillJoy
|
July 10, 2010 5:15 PM
Grrrlscientist @ 133:
Naw, it doesn't make you a manly man.
It DOES make you awesome though!
Anyone, male or female who likes beer and frozen burritos is ok in my book.
Well, that might be a little bit of a stretch. I'm pretty sure if I found out that say, the popeenjoys beer and frozen burritos I might change my tune.
Also regarding the comment about completely disregarding lesbians in conversations about the 'unnaturalness' or immoral nature of homosexuality. Well of course they don't talk about lesbians. That would validate female sexuality as something other than a tool for their gratification. Plus, there's the whole tomboy aspect that seems to appeal to straight boys.
Vito Russo had some interesting comments regarding this particular phenomenon in 'The celluloid closet'. I'm too brain dead and hung over this afternoon to express them very well however. In general it seems to come down to misogyny once again. Female sexuality is just ignored.
KJ
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 5:24 PM
Also regarding the comment about completely disregarding lesbians in conversations about the 'unnaturalness' or immoral nature of homosexuality. Well of course they don't talk about lesbians. That would validate female sexuality as something other than a tool for their gratification.
It also removes the penis from sex, and everyone knows that there's no sex without a penis....
Yeah, it's misogyny.
Posted by: KillJoy
|
July 10, 2010 5:31 PM
MAJeff:
Exactly.
You always say it so much more succinctly than I do. :P
I will remember that in the future. It removes the penis from sex. Well said.
KJ
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 5:40 PM
Just curious to know people PAY to go to school to be UNCOMFORTABLE?
No.
people pay to go to school to learn.
your level of comfort is of your own doing.
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 10, 2010 5:57 PM
#183:
Hate speech!
Posted by: ladyh42
|
July 10, 2010 6:00 PM
@MosesZD
"lol. PZ, your "pregnancy is dangerous" observation was one of your dumbest comments ever. And I've been reading and posting since your pre-Seed days."
Fuck you! After the most draining 9 months of my life (Blood iron levels were at 80, nurses surprised that I was even standing) I would have bled to death from a category 4 tear (caused ironically from a previous partner trying to do anal sex without lube and or waiting for an ok and causing tearing) trying to give birth do my daughter naturally. Had I not been in a hospital I would be dead. To imply that this is not dangerous is simple bullshit. EVERY woman takes a risk with unprotected sex! How nice that you can dismiss it because it can't happen to you.
Posted by: Tim
|
July 10, 2010 6:27 PM
Dhorvath opined:
When I appended the parenthetical "Really!", I meant to suggest that this was literally true. I had two childhood experiences that, combined, made the thought of eating peanut butter roughly as appetizing as eating human feces.
Granted, this is an entirely irrational response, but with a gun to my head, I would choose the first rather than the second.
Posted by: Inari
|
July 10, 2010 6:32 PM
@MosesZD
There's more to it than the fatality rate.
The risks of pregnancy include some, you know, inconsequential things like blood circulation problems, back pain, severe "morning" sickness and gestational diabetes, which may lead to type 2. Ectopic pregnancy and placental abruption aren't that beneficial either.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 10, 2010 6:42 PM
@ Tim
I don't really want to know what caused this aversion, but I will accept that you really, truly, without a doubt don't like peanut butter. Sorry for bringing up any old wounds and all that.
I still think that people who are trying to say that it is ok to be squicked by guys playing together because it is ok to be squicked about 'x' are missing the level of distaste that gay love engenders in our society.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
July 10, 2010 7:16 PM
I don't really get the squick factor myself. Personally, I find both man/man and woman/woman sex rather arousing and erotic. Perhaps for many people it's a combination of the cultural taboo (as pointed out, rooted in misogyny) and lack of exposure. Honestly, I think the squick would largely disappear if homosexual sex and affection were as normalised and open as the hetero counterpart.
But then, is that going to happen while to be weak is to be a pussy which is equivalent to being a pansy? Every day I'm hit with new disappointment as I see commenters on videos, blogs, and news sites spew misogynist garbage and objectify women. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond that crap.
