Nice.
I guess I had to post about that, though I wish I didn’t have to. I feel, and I always have felt, that being “proud” of how you have sex is like being proud of how often you have to visit the bathroom. It’s desperate and stupid, as well as gross.
That ad, and so much else our grovelling to the LGBTQ community has burdened society with, demonstrates how pernicious slippery slopes are. Because ancient taboos held that gay people should hide themselves in shame, some genius decided our society should declare that what one chooses to do with their naughty bits should swing to the other end of the spectrum and be a source of “pride.” No, it shouldn’t. In my experience, only mega-jerks boast about how and where they choose to have sex. I don’t care. It’s none of my business. If I’m interested, I’ll ask, and since I’m not and never will be, I won’t, so shut the hell up.
Hello Fresh has now exposed its marketing department as tasteless and pandering, like all those cowardly, pusillanimous companies that slobbered all over Black Lives Matter. I remember a late night D.C. horror movie TV host got himself fired for suddenly talking about smegma between reels of “The Brain From Planet Arous.” I thought his outburst was hilarious, but it didn’t belong on TV, and that was the end of “Gore DeVol.” This ad should be the end of Hello Fresh if there’s any justice in the world, and we know there isn’t.
I’m going to ask anyway, though I know my answer…
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is the Hello Fresh “Pride” ad alluding to anal sex just in terrible taste and icky, or is it unethical, as in wrong?
________________
Pointer: Willem Reese
Ethics Alarms 
OH…..
MY…..
GOD!!!
No wonder people from other countries think Americans are nucking fucts!
Our culture and society are completely fucked!
Apparently, bigass companies learned absolutely nothing from the Bud Light debacle. When you alienate your core market, you should expect that core market to look for other service providers. Maybe Hello Fresh caters to a liberal/left-of-center or whole-foods type of customer, but after a while, even they will reconsider their choices of services.
jvb
I actually hate that I’m in the position of defending this, but you all are so far out over your skis that I have to. I’d be more than willing, happy, and content to make fun of all the companies that updated their corporate logos with rainbow hues for the month of June to compete in the Pander Olympics, all the companies that will update their logos on Twitter accounts in western nations, but leave the Middle East ones black…. It’s so brazenly pandering that I low key kind of find it funny.
But then there are outsized responses like this, where not only were you so far over your skis you could taste the wax, but it was so jarring that you were almost made self aware enough to correct yourself, even if you ultimately didn’t.
“[Did companies learn] absolutely nothing from the Bud Light debacle? When you alienate your core market, you should expect that core market to look for other service providers.”
The lesson from Bud Light wasn’t “Don’t do gay shit”, the lesson from Bud Light was “Don’t piss on your Brand”. My brother in Christ, are you really going to sit there and tell me that you think that Republicans were the Core Market for Hello Fresh? No. There is a difference between Bud Light, the blue jean wearing rugged everyman’s beer, and a meal delivery service only available in urban markets. They’ve literally run ads highlighting how much kale and quinoa they use.
Like I said… You know that’s insane:
“Maybe Hello Fresh caters to a liberal/left-of-center or whole-foods type of customer…”
You think? Right…. But then:
“…but after a while, even they will reconsider their choices of services.”
My eyes rolled hard enough back in my head that I bruised my ocular nerve and am temporarily blind.
but you all are so far out over your skis that I have to
Is this a gay euphemism or am I to take it in the ‘normal’ sense? 🙃
…?
I actually have no idea what you’re talking about.
Erm . . . where in “[w]hen you alienate your core market, you should expect that core market to look for other service providers” did I suggest “don’t do gay”? That is, quite possibly, the dumbest illogical extension of what I said. If anyone is out over his/her skis, I would suggest it is you, HT.
Bud Light “pissed” on its core market and lost billions of dollars because of it. It was a dumb marketing decision. This marketing ploy is equally dumb and the Alphabet Soup Alliance should be hacked that some idiot in an ad office thought it would be cool to bond the company’s barnd to anal sex. From what I remember of the 1970s and 1980s, the Alphabet Soup Alliance wanted to be treated with dignity and respect and afforded the same rights and privileges as other US citizens. This ad hurts that community because . . . well, you know why.
jvb
“Erm . . . where in “[w]hen you alienate your core market, you should expect that core market to look for other service providers” did I suggest “don’t do gay”? That is, quite possibly, the dumbest illogical extension of what I said. If anyone is out over his/her skis, I would suggest it is you, HT.”
The part where you’re assuming that they’re alienating their core market without any introspection of what their core market actually is.
Because it is so blatantly self-evident that the Core Market of Hello Fresh are exactly the kind of hyper-tolerant lefties living in cities that religiously practice panderation like it’s a religious tenet, and not the jeans-wearing, truck-driving, steak-eating market Bud Light had.
