MPs and Strip Clubs
The NZ Herald has a collection of MP responses to the strip club question. Now I am as amused as anyone by the responses, but there is a serious question for the media in all this. First the fun though:
Best story has to be Tim Barnett who took a bishop in his 80s to a gay strip club, as the bishop had always wanted to go. How can onbe judge a man helping the church
Rodney Hide can recall some women taking their clothes off, so logically concludes they were probably strip clubs. Either that, or just very friendly.
Sue Bradford discovered: “Gay male stripping is not necessarily that entertaining for women”.
And John Hayes had a great line: “”I used to work on the Cook Strait ferries. What do you think?”
Best metaphor goes to Jill Pettis: She had been married for 36 years, so “Why go out for hamburger when you’ve got steak at home?”
But now to the serious issue. Why are serious newspapers asking MPs this question?
The Kevin Rudd episode is legitimate news. His strip club visit happened while he was an MP. Worst it happened when he was travelling on taxpayer funded business.
But that doesn’t make it a legitimate question to be asking every MP about what they did before they were an MP.
There was a story in NZ (in Investigate Magazine) not so long ago about the private sexual escapades of an MP (and please do not name him in the comments – we all know who he is – I am just using the case as an example). That got almost totally ignored by the media, and certainly the NZ Herald did not go around all the other MPs asking them if they have ever done BDSM.
So why the double standard? How is asking MPs about whether they visited a strip club before they were MPs a legitimate question?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 am
i’m curious as to the double standard in you not allowing us to name in the comments the MP covered by Investigate
[DPF: Look everyone knows who it is. I just don't want a thread about the ethics of the media asking MPs about strip clubs, to turn into a debate about the blog naming the MP. It's a distraction I would rather avoid. Just use his nickname of PSB if you must]
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 am
Damien has the ultimate response,
“I’ve had a sad and lonely life.”
To be fair, it is another slow news week, Labour is down in the polls and the government is interfering in a private company…
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 am
Because it’s in the public consciousness now, due to Kevin Rudd. Actually, it also gave great cover to John Key.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
The leading question in the Rudd affair is this: Is a man that gets so intoxicated he can’t remember what he has done -while on government business- qualified to be the PM of Australia?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:05 am
I don’t think it’s a serious question to be honest. I don’t think the media were expecting much of a response. I mean, no one really cares right?
Still funny though. Hellen Clark could do with going to a club, release a little stress.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 am
Because (as you well know Mr F) when the papers found out the identity and criminal history of Mr Wishart’s “source” they ran a mile. As would anyone else who looked into the matter.
Talk about flogging a dead horse.
[DPF: So Sonic you seem to be implying it is a legitimate news story if it was true, but you doubt it is true due to the credibility of the source?]
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Jesus, Sonic do you have to bring sex into everything?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 am
I took Maurice Williamson to Firecats in Fort Street for my stag do. We sat in the front row and enjoyed the show immensely.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 am
Simple, it’s not a legitimate question. It is purely entertainment.
The media needs to entertain nowadays. That’s why things like Paris Hilton’s stint in jail make 6pm News headlines.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
With one statement, John Key has put an issue into context, put himself accross as more approachable, distanced himself from the religious right and kept his profile up in the media.
At the same time Helen Clark has tut tutted like a dowdy old school teacher. A smile and a wink would have been far more appropriate. Even John Howard had the sense not to walk into that one!
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
I wish Georgina Beyer was still an MP, just to get her response! So John Key went to a strip club, big deal, she used to work in one didn’t she?
I thought Dover Samuels very defensive response when questioned about strip clubs was most illuminating. Mind you, to work in a strip club don’t you have to be OVER the age of consent?
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
Well of course Sue doesn’t find naked men interesting, I crack a massive soft on at the thought of being naked in her presence myself.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:51 am
Murray, that is far too much information mate.
Imagine the mental picture you have just created in the minds of all of us?
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
Sonic said “Murray, that is far too much information mate.
Imagine the mental picture you have just created in the minds of all of us?”
Flippin’ heck – this is getting scary – I agree with Sonic!!! And this is the second time today!
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:16 am
I don’t think MPs’ sex lives are generally relevant to how well they do their jobs. It’s irrelevant if they like BDSM or swinging or whatever, as long as it’s between consenting adults.
But I’m not so sure about cheating.
The problem with cheating is not the sexual acts themselves but what it says about the guilty party’s character.
Because it seems to me that if an MP can lie to their spouse or significant other, they’re going to find it pretty easy to lie to the general population.