Posted by: TimmyC
|
July 10, 2010 8:18 PM
I love academic freedom! Except when the prof has different views from me-- then we should throw them out of the university!!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 8:23 PM
Timmy,
who has said such a thing? Or, are you just trolling? Lemme guess, you're a member of the RCC hate cult?
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
July 10, 2010 8:37 PM
When the AIDS crisis first hit and I was an even more daringly corrosive wise ass than I am now, a Catholic woman at the hell hole where I worked announced that AIDS was God's punishment against homosexuals for violating the natural order. I replied, "Yeah? Well, guess what? Lesbians get AIDS less than anybody, so, if you want to stay on the right side of Jesus, you'l commence muff diving immediately."
Amazingly, this resulted in not one lick of trouble for yours truly.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 10, 2010 8:45 PM
Killjoy - er, you aren't entirely right...check out Romans 1:26. Lesbians are seen as having unnatural vile affections. The interpretation is a stretch for some christians, but I have actually heard a sermon preached about it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ylYpE21gw.iY6fktk3vl67xAIUgj#d5146
|
July 10, 2010 11:54 PM
Indeed, it seems we've run amok with Involuntary Pratchettisms.
But while Ook does not always mean SQUEEK, "eek" is more likely to translate as "squick."
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:01 AM
Hate speech!
Agreed. Marmite is just the thing for a nice bit of toasty breakfast.
now Vegemite, OTOH...
Posted by: zeuss
|
July 11, 2010 1:16 AM
Is there any work being done on the role evolution on homosexuality? Is it a product of evolution? If so, why? How would natural selection favour it? I don't know anything on the subject....can anyone help?
Posted by: Icaria
|
July 11, 2010 1:40 AM
+1 to the people who get the creeps from kissing. Can't stand doing it, or seeing it, regardless of the genders/ages/ethnicities/species involved. Of course I wouldn't bad PDAs but I'd rather people kept that shit private.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 1:55 AM
Is there any work being done on the role evolution on homosexuality?
I seem to recall Google Scholar being productive in generating results on that topic.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 1:59 AM
... there was also a classic treatise on the subject published in 2000:
Kirkpatrick R. C., 2000. The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropololgy 39(1): 385-413
some minor discussion on the Index to Creationist Claims page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html
Posted by: wereadwhatyouwrite
|
July 11, 2010 6:42 AM
#204
Ichthyic
I should correct the citation, as I just had a bit of a hunt to actually find it. The correct citation is:
Kirkpatrick, R.C. The evolution of human homosexual behaviour. Current Anthropology. Volume 41. Issue 3. June 2000. pp385-413.
If someone can notify talkorigins it would correct their bad citation too.
Posted by: Jeanneweanne
|
July 11, 2010 8:19 AM
"In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body."
Of course, he's referring to the way that homosexual men are all a bunch of deviants who go around stretching out each others' rectums by fisting each other to their elbows and using inanimate objects such as bowling pins, champange bottles, etc. to shove up each other's butts...
This is, after all, what all of you homosexuals do to each other, isn't it? How can that not be damaging/injurious to a person?
Yes, there are actually people out there that are so ignorant, they actually (to varying degrees) believe all gay men practice this type of behavior. As if every weekend y'all got together and had one big butt-fucking orgy!
Personally, (I'm a straight woman-my handle is just a life-long nickname that I decided to embrace, ha, ha.)It seems to me that the more homophobic a person(typically male)is, the more latent homosexual urges he fights to suppress.
I imagine this is no surprise, however.
Posted by: Jeanneweanne
|
July 11, 2010 8:53 AM
Oops! Something else I'd like to add:
"I'm always amused when arguments against gays completely neglect lesbians."
Silly! If guys passed judgement on lesbians the same way, then they'd be hypocrites when they become turned on by hot, girl-on-girl porn and the whole two girls and one guy 3some fantasy!
ha, ha.
The less 'squick' factor- the more acceptable.