Although I agree with you that johnburger is wrong about the target market of Hello Fresh, do you, as a gay man, find this type of ad endearing? Granted you aren’t exactly in the target market yourself, but I’d venture to guess that a very good chunk of even hyper-tolerant lefties find this ad very distasteful.
It feels less like pandering to the hyper-tolerant and more like pandering to those who wear leather chaps to pride festivals. Overlap exists, but this still feels like an own-goal.
“Endearing” is a weird way to put it. Most ads aren’t, but they can still be effective. This one? I actually think that the add would be better without the first two lines, because “We know eating isn’t always a top priority this month” is awkward…. But the selling line itself? Sure. There’s a tie-in pun on meal prepping and sex prepping, it’s kind of cute.
I think there’s a lot of pearl clutching and couch-fainting going on here… There were commercials as far back as 1970 advertising vaginal douches on prime time (Massengill’s: “Do you ever feel…not so fresh?”) that fell out not because we’ve gotten more prudish since the 70’s but because douching has fallen out of favor. Then there’s the poop commercials, like all the bran that’s going to keep you regular, or all the stomach medicines, or the toilet paper commercials. How about the menstrual commercials? How on Earth do all you fellas go about your day after being forced by an advertisement to face the reality that women bleed?
These commercials might not be for you, but not everything has to be. This ad is fine.
Gay men are usually two income no kid families. Either that or just single dudes with zero dependents who play the field.
Either one is the target demographic for overpriced groceries.
It depends, as most answers do.
If you think homosexuality is a sexual disorder, you’re automatically going to think this is degeneracy.
If you think homosexuality is neutral but sex stuff needs to be kept private (all sex, homosexual or otherwise), then you will probably see this as morally wrong in a lighter way.
Then there is the ick argument, more of a matter of cultural taste like not wearing shirts with swearing or sexual innuendos on them. Wrong? Maybe not, but definitely in poor taste.
I think most people probably come down on the keep it private and it’s really kind of wrong to flaunt it and the bad taste. At minimum though, flaunting your brand by advertising how it will help you with specific sex acts is tasteless.
“If you think homosexuality is a sexual disorder, you’re automatically going to think this is degeneracy.”
Nope.
To Jack’s point, just shut the hell up. I don’t want to know the lurid details of people’s sex lives, no matter who it is.
It’s just crappy behavoir. Like the morons that think “clever” advertising plays on foul language is ok, or the morons who started the foul language when speaking about our political figures. And let’s look at that fairly, once you start with “Bushitler”, FDJT got easier, and let’s race to the bottom with FJB.
This is just one more example of how crass society has become.
Oh, but because it’s gay sex, well, that’s ok then.
How ’bout No.
No pun intended?
Ha! Didn’t even catch that…
Nothing says “fresh” like anal sex, I suppose!?
Now it’s the only thing that I can associate with the brand when I see it.
🤮 Too gross. It’s stuff like this that makes me want to revive a certain tide.
This interests me because, in fact, there is no way to initiate a counter-movement in the wider world because any social movement that inhibited or blocked or limited the “freedom” of sexual deviants in our present would incite nearly a revolution of righteous indignation.
As it happens (is happening) I read that 1-in-7 youths have experimented with an AI romantic partner. There will come a day when the integration of AI into social life and more directly into the physical life of individuals will be offered as a product. It can be left to the imagination what will be devised.
That’s probably inevitable. The components already exist, though they require a bit of further development, integration, and scaled-up production to make them reasonably available to the public. Realistic (or not) sex dolls, robotics, and AI will be combined. AI like Grok can already be adjusted to interact in various modes (combative, agreeable, humorous, etc.) as preferred by its user.
What this will mean for societies, countries, families, etc., etc. is anybody’s guess. Think I’ll have to go re-watch Blade Runner, now.
There is a movie called Her that you might appreciate. It deals about a man who develops a relationship with an AI (voice of Scarlette whats-her-name).
So, if you’re gay, you’re supposed to be having lots of sex during Gay Pride Month? More than any other month? I didn’t know that. Gay guys “prep” in anticipation of having sex. I guess it makes sense, but I didn’t know that. To me, among other things, this reeks of “inside baseball” kind of stuff shared among the cool kids, which is pretty juvenile and I thought it had gone out of style. Hello Fresh is clearly saying to gay guys, “We’re queer, and we’re here.”
to the extent that it alludes to sex, much less anal sex, it is Ick!
to the extent that it implies Pride Month celebrates a stereotypical homosexual male form of sex (channeling Philip K. DICK: Do Lesbians Dream of Anal Sex?), it is unethical because it reduces homosexuality to a derided sexual act that only men engage in (translation: we want more scissoring).
while both apply, the resorted to sexual stereotypes places it more firmly in the unethical territory
-Jut
That’s sort of my take. Heterosexuals can, and some do, engage in anal sex, though I would guess a survey would return most people as putting this in the “Ick” category. For Hello Fresh to tie this directly to its “pride” customers could be seen as tone-deaf stereotyping as well as virtue-signaling.