(And yes, we all already think politicians are lying thieving bastards, but for me they’re like those criminals in the movies who still love their mothers. Betraying family or loved ones is a step too far.)
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:52 am
Right of way:
Georgina believes that the homo-erotica associated with strip clubs is part of our culture (morning report)…What she finds odd is that Phil Goff has never been in one.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Rickyy: It’s not irrelevant if they present themselves as sexually mainstream, when they are really BDSM followers who have lied to parliament about assaulting schoolkids. It’s not irrelevant if they then accuse other MPs in Parliament of immoral behaviour.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Sonic
Except that the “sources” comments were verfied in a taped conversation the “source” had with other members of the BDSM community. The tape also “reveals” the threats and abuse “the source” received for mentioning the MP.
But of course, don’t mention those issues, eh sonic.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
Rickyy: It’s not irrelevant if they present themselves as sexually mainstream, when they are really BDSM followers who have lied to parliament about assaulting schoolkids. It’s not irrelevant if they then accuse other MPs in Parliament of immoral behaviour.
I think lying to parliament about assaulting school kids is wrong, and I think lying to parliament about assaulting school kids while accusing others of immoral behaviour is both wrong and extremely hypocritical.
I’m not sure what BDSM has to do with it though. Who is anyone to say what is or isn’t sexually mainstream? And how do you present yourself as sexually mainstream? Do you go around telling everyone you only do it twice a week missionary styles?
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 am
MPs should not have to be defending their behavior BEFORE they went into politics.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Matthew, care to share with these good people where the source is currently residing and why?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Ricky
If no one has the right to say “what is or isn’t sexually mainstream” then it follows that no one has the right to say the paedophilia is or is not sexually mainstream. That is absurd.
Trite liberal slogans tend to get people nowhere.
Matthew Flannagan
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Sonic
I don’t know where the source is now. Last I knew the source was on the run due to threats made against them.
However you miss my point, what the source said was corroborated on tape by others. Hence its irrelevant where the source is now.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
What’s wrong with strip bars?
Many young New Zealanders fund their university studies by dancing in clubs like Show Girls and Mermaids in Auckland. Whilst they remove their clothing it is wrong to assume that dancers are, by default, prostitutes. That is rubbish. Given the cost of student loans to New Zealand – an economic diaspora – which is the lesser of evils?
Why would you criticise a legal economic activity?
Auckland’s downtown strip bars contribute to the cultural and economic life of the city. Visitors from overseas spend time and money in legal, well managed establishments (which pay taxes, employ people and collect excises from alcohol). They are significant contributor to the tourist and business traveller economy.
Politicians are representatives not ideals,
The term representative is important.People in the parliament are chosen by the community to represent themselves. When I vote I don’t vote for an airbrushed fantasy. I expect that politicians will have had parking tickets, speeding tickets, disputes of one kind or another; I am suspicious if they promote themselves as without guilt or vice. Helen Clark is the prime minister and while she may not represent what I regard as normal or ‘moral’ I think she is fine. Who cares?
That she is married but assumes the title Miss (Clark), has no children and has never (so far as I know) had a job in the private sector…- hardly a representation of most New Zealanders…
If you can’t bring yourself to go to a strip club then simply watch State Owned TV here in NZ. On Monday night this week: Nip Tuck promoted strip clubs; on Thursdays the Sopranos routinely feature a strip club as the home base of the gang.
I’m not sure of the ad rates for these high rating shows but the people of New Zealand seem to be significant beneficiaries from the promotion of stripping.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
If no one has the right to say “what is or isn’t sexually mainstream” then it follows that no one has the right to say the paedophilia is or is not sexually mainstream. That is absurd.
Hi Matthew!
I agree that is absurd. I think you’ll find in my previous post I noted “as long as it’s between consenting adults”.
This would appear to rule out paedophilia. However you and Madeleine dressing up in diapers and bibs and pacifiers and fucking each other silly would still be ok
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Rudd’s “crime” in Australia is that he’s a “2 pot screamer” and has clearly lied about not remembering lap dancing etc.
He has a 10% lead in the “after” polls, so it didn’t matter, still an easy election winner.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Hi Ricky
So then I take it you find the following OK mainstream practises.