Posted by: fordiman
|
July 11, 2010 10:48 AM
Wait, I don't understand. He's a professor of theology with a concentration on catholicism, and his contract is not being renewed because he... patiently defended catholic dogma?
I'm not saying his position on homosexuality is right or anything, but he was, essentially, doing what they pay him to do; even if that's spout crazy into people who sign up for crazy, it's what he's asked to do.
Posted by: Nineveh
|
July 11, 2010 11:27 AM
"...one of them tends to act as the 'woman' while the other acts as the 'man.'"
This line infuriated me. Two men fucking each other do not take on different "genders", they remain two men, fucking.
"Uh, which one of you is the chick?"
Morons.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 11, 2010 6:46 PM
For what little it's worth, anyone kissing in public makes me uncomfortable. I hate people who can't keep their hands off eachother and feel the need to swap spit in queue in the supermarket. I usually turn around and wait till they're through the till.
I'm pretty much the same way with any kind of public display of emotion. Shouting in the street is for madmen and they should be shunned. Standing in the middle of the hallway crying about your marks on a chemistry exam: What the hell is wrong with you?
Posted by: bonze blayk
|
July 11, 2010 7:22 PM
Well, not to infringe upon your inherent right as a Pharyngulite to a brisk round of rage... but...
While Howell's characterization might be incorrect for "two men fucking each other", sometimes one male is a TG chick with zero interest in fucking, and the other's a broad-minded heterosexual man. It's still a "homosexual act", even though there aren't any homosexual feelings involved...
Oh look, PZ's out to win a sensitivity award!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 7:26 PM
sometimes one male is a TG chick with zero interest in fucking
so, the exception proves the rule?
what?
do you actually HAVE a fucking point here?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 7:29 PM
Shouting in the street is for madmen and they should be shunned.
what about if they do it on Oprah?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/28295/tom_cruise_freaking_out_on_oprah/
yeah, you're probably right, it usually leads to BAD things...
http://www.guzer.com/videos/tom_cruise_kills_oprah.php
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 11, 2010 11:33 PM
"Oh look, PZ's out to win a sensitivity award!"
Clearly you're out of the running...
Posted by: bonze blayk
|
July 12, 2010 5:31 AM
No, Howell's expressing a different rule; just because he's incorrectly applying it to the whole class of males who engage in "homosexual acts", rather than to the small minority for whom it does apply, doesn't mean the rule is wrong.
I think you're missing the clumsy impersonations bit that I emphasized in my quotation of PZ.
Posted by: rident
|
July 12, 2010 9:38 AM
You let him have your ear too long PZ. I tried reading that letter but only got to his paragraph comparing consensual adult gay sex to consensual sex between a 10 year old and 40 year old. He bungs up his own definition of utilitarianism with this sentence:
There is no way that the average 10 year old has sufficient knowledge to be considered a consensual partner in a sexual union.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 12, 2010 1:06 PM
ust because he's incorrectly applying it to the whole class of males who engage in "homosexual acts", rather than to the small minority for whom it does apply, doesn't mean the rule is wrong.
But, you said it yourself:
he's incorrectly applying it
...and it's a VERY small minority.
so much so as to be FUCKING USELESS to use an example in this case.
sorry, no go.
Posted by: dpfurey
|
July 12, 2010 1:54 PM
You are right. The student and the University are wrong.
To me this would be exactly like an professor of a class on evolutionary biology getting fired because a fundamentalist Christian complains.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlCJ00ZvUlgbmaYpOqKrY07vLZ-0mC0lPc
|
July 13, 2010 12:08 AM
Catholic teaching claims that gays are inferior ("Objectively Disordered") and, therefore, should have fewer civil rights than Catholics.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm
In fact the Church says that it is wrong to base ANY civil rights law on sexual orientation.
The Church teaching is so offensive and so bigoted that the only way to teach it is
1) Teach the facts without advocacy.
or
2) Allow students to criticize the teachings after they show their command of these teachings.
Calling Natural Law REALITY (note loopy caps) is just asking for an attack based on the fact that Natural Law isn't based on a systematic observation of nature.