But wait, there’s more!
Possibly verified is their follow-up of adding a discount code of “BOTTOMS UP” for the deal, per a customer’s suggestion.
Maybe just goofing around? …or not, considering the original offer…Or is the whole thing just meant to be (bizarre) satire by their marketing department? Poe’s Law applies.
Once you have “liberated” sexuality from reproduction, and from generating children, and raising children in sane and spiritual environments, sex will inevitably become a “sport”. And since it is a most powerful drive, and since it is also kind of a maddened passion, once there are no longer restraints on the expression (embarrassment and perhaps also shame), it captures people and drives them along. The only sane relationship to that entire field is (I suggest this is obvious) that which is defined when sex is understood as “sacramental”.
But given that that is not the case any longer, and given that the consequential choices were already made, the absolute liberation will only, can only, continue. If my understanding is correct, I believe that everyone grasp what the end of “it” actually is. Only because it is repeated again and again historically.
For the Dissident Right they refer to “the Weimar Republic” and a phase of degeneracy even more extreme than our own, as an eventuality that naturally calls forth reaction. In one way or another, and usually through definitions that are religious in origin (that deal on metaphysics as I always say). When things deteriorate so much it calls forth extreme forms of inhibition and this always involves authoritarian notions (of what is right and wrong, acceptable and not acceptable).
Again, in my view you have to see American culture as having well entered a decadent, declining phase. It is plain as the day. Politically, as is quite evident, democracy will become tyranny, as is now happening. But you cannot separate out from this everything associated with “liberation”.
Your self removal from participating on EA sure didn’t last very long.
Heh!
PWS
See, the way I see it is like this: You cannot get along without me. In your case especially. So, as long as “the plug is not pulled” I will, with more reserves and more restraint, continue to make socio-political comments on the reasons why we are in such a mess.
No wonder people from other countries think Americans are nucking fucts!
Our culture and society are completely fucked!
When I said a few days ago that many on this blog ‘complain’ about conditions but seem ignorant of the causes, I admit I was thinking of you. So, I have questions (that you will not answer but still they’re good):
Who thinks we’re fucking nuts? Everyone? Outer Mongolia? The denizens of Wyoming? And why do they think that? What is their reference point for having that perception?
What I say is peculiar (and will be ignored): The US is a country, a people, with a bizarre dual nature: angelical and satanic all in one. What would happen to you, or to Jack, or to numerous who write here, if this idea were considered? A nearly schizophrenic psyche is the American psyche.
Now, is this observation, to you, a consideration of ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” (i.e. irrelevant)? To me, it seems highly relevant, given that in the world’s psychodrama of prophetic suspicion, we are entering a consequential phase.
Or is this all “bloated weirdness” as far and “eccentricity” as far as concepts go?
The one comment that caught my attention was OWFitis’ “Nothing says “fresh” like anal sex, I suppose!?” This will have a negative and lasting effect on the “Hello Fresh” brand.
For that reason – such that it harms investors in the firm – it is wrong. If it was done to harm intentionally it was unethical. In either case, associating a product with bodily excrement has an ick factor that is off the charts.
I was thinking much the same. We’ve seen multiple companies absolutely tank their stock through poor marketing decisions that target a small slice of the country to detriment of the majority. I don’t know the demographics of “Hello Fresh” customers, so maybe for them it isn’t as risky a move. These meal prep companies seem to have an audience that is working couples, maybe with a child or two at most, since these are the people that have the income to afford such prepared meals, but are lacking on time to cook for themselves. These companies also tend to market more in dense, urban areas. Overall, it is possible that “Hello Fresh” customers are so largely liberal that the anal-sex marketing is just going to pass as bold and entertaining. So, did “Hello Fresh” step on the Dylan Mulvaney rake? I guess only time will tell.
I have two thoughts on this.
The first is my own ignorance of where we actually stand in the battle for cultural acceptance of homosexual activity. It used to be that the campaign was very deliberate in focusing on “love” and how unjust it was to keep two people who love each other apart. At the same time, the actual homosexual acts, especially sodomy, had to be downplayed because spending any time discussing the mechanics of homosexual behavior, especially male-on-male homosexual behavior, would turn the general populace away. So, are we now at a time when we can graphically discuss the mechanics of homosexual behavior in public and think no one is repulsed by it? Or is this a big misstep on the part of “Hello Fresh” that is actually going to backfire on the very demographic they are pandering to?