1] A German computer technician, Armin Miewes, advertised on the internet, “If you are between 18 and 25 years old you are my boy. Come to me and I will eat your horny flesh.”. His intent was to find someone who would volunteer to be killed and then eaten. Such a volunteer was forthcoming, Juergen Brandes. In court, Miewes testified that he and Brandes had enjoyed a final meal together. Brandes agreed to be castrated and the two sautéed his penis and testicles. After the meal Brandes willingly allowed himself to be hanged from a butcher’s hook and be slaughtered ‘like a calf’. After Brandes had died Miewes consumed his flesh. The German court found Miewes guilty of manslaughter and latter this was upgraded to murder after an appeal. In this case, both parties had consented. The court had considered the evidence and documentation both parties had made prior to the event and found that consent had been legitimately obtained. (from Samuel Holloway, “Fries with That,” Express, 24 February 2004, 11)
2] “a contraceptive protected, privately performed, and genuinely consensual, sexual act between a thirty-eight-year-old father and his twenty-year-old daughter, or (even more unthinkable to some) a thirty-eight-year old mother and a twenty-year- old son. “( example from Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrong Doing: Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Vol. 4 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 21.
3] Necrophilla where ” the will of man X contains a clause stipulating that “anyone wishing to use my corpse for sexual purposes between the hours of 7-9 p.m. on Thursdays at the Greenmont Cemetery may do so.”
( example from R Belliotti “Sexual Intercourse between Consenting Adults is Always Permissible,” in The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, ed. Louis Pojman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 685.)
You might want to read
http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/2007/08/against-liberal-morality.html
Matthew Flannagan
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Matthew,
Two of your examples are clearly not mainstream, the first and third ones…
My point was that I don’t know what people do in their bedrooms. For example half the country could be into BDSM and I wouldn’t have a clue.
However if people started killing each other and eating their penises I probably would notice. People wouldn’t be turning up to work. I’d be having interesting experiences at urinals.
The second example, incest, could be going on all the time and I’d be none the wiser.
But if necrophilia was happening to any great extent as mentioned there’d probably be queues through the cemeteries at certain times, which I also haven’t noticed.
As to whether any of them are wrong, I have issues with the first one in that it involves killing someone. Even if the victim could be proven to have been of sound mind and consented, there’s still issues about people being forced into this position, and whether you can ever really be sure that they’re mentally ok and happy with it. You don’t want to get situations where someone’s been threatened that their family will be hurt if they don’t consent to their being killed and their penis being eaten.
The main problem with the 2nd one, incest, is any children it might produce. Condoms aren’t 100% safe, and so I’m not sure if they’d be good enough in this case. But if one of the parties had had something cut out, or tubes tied, then sure, why not? I mean I think it’s weird, I wouldn’t be rushing to do it, but what’s the problem here? (You’d also probably have to make sure children weren’t being groomed by parents to have sex with them when they turned 18 though…)
And the third one, if they were of sound mind when they wrote their will then sure, why not? It’s not hurting anyone. Sounds a little unhygienic though.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
“Last I knew the source was on the run due to threats made against them”
You’ve not been keeping up I see. It might be best if you found out a little more about Mr Wishart’s source befroe rushing to defend her.
Nuff said.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Sonic
You assume I don’t know Wisharts source.
I agree if it was just this persons word then it lacks credibility.
However its not this persons word alone the sources claims were verfied by a third party.
Matthew Flannagan
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Sonic dahling…we never comment on the identities of our sources…but you are missing the point horribly. The allegations about PSB were extremely specific. The events involved a handful of people – some of whom are prominent in their area and remain terrified that one day we will name them.
I found it fascinating that a very small group of people allegedly involved with PSB were instantly able to name another person alleged to have been involved with PSB as the source of the story.
Only one name was put forward to the media as a potential source, but Southern Kinx had two other suspects in mind at the time – neither of whom we had named in the article but who had definitely been involved with PSB. One of those suspects was initially threatened by other Kinx members.
It is incriminating that the group which officially claimed no link to PSB could in fact throw up three suspects in its initial internal witchhunt, all of whom were direct participants with PSB in the events in our story.
They worked out possible sources by a very swift process of elimination, which would only have been possible because the story was true. They threw one of their members to the wolves in the hope that her own background would make the story appear implausible. The bigger story is that PSB was involved with all of those suspects, including the woman presumed to be a source. Imagine the embarrassment as the Minister responsible for CYF, being associated with such.
Apart from our source we had other information, and we captured everything on tape.
The story is true, and PSB instructed – not requested mind – instructed a senior newspaper journalist that under no circumstances was he to run a denial that PSB had been involved in the activities alleged. PSB went to the trouble of ringing the newspaper journalist at home at 10.30pm the night the story broke to make doubly sure there was no denial.
Now you’ll recall the previous troubles for PSB when he issued a denial that turned out to be untrue. At least one can say he learned his lesson – albeit temporarily.