Posted by: Icaria
|
July 13, 2010 7:07 AM
And, to repeat: doesn't pass muster in terms of Hume's Guillotine.And you're a shit troll, bronze.
Posted by: gadow
|
July 13, 2010 9:43 AM
I expect he was fired for preaching rather than teaching, and that the results would have been the same if his email had used similar language to "prove" transubstantiation.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 13, 2010 4:11 PM
Have no fear, god-fearing Catholics - the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is riding to the rescue:
They (almost) make me want to enroll.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 3:19 AM
the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission tells me that:
lol
they even offer me "tools" to fight back against the atheist horde in my community!
I almost want to register just to find out what these "tools" are.
almost.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 14, 2010 3:36 AM
Oh, the CADC. Persecution Central, or, to be more accurate, Wannabee Persecution Central.
Posted by: Straight Grandmother
|
July 14, 2010 7:01 AM
Far and away this is the BEST rebuttal I have ever read to the religious objections to homosexuality, and the caliber of the comments following the rebuttal is rich in insight and observations.
I think he was doing okay describing utilitarianism (admitting that I never heard of the word previous) up until he got to the paragraph where he changes the topic and launches into Natural Law. Up until that point he was explaining a term, “Okay I didn’t explain utilitarianism in class very well, here is a brush up.” No where in the email to the students do I see the words, “The Catholic Church teaches…” When you get to the end of his e-mail you realize he is not teaching about Catholicism, but rather his personal views on homosexuality and he uses utilitarianism as a mechanism to espouse his views, and it is safe to say he doesn’t like it. He should have been more careful and stated, “The church teaches…” Without those words this is simply his personal attack on homosexuals, and that is all. I also wonder how often he discussed homosexuality in his classroom; I bet it was a lot. When he uses the word REALITY, the hole he has dug gets pretty deep. No wonder he lost his job, he is clever but not clever enough, even a Straight Grandmother saw the holes in his logic, and I don’t have a PhD.
His termination was brought to my attention through NOM, National Organization for Marriage, who sent out an e-mail alert. I sincerely hope everyone here comes out and protests against the NOM Bus tour with their ralleys they are doing this summer. You may find out more at http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/07/12/nom-launches-summer-for-marriage-tour-and-were-going-to-track-them/ I believe they are making 3 stops in Minnesota. Writing words on a blog is good, it is important but feet on the ground is at least equally as important. Please look at the NOM Bus Tour schedule and show up IN FORCE (bring as many friends and family as you can) and counter protest.
Posted by: laurarodgers
|
July 14, 2010 1:31 PM
Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking about this - this man is astonishingly stupid, and deserves to be let go for incompetence rather than hate.
I wouldn't call this hate speech toward homosexual people; it manages to maintain the ever-popular "love the sinner, hate the sin" position. However, his views toward transgender people are more troubling. Here, he goes beyond just saying that homosexual sex is icky to basically imply that transgender men and women are committing a continuous, lifelong immoral act. Condemning someone's entire gender identity seems a lot more hateful, to me, than telling gay men where they should and shouldn't put their penises.
Posted by: JeremiahA
|
July 15, 2010 11:28 AM
Well, it is apparent that the writer of this piece did not read the entire email or still does not understand the argument from natural law, especially since he broadly applies the argument to cases that do not fit the definitions of the terms. And if we follow the logic of this writer to its conclusion, then sexual acts with babies, animals, mentally handicapped people, comatose people, dead bodies, etc. would also be moral.
Posted by: stymie1
|
July 16, 2010 1:46 PM
This article does a great job of disarming some bad philosophy on the part of the proff, but this still does not explain the actions of U of I. I am alarmed that a University would bring a professor in to teach on the subject of Catholic dogma and then fire him for explaining it (and believing it).
Does this mean the future of education is that unpopular ideas can only be taught by those who don't believe them? Must we have a secular humanist slant on everything that is taught? While I don't have a fondness for ignorance, I also do not have a fondness for the inbreeding that happens academia acts in the same manner by cutting out all voices it does not find pleasing.