The second thought is that the increasing frequency of anal sex in our culture is really demonstrating how physically damaging the act really is. If smoking is unethical for the greatly increased risk of lung cancer, emphysema, and other health risks; if obesity is unethical for the increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, and other health risks; and if ultra-marathon running is (as our host as indicated in past posts) unethical for the increased risk of damage to the lower appendages, then surely anal sex has to be considered unethical for the severely increased risk of permanent damage to the colon, such a colon cancer, prolapsed colon, need to spend the rest one’s lift with a colostomy bag, and so on. We’ve already long known (not that it was considered polite to talk about it) that HIV spread so easily among gay men because the rectum tears very easily (certainly compared to the vagina) and greatly increases the risk of spreading blood-born pathogens. But more recently we’ve seen young women, even teenagers, who have come to their doctors with prolapsed colons and other issues caused by anal sex.
Of course, one key aspect that “Hello Fresh” brings up is that anal sex runs into the problem of excrement. That system is designed for expelling waste from the body. That waste is naturally high in E. Coli bacteria. This means that there are several reasons to try to expel as much feces as possible before anal sex, because placing a penis in an environment with lots of E. Coli is a direct route to urinary tract infections, and indeed, anal sex greatly increases the risk of UTIs in the active partner.
It is actually ironic that that “Hello Fresh,” which is trying to promote a healthy lifestyle, has pandered to a specific activity that is linked to so many increased health risks. But I know, I know, when it comes to sexual gratification, every other consideration becomes irrelevant.
Excellent commentary by Ryan and Chris, as always.
jvb
I agree with you. It has been a long journey for me from someone who was raised conservative to parents who suddenly didn’t care to my own very liberal phrase to now coming back again and realizing exactly what it is I supported.
You can parse the argument though and say gay men can have sex in other ways. I think this may be getting too off point though.
The ad does illustrate something about our world though, and the fact people turn away means our ethics alarms are not completely dead.
Couple corrections, and then a larger point.
“then surely anal sex has to be considered unethical for the severely increased risk of permanent damage to the colon…”
“such as colon cancer”
Not really. Anal sex doesn’t cause colon cancer, HPV does. And HPV would cause just as much vaginal cancer as it causes anal cancer, except that girls are given HPV vaccines as part of the normal vaccine regimen and boys aren’t. I’m not sure whether withholding HPV vaccines from boys is sexism or homophobia, but it’s one of the very few actual systemic bigotries creating real problems in modern practice. Even among the straights: There’s an emerging trend of boys getting throat cancer because the prevalence of cunnilingus is on the rise.
Just curious… Have you ever moralized to young men that giving oral is unethical?
“prolapsed colon”
I guess, technically possible… But you have to be doing some pretty violent things with some very large objects to get there. I’d bet money that more women prolapse during childbirth than gay men do from normal sexual behaviors.
“need to spend the rest one’s life with a colostomy bag”
I don’t know what this is referring to, and so I’m not sure this is even actually a thing. I’ve completely destroyed my Google history, and I’m not coming up with anything solid. I think my answer is similar to the answer about prolapse, but honestly, if that’s rare, this is a unicorn. Between this and the e. coli point below, I have the impression that as opposed to this being your own knowledge, you Googled something like “risks of anal sex” and paraphrased everything on it.
“HIV spread so easily among gay men because the rectum tears very easily (certainly compared to the vagina) and greatly increases the risk of spreading blood-born pathogens.”
I mean… Not technically wrong, but also not materially correct. HIV spread so easily among gay men because there were subcultures that were having a lot of casual unprotected sex. Sure, there’s technically a higher transmission rate in anal sex, but the difference in transmission rates between vaginal and anal sex is orders of magnitude smaller than the difference in transmission rates between intimate partners and casual partners, or between partners engaging in protected or unprotected sex.
I’m sure you would be more than inclined to make those points as well, but I wonder where you would rank them: Which do you think is the more deviant relationship: A very straight man that hooks up with a lot of also very straight ladies, or a gay guy married and faithful to his husband?
“Of course, one key aspect that “Hello Fresh” brings up is that anal sex runs into the problem of excrement. That system is designed for expelling waste from the body. That waste is naturally high in E. Coli bacteria. This means that there are several reasons to try to expel as much feces as possible before anal sex, because placing a penis in an environment with lots of E. Coli is a direct route to urinary tract infections, and indeed, anal sex greatly increases the risk of UTIs in the active partner.”
I guess, technically. I think more fellas do this because it’s cleaner than for the health reasons, but sure. I also think “greatly” greatly exaggerates things – UTI rates of gay men are still less than those of straight women.