As to the the relevance of the story, it remains simply this: person responsible for Labour’s social policy implementation turns out to have deviant fantasies that extended to adult/child, teacher/student sex fantasy play, and in hindsight his persecution of school students took on a new hue.
You might care to call it “consenting”, but that says more about you than anyone else.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Ricky
Thanks
You state
“Two of your examples are clearly not mainstream, the first and third ones…”
Here you say that two sexual practises between consenting adults are not mainstream.
However, earlier you also stated that
“Who is anyone to say what is or isn’t sexually mainstream?” adding “as long as it’s between consenting adults”.
I hope you get the point now?
Matthew Flannagan
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Kevin Rudd has fronted this, accepted responsibility like an adult. Just imagine if the same allegation was made of Benson-Pope. He would agressively deny it in the face of incontravertible evidence. Yet the NZ Labour Partry gave this man of such poor character, senior positions in the party.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Matthew,
No, thank you.
I said “Two of your examples are clearly not mainstream, the first and third ones…”.
This was wrong of me and I apologise.
The third example could very well be mainstream.
I said “if necrophilia was happening to any great extent as mentioned there’d probably be queues through the cemeteries at certain times, which I also haven’t noticed” but to tell the truth I wouldn’t even know where the nearest cemetery was. I was bullshitting, and for all I know there are big queues every night.
However the first example, it can still safely be said, is not mainstream.
And so this is where I issue my second apology.
When I said “Who is anyone to say what is or isn’t sexually mainstream?” adding “as long as it’s between consenting adults”, I should also have added “unless it’s really obvious that not many people are doing it.”
Mainstream by definition suggests a certain number of people are partaking in the activity and it’s safe to say, in New Zealand anyway, that not many people are killing people and then eating their penises.
And you can probably find many more examples like this.
For example I think it’s safe to say that being dangled by a rope out of a helicopter and then inserting the top of one the Sky Tower’s radio attenae into your vagina while your partner ejaculates out of the helicopter into your hair is not a mainstream sexual activity.
Because if anyone had actually done this we’d probably all have heard about it by now!
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
There was a story in NZ (in Investigate Magazine) not so long ago about the private sexual escapades of an MP (and please do not name him in the comments – we all know who he is – I am just using the case as an example). That got almost totally ignored by the media, and certainly the NZ Herald did not go around all the other MPs asking them if they have ever done BDSM.
So why the double standard? How is asking MPs about whether they visited a strip club before they were MPs a legitimate question?
To answer DPFs question: Wisharts story was potentially defamatory – he doesn’t seem to worry about being sued but presumably the legal department at Fairfax, TVNZ ect do. As has been mentioned in this thread there were grave doubts about the reliability of Investigate’s source for the story.
The strip club survey – although basically moronic – is based on primary interviews with the MP’s involved – not highly questionable anonymous informants. John Key is unlikely to turn around and sue the Herald for publishing quotes from an interview he gave them.
In response to Matthew Flannagan – you gave three examples of sexual activity: necrophilia, adult incest and cannibalism and used them to make a point about mainstream sexuality and adult consent.
The obvious answer to this line of questioning is that sex between adults is required to be consensual, and the examples you provide are so unusual that it can be assumed that the people participating in them are not of sound mind to provide consent, just as adults incapacitated by alcohol, drugs or illness cannot provide consent.
The advantage of a moral system based on participatory democracy instead of iron age superstition is that if, say, cannibals can successfully argue that they are of sound mind and able to safely practise their sexuality with mutual consent then their lifestyle will be legalised. In my opinion they are unlikely to ever accomplish this, but the possibility is there.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Don’t call me mate dress boy.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I work for a Fairfax publication (I am not a journalist) and would like to set the record straight about the Investigate source for the ‘PBS’ story .
Several months before Investigate published its story an individual began contacting media in the South Island with allegations that a Labour Party Minister had kidnapped her, kept her prisoner and tortured and raped her. She alleged that the Minister was a member of a satanic group that practised black magic. She accused several other public individuals of being involved. She claimed she came into contact with this group through Southern Kinks.
The individual was clearly mentally ill, had a history of coming to journalists with fantastic stories and had a vey serious criminal background. An easy descision was made not to proceed with the story.
Months later when Investigate Magazine published its story it was clear that Ian Wisharts anonymous source was almost certainly the person who had contacted my company.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion about the ‘PSB’ story thats been evident in this thread.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Danyl and Ricky
It’s a fact that homosexual sex is unusual, only about 2%-4% of the population engages in it.