My degree would have been worthless without brushing up against people who I strongly disagreed with. It stretched me. It would be one thing if the proff engaged in hate speech. He did not.
And so he's hitting the turf for teaching exactly what he was asked to teach. Does the University have the right? Yes - he was adjunct. But they are using the same ignorance in this decision that they are accusing him of. Sad precedent.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawncLFY1do3KtHfj6HKfniKT-ddbUtrCKzU
|
July 17, 2010 4:16 AM
Catholic natural law theory is the notion that moral conclusions congruent with whatever is convenient for Catholic doctrine at the time can be deduced from the metaphysical structure of the universe.
The notion with sex is that the inherent function of sex--what brought it into existence--is reproduction, so sex can only be used according to the form of reproduction.
The inherent function of a pig leg is to move the pig around, which would seem to ban bacon, ham and roast pork, given they involve irretrievably frustrating the pig leg from carrying on the function which brought it into existence.
Clearly the pig leg can perform other functions than moving the pig around but, then, so equally can sex perform other functions than reproduction. Certainly, we have to eat to live, but we are not compelled to specifically consume pig legs. It is just tasty and convenient that we do so.
While we can use other things than pig legs to get tasty nutrition, sex proves catharsis and intimacy in ways which generally lack equivalent substitutes.
The real difference is that Catholic theorists are looking for ways to restrict sex (for reasons I discuss in my recent post on the role of God in moral discourse), but they are not looking for ways to restrict food. The religious taboos are driving the reasoning, not the metaphysical structure of the universe. Which is the trick with such "natural law" moral reasoning: it picks on the aspects of reality it finds convenient and simply dismisses any divergence as "improper". If the conclusion gets to choose its premises in that way, it is hardly surprising that it ends up "deducing" from the metaphysical structure of reality whatever conclusions are currently congenial for Catholic doctrine.
Posted by: Lorenzo
|
July 17, 2010 4:22 AM
That last comment was me: signing in via Google does not seem to work all that well.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 5:00 AM
I am alarmed that a University would bring a professor in to teach on the subject of Catholic dogma and then fire him for explaining it (and believing it).
nobody here is sure of the exact reason he was tossed.
stop playing the feaux martyr.
Posted by: sashgroovy
|
July 18, 2010 9:56 PM
I agree with PZ. I think Howell's contract was not renewed because of incompetence. I think his ignorance (I mean his actual subject matter ignorance) being exposed across the internet is deeply embarrassing to the University,as it should be, IMO. I know that there are many other Catholic professors capable of teaching this class WITHOUT bringing in blatant homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and the conflation of homosexuality (esp.male)with the rape of children and animals. I've met some myself, so I know they exist. And I live so far south of the Bible Belt that we call it the Bible's Ball Sack, so I expect they can find a suitable replacement in Illinois.
I was a sexuality educator for a long time and virtually everything he said about sexuality was wrong. So wrong, I think he had to put some serious effort into remaining so willfully ignorant.
So, as a teacher at heart may I suggest:for anyone who has a few bucks they don't mind parting with I suggest we all send Howell a copy of Dr. Jack Morin's WONDERFUL book "Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men, Women and Couples". The 4th edition just came out this year with a lovely new cover. I also recommend it for everyone's personal library, of course.
http://www.amazon.com/Anal-Pleasure-Health-Guide-Couples/dp/0940208377/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279495848&sr=8-1
And, because I am a hopeless pedant (I'm working on it) according to Amnesty International's March 2010 report "Deadly Delivery": More than 2 women a day die in childbirth in the US. During 2004 and 2005, more than 68,000 women nearly died in childbirth in the USA. Each year, 1.7 million women suffer a complication that has an adverse effect on their health. Not to mention the worldwide maternal death rate of nearly 343,000 women in 2008. (WHO) So PZ is on solid factual ground by saying that pregnancy really is the most dangerous outcome of sex for women.
Posted by: mrgrtfn4
|
November 18, 2010 2:25 AM
For a more accurate account of this case see this;
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/18/howell