But all of this is kind of irrelevant. We drink liquor, we eat bacon, we watch too much TV, sitting is the new smoking, and some people still smoke. There’s all kinds of shit we do on the daily that carry all kinds of risks of adverse health risks. Heck, owning a gun makes you something like 400% more likely to be shot by a gun in your lifetime. You don’t ever seem to articulate all those other risks or moralize about them quite the same way you do this. I have the impression, and feel free to dissuade me of this, that it’s because you engaged in an exercise of seeking out justifications to arrive at the position you were already pretty sure you wanted to hold.
I just want to correct one thing here. The HPV vaccine is strongly pushed for all girls 9-14 and all boys 10-15. I see posters on it all over at any pediatrics office I have been in. It was in every room in the Cleveland Clinic Children’s location I went to, as well as all over in Denver.
Boys are as strongly pushed as girls to get the vaccine, just at slightly different ages. This is neither sexism nor homophobia.
It varies by state. There’s also a difference between “strongly pushed” and “part of the normal vaccine regimen”. In Virginia, as an example, in order for a girl over 9 to attend public school, she must be HPV vaccinated. There is no such requirement for Virginia boys of any age.
HT,
Thank you for replying! If you have the time and inclination, do you have any thoughts to share on my first point?
As to your concluding thought after examining each of the health risks I mentioned, I agree that there are many things we do that entail heath risks, and in general we accept a trade-off between those risks and the benefits we perceive we get from them.
As to why I would focus on and moralize about anal sex and ignore those others, I’m not sure where to start a reply. I’m more interested in sexual ethics than these other health risks, for a start. I’ve spent more time reading up about them than the effects of watching too much TV. (Though I do have a growing concern about the addictiveness of screen time, especially on smart phones and tablets, and that is coming from watching my daughters’ behavior modulate with how much screen time they’ve had.) I also have my biases, as you’ve noted. I’m highly influenced by Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and the growing body of Catholic thought on sexual ethics. I also believe that there should be good evidence in the natural world for declaring some particular action unethical, and yes, I look for that evidence. I like to believe that I am open to hearing and considering evidence that contradicts my stance, and that is also why I said, “Thank you.” You tend to bring a wealth of information to the table that I had not come across before.
To answer your questions:
No, I have not moralized to young men about giving oral sex. To the extent that I’ve said anything about any specific sexual act that is not intercourse, the main thrust of my discussion was how said acts should not be divorced from intercourse. In other words, given the way the brain becomes hyperfocused on sexual arousal once arousal starts, one should avoid behavior meant to arouse unless one is intending to have intercourse. And of course, that intercourse would be between a man and his wife, since this is Catholic sexual ethics I’m defending.
But I think your point is more to this effect: given the rise of throat cancer (which is also HPV-driven), would I be willing to condemn giving oral sex in the same manner in which I condemn anal sex? The answer is no, I would not. I’ll give it some more thought and see if I change my mind, but currently my argument is this. We have certain organs that seem to be naturally part of a sexual encounter: the genitals, of course; but our hands and our mouths seem to be fairly integral in the process, too. True, our mouths and hands are not in any way necessary to ensure semen ends up in the vagina, but there seems to be universality to passionate kissing and to running hands over each. However, the anus and rectum are part of a waste system not geared towards intercourse. So I see there is difference in kind, not just degree, between using the anus and using the mouth for sexual stimulation.
But what about the throat cancer? Here I think you’ve made a very good point that deserves a lot of consideration, and that is number of partners. The more sexual partners you have, the higher risk you have of contracting STDs, including HPV, which seems to be the driving cause of that increase in throat cancer. If the cancer risk disappears with monogamy, does concern about oral sex likewise disappear if it is only with your spouse? If I say yes, shouldn’t the same consideration be given to anal sex? If the cancer risk goes away if you are only ever with one sexual partner, isn’t the problem entirely from the multiple partners, not the specific sexual activity? Certainly for the case of cancer, I’ll agree. There’s still the problem of how the anus is decidedly not built for sexual activity.
You inquire as to whether what I’m discussing is my own knowledge or a paraphrase of a Google search. I suppose we could quibble over what actually counts as my own knowledge. I’m mostly using my memory of articles and papers I’ve read years ago, with some quick Google searching to try to refresh some details. I’ve conducted no scientific study of my own or even attempted to write a formal survey of these topics. I do prefer Google Scholar when trying to look up information, because that seems a better resource than just a general Google search. However, I’ll have to confess to using the Google AI more and more often to get a good starting point…
You’re questioning my reference of a colostomy bag. These are sometimes necessary in the aftermath of colon surgery, or if the anal sphincter is so stretched and loosened that it cannot keep fecal material in the rectum. So they can be a consequence of the consequences I mentioned.