Hence, by Ricky’s criteria one can say that homosexual conduct is not mainstream.
And by Danyl’s reasoning one can assume people who engage in same sex intercourse are not of sound mind, and their relations are not consensual.
Matthew Flannagan
[So only 30 - 60 million men worldwide have had homosexual sex. That's a hell of a lot of people]
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
It’s a fact that homosexual sex is unusual, only about 2%-4% of the population engages in it.
I heard 10%.
But even 2% would be a lot of people…
What percentage do you need to be mainstream Matthew?
I just said “a certain number of people” are needed, and this ruled out your first example because any positive integer would be more than the number of New Zealanders who kill people and eat their penises.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
For KRudd it gets worse.
Pissed in a strip joint?
No problems there with the Australian electorate.
Couldn’t hold his grog?
Embarrassing, but still no problem.
Pissed in a strip joint with reputed organised crime connections where the “owner” gives 3 different, tho benign, stories to 2GB about a group of 3 he “remembers” from 4 years ago who were not memorable, by definition.
Did Kevni lie about not goping the girls or worse?
The suspicion is that CTV exists and the “connections” can use it to extort favour from the next Aussie PM.
Big problem.
Kevni needs to make sure there are no loose ends.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Danyl and Ricky
It’s a fact that homosexual sex is unusual, only about 2%-4% of the population engages in it.
Hence, by Ricky’s criteria one can say that homosexual conduct is not mainstream.
And by Danyl’s reasoning one can assume people who engage in same sex intercourse are not of sound mind, and their relations are not consensual.
Matthew Flannagan
The first grave flaw in your logic is that the number of homosexuals within the population is larger than the incidence of guys who want to consume their own genitals and be eaten by a cannibal by a factor of several million.
The second is that its probably safe to say that proportion of the population that believes in preserving their virginity before marriage is also roughly 2%-4%. Does that mean all those chaste Christians out there are not ‘mainstream’ and are clearly not of sound mind? Should the government intervene to prevent them from maintaining their virginal status?
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Wisharts story was potentially defamatory – he doesn’t seem to worry about being sued but presumably the legal department at Fairfax, TVNZ ect do.
Every story that any media outlet publishes that alleges bad character issues about anyone is “potentially defamatory.”
I doubt that the PSB story is defamatory as Ian Wishart has not even had a lawyers letter from PSB, PSB phoned the Otago Daily Times to instruct them to NOT publish a denial on his part.
As for the notion that Fairfax is a ‘responsible ‘mainstream’ media outlet that does not print defamatory, fabricated things about people unlike Investigate I present the following table.
Number of cheques I have received for settled defamation actions from the aforementioned media outlets:
Investigate – 0
Fairfax – 1
Investigate have never defamed me, Fairfax have. That makes Investigate more reliable in my books – purely subjective of course but it does somewhat reduce the moral highground you set them on.
As has been mentioned in this thread there were grave doubts about the reliability of Investigate’s source for the story.
Oh please, assuming anyone is even right on the identity of the alleged source, how does having a criminal record make one a liar for life?
A source with a criminal record will not withstand a Burns Unit attack as the typical Labour response to true and damaging allegations is to attack the source rather than respond to the allegations (much the same way a rapist’s lawyer attacks the victim on the stand) but it simply does not follow that simply because someone once made a bad mistake that landed them before the courts that they will then make up stories about the sexual fetishes of an MP.
Thank goodness NZ has Investigate which over recent years has brought us many stories that the ‘real journalists’ at the ‘mainstream’ media outlets appear to have missed…. Funny how its always the negative stories about Labour that they miss and the uncritical acceptance of the word of a Labour MP that got them in trouble with my lawyers.
The real difference between Fairfax and Investigate is that no matter how much Ian Wishart does not like the politics of a person, no matter how far it might advance his own politics, he will not publish something that he knows is not true that will damage a person’s reputation. He is an ethical person.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Danyl
Your second point is actually in agreement with what I said. In your earlier post you stated “the examples you provide are so unusual that it can be assumed that the people participating in them are not of sound mind to provide consent,” This response assumes that participation in an unusual practice provides adequate grounds for attributing incompetence on the part of the practitioner.
My point is that this is false. It’s actually a recipe for declaring insane any person or group who is unfashionable . My point was that there are practices which are (i) unusual and (ii) consensual. Homosexual conduct was my example. Your example is pre-martial chastity. The point is the same. The fact that a practice is unusual does not mean there is no consent, hence, your response to my counter examples fail. The logic you criticise in this paragraph is actually your logic not mine.
Your first response is also inadequate. The fact that one practice is more unusual than another does not mean the first is not unusual. However to avoid tedious contrived definitions of what’s unusual. I’ll modify my examples. Suppose the practices I mentioned became more fashionable so that around 1%-2% of the population engaged in them. Would you then consider Necrophilia, Cannibal sex, and consensual incest to be permissible practices?
In each case there are consenting adults ( note that in the cannibal case a court found that valid consent had been given). Hence if what you and others have argued about sex is true, these should be celebrated as alternative lifestyles not rejected because of bigoted iron age moral systems?
I will add a final point. I suspect the reason these practices are unusual is because most people believe they are wrong, disgusting, perverted etc. It seems then that one cannot explain their objectionableness by appealing to how unusual they are. That is to argue in a fairly tight circle.
Matthew Flannagan
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
Ricky
The 10% figure is a popular myth. Also (and this responds to David as well) any unusual practice is engaged at by a lot of people you take a worldwide population of 6 billion into account.
My first example described a real case hence; the number of people who engage in it is a positive integer. Of course if you want to limit the percentages to New Zealand its not, however its also true 2% of sexually active people in New Zealand is *not* a lot of people either. You need to be consistent in what denominator you use to justify your claims.
Moreover, if a practice only needs a positive integer to be called mainstream, then everything practice is mainstream. A term that means everything means nothing.
As to your question, it was not I who was making claims about what was mainstream (and also simultaneously denying people could make such claims). But for what its worth I would say that any practice engaged in by a substantial majority of a population is mainstream for that population, whether the practice is consensual or not. On this account neither homosexual conduct nor evangelical Christianity would be mainstream.
I also think it is of little consequence. All the term “mainstream” tells us is that something is popular or fashionable. It does not tell us whether it’s right or wrong. I encourage my children to do the right thing even if it’s unfashionable. I try and follow this ideal myself. The fact that some people seem to not grasp this point and castigate practices for being “out of date”, “not mainstream” or “a narrow minority view” only shows that they never grew out of their teens. I expect our leaders to have more character than this.
Matthew Flannagan
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
The 10% figure is a popular myth.
Actual Matthew I think you’ll find the 10% figure is popular myth for the number of homosexuals. But many people do argue it is around 6-7%, higher than the 2-4% figures you gave. Furthermore we were actually talking about engaging in homosexual sex, and a far greater percentage than this would have engaged in homosexual sex. Think of all the bisexuals and straight people experimenting.
Also (and this responds to David as well) any unusual practice is engaged at by a lot of people you take a worldwide population of 6 billion into account.
So you think there are a lot of people out there who are killing people and eating their penises? Do you have any evidence for this?
My first example described a real case hence; the number of people who engage in it is a positive integer. Of course if you want to limit the percentages to New Zealand its not, however its also true 2% of sexually active people in New Zealand is *not* a lot of people either.
I disagree. 2% of 4 million is 80,000. This is a lot of people! And 2% is perhaps the lowest estimate there is.
Moreover, if a practice only needs a positive integer to be called mainstream, then everything practice is mainstream. A term that means everything means nothing.
There are lots of practices that nobody does! Take my Sky Tower antennae example. Or something like cannibalism, which used to be practiced in certain places and no longer is. (I know it still is in some places, but it’s not in NZ.) So every practice is not mainstream, and this term does still mean something.
As to your question, it was not I who was making claims about what was mainstream (and also simultaneously denying people could make such claims).
Yes it was! I said “Who is anyone to say what is or isn’t sexually mainstream?” and you disagreed with this, implying you claimed a definition which didn’t hold with this.
But for what its worth I would say that any practice engaged in by a substantial majority of a population is mainstream for that population, whether the practice is consensual or not. On this account neither homosexual conduct nor evangelical Christianity would be mainstream.
This would mean the only mainstream activities are eating and sleeping! Rugby is definitely mainstream but it’s not watched or played by a majority of the population. Homosexual conduct is accepted most places these days, the same cannot be said of the evangelicals.
All the term “mainstream” tells us is that something is popular or fashionable. It does not tell us whether it’s right or wrong.
I agree.
The fact that some people seem to not grasp this point and castigate practices for being “out of date”, “not mainstream” or “a narrow minority view” only shows that they never grew out of their teens.
Well said. You could say the same about people who have a problem with homosexual sex!
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I suspect the reason these practices are unusual is because most people believe they are wrong, disgusting, perverted etc.