Which do I find more deviant, the man who hooks up with many straight women, or a monogamous gay man? I don’t have an easy answer for this, in part because there are a number of different ways to interpret the man who hooks up with many straight women. I’m going to assume (and please let me know if I’m wrong about this) that when you chose “hooks up with”, you are very deliberately indicating this man’s relationship with these women is all about casual sex. Maybe the relationships, if they can be called that, last for a little while, but he has no commitment to these women and moves on to the next when he gets bored. In this case, the man is deviant for his reducing these women to a means for his use. In the case of the married gay man, the deviant aspect is in the intrinsic frustration built into a same-sex relationship. Because the former is directly willed, but the latter is the unintended consequence of the situation, I’d call the former more deviant.
Let me know if there’s anything else about my line of reasoning you’d like me explicate further.
Thank you for replying! If you have the time and inclination, do you have any thoughts to share on my first point?
There’s a wonderful podcast put on by Longview called “Reflector”, they did a three part miniseries this year called “Strange Bedfellows”. The episodes are about 40 minutes each, and I honestly think everyone here would do well to listen to at least the first one, which was the history of the movement up to the point the T got added… How the gay movement started around resistance to sodomy laws, how AIDS killed so many of us that leadership was hollowed out and Lesbians were brought in to fill that experience gap, creating the LGB alliance. They do a really good job of being grounded and honest, talking to people who were active at that time about what their motivations were and how over time the movement changed.
I think you’re right in that the motivations have changed, and I’ll be right beside you bemoaning the excesses of the current iterations of the movement. But I also think that what we’re looking at in this post isn’t excessive.
I also have my biases, as you’ve noted. I’m highly influenced by Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and the growing body of Catholic thought on sexual ethics. I also believe that there should be good evidence in the natural world for declaring some particular action unethical, and yes, I look for that evidence.
I think recognizing that you’re seeing it through that lens is honest, and I appreciate that. I obviously don’t ascribe to the same beliefs you do, but I at least understand and respect where you’re coming from.
But I think your point is more to this effect: given the rise of throat cancer (which is also HPV-driven), would I be willing to condemn giving oral sex in the same manner in which I condemn anal sex? The answer is no, I would not. I’ll give it some more thought and see if I change my mind, […]
I love the honesty. You go on and you’re pretty clear that your reasoning centers around intended biological purpose, and I’m going to take a stab at that:
Certainly for the case of cancer, I’ll agree. There’s still the problem of how the anus is decidedly not built for sexual activity.
That a cow was not built to be delicious does not make the steak less tasty, and I’m not convinced that that is in fact a problem. I think this is more of a Christian moralization seeking a justification than an actual rational problem: If someone finds utility in something outside the intended purpose for it, why is that bad? I’d like you to expand on why using something for a purpose other than the one it has been designed for is a problem. And to facilitate that, maybe take a step back and consider something a little less charged: People were not designed for night shifts, but I don’t think that anyone is going to argue working nights is morally bad.
I think recognizing that you’re seeing it through that lens is honest, and I appreciate that. I obviously don’t ascribe to the same beliefs you do, but I at least understand and respect where you’re coming from.
This is the part that is most interesting in the entire conversation of this thread. It is, essentially, that if a person no longer understands or accepts the core predicates of Christian/Catholic metaphysics, then there is no good reason to accept the rigorous “rules” that are expressed and defined, for example, in a traditional Catechism (the Baltimore Catechism for example).
Reading HT’s contributions, it is obvious that he does not define “the World” as “World” is defined metaphysically by Christian theology. This is common. In fact the stance of not defining life and being through metaphysical pictures and visions, leads to a consequence where “world” is nothing more than physical/material interactions and biological being. There is no “metaphysical dimension”.
It requires a developed, defined and structured metaphysical model and picture to support the view that “marriage is a sacrament”. On paper, for one outside of the metaphysical concepts, the statement has little or no meaning.
What is ultimately curious, to me, is that when the metaphysical model (of life, existence, being) has collapsed — as indeed it has! — there is simply no longer a larger model to abide by, or adapt oneself to, and obey. And that is exactly the point where “freedom” and freedom’s quest becomes the modern one. It is devoid of a higher reason because there is no ‘higher world’. There is just the world of material forces (blind, striving, immoral) and biological beings in that world. There is no Law, no Rule. Try to find one, you cannot!
So, in that world — this world — democratic freedom means, really, I do what I want. And what a woman or man wants defines the ethical and even the moral realm.
“It is, essentially, that if a person no longer understands or accepts the core predicates of Christian/Catholic metaphysics, then there is no good reason to accept the rigorous “rules” that are expressed and defined, for example, in a traditional Catechism (the Baltimore Catechism for example).”
Obviously. It’s not enough to smugly cite the name of a system of belief without demonstrating even an iota of comprehension of it… If you can’t articulate a reason that I should adhere to a rule other than that something you’re taking on faith says so, it would be ludicrous for me to adhere to it.
People, all people, constantly take for granted that other people know or believe things because they do…. But in my experience, the faithful are the most lazy hand-wavers out there, at least partially because they have to be: The basis of faith is an inability to provide or be provided with proof. But then you go one step further and appropriate some kind of moral superiority because you believe in something you don’t understand, and can’t describe.
But worse than that is that you look down the bridge of your nose and hector people despite doing exactly what you accuse them of.
In the absence of a metaphysical set of values, people like me have to craft their own set of values…. Sure. I’m good with that. I’m responsible for my values.
You? You are too. You’ve already said that you don’t hold Catholic beliefs, that you’ve approached certain doctrines with an a la carte attitude. You’re doing the exact same exercise that I do, except you attest to believe that there’s some kind of metaphysical control over your beliefs… Except that control never actually seems to control anything. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to claim moral superiority because you listen to the intrusive voices in your head.
What I said is that I am gnostic (not a Gnostic) in the sense that the Catholic system of belief is a series of ‘pictures’ or ‘emblems’ that present and represent truths about life and being that are metaphysical. I can allude to what metaphysics implies here — Weaver wrote about our “metaphysical dream of the world” — but explaining this to you would take time, just as it took me lot of time understand. The idea, HT, of an Avatar that descends from the realm of Heaven (world beyond manifestation) is the very essence of Christian belief, faith and understanding. Not only is this “factual” but you can prove it to yourself by prayer and questioning. You are ‘faithless’ (according to what you just said) but the fact is we are all in the same boat: we live in a world of duality: both very bright and very dark. But you see? I present you with a model of the world which you don’t have. In your world there is only materialism (matter) and biological beings. You cannot conceive of the Heavenly Agent (Avatar, Savior, Light Bringer) and so you are, like so many and like all of us, lost in Samsara. This is ‘metaphysical language’ that might make some sense to you (like poems make sense).
You want me to “explain” what only comes to woman or man as a result of inner processes of realization. You also likely believe I “stand in judgment of you” but that is false: I make very wide assessments about the soul that is struggling, often lost, down in a world of shadows and thickness, if that makes sense. I am irrelevant, you are irrelevant, and what is going on now and today in our world is my ONLY topic.
No, Alizia… Again, you don’t understand.
I don’t particularly care what you believe, I’m just not going to give it any weight so long as you purposefully shroud it in mystery. I have the impression that I won’t be any more impressed once the shroud is pulled back, because I don’t think there’s much to it… You were so cagey about it, and then after years of prying I find out that you’re a fickle pagan appropriating Catholic iconography in one of the most blatant cases of religious stolen valor I’ve ever seen.
What I find a little bit sad is that you think you’re being profound, when in reality you’re shallower than a mud puddle – professing to have all these very complex systems of belief, but never actually saying what they are… If no one other that you knows what your belief system is, and you refuse to tell us anything about it aside from the most sweeping generalizations and some gestures at doctrines from faiths that you do not profess to hold, why would we trust your conclusions?
I don’t know whether you’ve wasted gallons and gallons of digital ink assuming we give a shit about your crazed ramblings, or if you experience some kind of catharsis in expressing cryptic beliefs that you alone hold… But if you were never going to engage, couldn’t you just masturbate religiously in the privacy of your own home?
Obviously. It’s not enough to smugly cite the name of a system of belief without demonstrating even an iota of comprehension of it… If you can’t articulate a reason that I should adhere to a rule other than that something you’re taking on faith says so, it would be ludicrous for me to adhere to it.
Well, if you asked me to define the ‘very core’ of Christian/Catholic understanding and practice, it would involve a concept: Going up to the altar of God. It is the core of the liturgy. Think of a Grammar of Ascent (Newman). Language is expression of concept. The concept is elevation, ascent out of gross materialism. You boyfriend’s asshole is on a radically opposed pole. And injecting your semen into the orifice of defecation is — conceptually, metaphysically — a literal abomination.
Once man and woman have lost the thread of metaphysical understanding (that the soul has itself descended into matter, flesh and materialism (“the material entanglement”), endless series of calamities begin. But then there is a turning-point. And there are always Signs because there really is a Consciousness that rules this realm. And there is a route of ascent that is realized through a conceptual poetry.
I am forced to say things in this way because I perceive that people (like you) have lost the thread of understanding. It is not ‘you’ but vast masses of people.