I personally find the prospect of homosexual sex disgusting and offensive, but I realise that I have no right to impose my personal prejudices upon others, especially when it interferes with their ability to find happiness in such a fundamental way as legislating who people can and cannot fall in love with.
The fact that one practice is more unusual than another does not mean the first is not unusual. However to avoid tedious contrived definitions of what’s unusual. I’ll modify my examples. Suppose the practices I mentioned became more fashionable so that around 1%-2% of the population engaged in them. Would you then consider Necrophilia, Cannibal sex, and consensual incest to be permissible practices?
If a large proportion of the population (>1%, say)wanted to practice mutually consensual necrophilia then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to. The fact that it upsets me should not be grounds to deny the happiness of tens of thousands of people.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I suspect the reason these practices are unusual is because most people believe they are wrong, disgusting, perverted etc.
That must be why hardly anybody in New Zealand does syncronised swimming… That perversion is the definition of wrong. They’d better kick it out of the Olympics soon, I mean don’t they know children watch the Olympics?
August 24th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Rickyjj
Note the word “these practices” in which in the context refers to the practises of necrophilla, cannibalism, and incest.
Last time I checked, syncronised swimming involved did not involve these practices and they are not practised at the olympics.
My claims are limited to *these practises* I think most people do not do *these things* because they consider them or perverted. Hence the circularity in trying to say that they are wrong because they are unusual.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:44 am
My claims are limited to *these practises* I think most people do not do *these things* because they consider them or perverted.
Well I absolutely disagree. I think most people don’t do those things because “the practises of necrophilla, cannibalism, and incest” don’t turn them on. If necrophilia turned you on I think it’s very likely that given the chance you’d partake in it, whether you felt what you were doing perverted or not.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Ricky
Well I suspect that you’re unusual here. When confronted with a scenario where one person bangs his dad and sister. Or a situation where a person has sex with a corpse or wants to engage in erotic cannibalism. My response is not simply a lack of sexual arousal, its positive revulsion. I have lack of sexual arousal in the presence of many things, computers, trees, cars. But that experience is very different to how I respond to Necrophilia, incest and cannibalism. In these cases is one of revulsion and disgust. I suspect I am not alone in this.
Interestingly my response to homosexual conduct is the same and my response to of BDSM and strip clubs is similar. And yet in these latter contexts the argument is usually made that my responses are irrational *because* these actions are consensual. However this is also true in the examples I mentioned. So there appears no reason, on these grounds, for embracing the one and not the other.
Interestingly the only real difference you have pointed to is in terms of popularity. The former practices are more popular than the latter. But as I pointed out, and you agreed, appeals to what’s popular or fashionable are inadequate. It’s the whole, “hey do this because the cool kids do”, reasoning we try and educate our children not to emulate.
Apparently being “progressive and enlightened” about sex usually involves simultaneously adopting a principle and contradicting it and then justifying this on the grounds that is fashionable. It’s difficult to take this terribly seriously.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Interestingly the only real difference you have pointed to is in terms of popularity.
I think as actions gain in popularity, more people begin to understand them and so the numbers ‘repulsed’ by these actions decrease. Revulsion is ignorance really – just as here is no real reason to be disgusted by consensual homosexual conduct there is no real reason to be disgusted by ‘consensual’ necrophilia. I mean those with little knowledge could be revolted by a vagina, or find the thought of heterosexual sex revolting. Eating could be thought of as revolting – anything could really. So yes I think the big difference is popularity.
Apparently being “progressive and enlightened” about sex usually involves simultaneously adopting a principle and contradicting it and then justifying this on the grounds that is fashionable. It’s difficult to take this terribly seriously.
I don’t think I’ve contradicted any principle – the only sexual acts I had a problem with were those that involved killing something, and this was not a problem with the acts themselves but the rather the real problems the allowance of such acts could throw up.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Danyl
I lot could be said here. But I’ll limit myself to three points
First, you beg the question by assuming that opposition to certain practices is merely prejudice, of course if you start with this as a premise you will get the desired conclusion. Just as if I start by assuming that your views are prejudiced I will have a cogent argument against them.
Second, you note that some people are upset with ( i.e. they are unhappy about) certain practices. However, you dismiss this, on the grounds that its wrong to put in place policies which make more than 1% of the population unhappy. I think the problem here is fairly evident.
Finally I think the points I made to Ricky apply here, you seem to be suggesting that certain practices are wrong because at present they are extremely unpopular. However, if they were popular, then these practices would not be wrong. That sounds like you confuse ethics with fashion.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Ricky
1. True a person with little knowledge could be revolted by anything. However, unless you want to assume that everyone who disagrees with homosexual conduct, necrophilia, cannibalism etc is all just ignoramus with little or no education. That point holds no weight in this context. Is it your position that everyone who thinks homosexual conduct, or necrophilia, or incest, is wrong, is uneducated, ignorant and stupid ?
Maybe you should ask yourself whether your revulsion of homophobia is based on false stereotypes about other people and other religious groups.
2. Actually the “real problems the allowance of such acts could throw up” seem to apply to numerous consensual acts. With heterosexual sex, for example, we can ask whether the person really consent, we can ask whether they have been force into the situation ( or pressured via peer pressure) , people could be threatened if they don’t do it. Yet none of this leads people to change their attitudes on consensual heterosexual sex.
The only reason I suspect people have these worries with the examples I mentioned is because they hard time believing any sensible person would not be repulsed by such behavour. And that’s a tacit confession that you believe that rational informed people typically find this kind of behavior objectionable and revolting.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Is it your position that everyone who thinks homosexual conduct, or necrophilia, or incest, is wrong, is uneducated, ignorant and stupid ?
Uneducated no, I mean you have a doctorate degree don’t you? But yes I think do think they’re being irrational… And I think the more people are exposed to things they find different, the more accepting they become.
Maybe you should ask yourself whether your revulsion of homophobia is based on false stereotypes about other people and other religious groups.
I’m not revolted by homophobia. I do however dislike it – I don’t think there’s a good reason for it.
Actually the “real problems the allowance of such acts could throw up” seem to apply to numerous consensual acts. With heterosexual sex, for example, we can ask whether the person really consent, we can ask whether they have been force into the situation ( or pressured via peer pressure) , people could be threatened if they don’t do it. Yet none of this leads people to change their attitudes on consensual heterosexual sex.
This is very true. However if somebody is forced into heterosexual sex, there is the chance for this to later be remedied in some way. Apologies can be made, reparations can be given, and so on. If somebody is forced to let themselves be killed, on the other hand, that’s it. I think most people would see the difference here.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
This thread is getting quite dated and you and I are the only ones here. So perhaps you should e-mail me off line if you want to continue this.
1. I am inclined to the view that ones moral intuitions are prima facie justified. In other words if, when I have informed my self on an issue, it intuitively seems to me to be P then, in the absence of argument to the contrary P is the position I am rational in accepting. This does not mean I one blindly follows ones intuitions if someone does offer reasons to the contrary then that means I should consider them and if they are sound, modify my beliefs accordingly. But if they do not I should have the courage of my convictions to continue to believe the world is how I see it.
Now in this issue, I along with many people have quite conservative intuitions; I find it intuitively obvious that incest, necrophilia, cannibalism, homosexual conduct, prostitution etc are wrong. Some people: contemporary liberals, suggest that on homosexual sodomy I am wrong, the reason they give is that [1] its consensual and [2] consensual practices are permissible.
The problem is that [2] is not intuitively obvious to me at all (it never has been btw), moreover it clashes with many intuitive judgments I do make about necrophilia, cannibalism, incest etc. Hence, unless I am given some reason for accepting [2] a reason that appeals to premises which I have some reason to accept. The rational thing is to reject this argument, to do otherwise would be to simply reject what seems true to me, because it conflicts with a trendy idea that I have literally no reason to accept. This is especially true if, if as I think is the case, these can be made coherent parts of a broader theological vision and understanding of the world and morality which I reflectively hold to.
2. Regarding your comments about “getting to know “the problem is that this leads to absurd conclusions. For example I recently read a report from a Prison Counselor who counseled child molesters, he notes that when you get to know them they are really nice people, apart from the criminal action they are inside for; one finds them just as nice and personable as any other person. I hope you see the point.
3. Regarding your second point, it seems your claim is that we should not allow consensual homicide because in this case one cannot compensate people when we erroneously assume consent. That’s an interesting line of argument; my skepticism about it is that we do seem to accept consent in life threatening situations all the time. Surgery is one example I can think of another example is the right to refuse life saving medical treatment.
For what its worth, my take on the cannibalism case is that it shows people can consent to disrespectful degrading activity. There is such a thing as lack of self respect and so it’s possible, and not uncommon, for people to consent to treatment which degrades, or demeans them. If this is true, then a principle which suggests that anything you consent to is Ok, misses something important, and it allows people to justify degrade and demean other people because those people lack the self respect to not acquiesce in the treatment. I think that is wrong.