Essentially then, what they have left are “butt-holes”. (That is a Symbol of course!)
“If you can’t articulate a reason that I should adhere to a rule other than that something you’re taking on faith says so, it would be ludicrous for me to adhere to it.“
You still haven’t articulated a reason.
You seem like a fair-minded person to me, so I want to ask you something.
Wouldn’t you agree that people can have sexual disorders the same way they can have other disorders? For example, people can hear voices that aren’t there. That’s a disorder because the brain is not working the way it’s supposed to.
Some common sexual disorders would be pedophilia, bestiality, and objectophilia, people attracted to children, animals, and inanimate objects, respectively.
The concept of a disorder assumes that there is a proper order to the mind and body. A normal, healthy person will do X, and person Y does not do X or does some distorted version of X for some reason.
The verdict of human history up to now has been a very mixed bag for homosexuality. Different cultures have approached the issue differently, with more or less acceptance, so the question about whether homosexuality is a disorder is on the person making the claim. It is not obvious that it is healthy, well-ordered behavior.
So, a sexual disorder seems to be based on the idea that the sexual attraction is for something that a healthy, normal person wouldn’t be attracted to, even if the person can’t help it, the same way someone who is schizophrenic didn’t choose to hear voices. The lack of choice does not show that something is not a disorder. It’s nearly an irrelevant point on the factual question of whether something is a disorder.
The question is somewhere around whether the sexual attraction is something healthy and natural for a human being. If you use the John Stuart Mill policy of “not hurting anyone,” it’s not clear how you could even argue against objectophilia. Live and let live!
Yet, something is clearly wrong if someone wants to marry their car. They aren’t even primarily attracted to people. It’s similar to how some people want to eat glass or rocks. Humans need certain types of nutrition, but people have a weird urge to eat objects that will actually kill them.
The sexual organs of male and female very naturally fit together. Without going into too much detail, it is a very obvious point. The sexual attraction naturally flows into a relationship that is healthy and normal. There is no harm being done. Men and women get together and produce offspring.
Homosexuality is in a category of its own relative to other things. It isn’t pedophilia because it isn’t attraction to children, but it is still at odds with how the basic sex organs work for human beings, sort of like someone doing something that won’t kill you immediately but is still pretty unnatural (like smoking cigarettes). So, to draw an analogy, pedophilia would be like eating rocks, heterosexuality is eating chicken and vegetables, and homosexuality is only eating junk food.
Anything that is going outside of what is naturally good for a human body and mind would be considered bad. There are degrees of course. Eating cupcakes everyday and getting chubby is not the same as being a chain smoker or getting hooked on fetanyl, but there’s still a fundamental order to what is good and bad for human beings in EVERY AREA OF LIFE.
So, my question for you is how homosexuality doesn’t fall into the disorder category. It violates natural human sexual anatomy and reproduction; it really tugs at the emotional balance of the ying and yang with women and men, and for gay men especially, it can be a very dangerous lifestyle.
None of this even requires a religious argument. It draws on natural law, but you don’t have to even believe in God to use the ideas. Think of “failure to thrive” or “not a good fit” if the argument seems too much like natural law.
Wouldn’t you agree that people can have sexual disorders the same way they can have other disorders?
Sure.
Some common sexual disorders would be pedophilia, bestiality, and objectophilia, people attracted to children, animals, and inanimate objects, respectively.
I might quibble with “common” there, but sure.
The concept of a disorder assumes that there is a proper order to the mind and body. A normal, healthy person will do X, and person Y does not do X or does some distorted version of X for some reason.
We’ve started to load some semantic language, and I see where this is going, but sure.
The verdict of human history up to now has been a very mixed bag for homosexuality. Different cultures have approached the issue differently, with more or less acceptance, so the question about whether homosexuality is a disorder is on the person making the claim. It is not obvious that it is healthy, well-ordered behavior.
I don’t know that all this follows… There were a lot of things believed almost universally by different cultures that ended up being wrong, something as subjective as the appropriateness of sexual practices seems… fraught. But I’ll grant you that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. But then, so is brilliance.
The lack of choice does not show that something is not a disorder. It’s nearly an irrelevant point on the factual question of whether something is a disorder.
I think the talking points about being gay not being a choice came more as a response to people who assumed that it was, as opposed to some kind of proof-point from our side.
The question is somewhere around whether the sexual attraction is something healthy and natural for a human being. If you use the John Stuart Mill policy of “not hurting anyone,” it’s not clear how you could even argue against objectophilia. Live and let live!
Yet, something is clearly wrong if someone wants to marry their car. They aren’t even primarily attracted to people. It’s similar to how some people want to eat glass or rocks. Humans need certain types of nutrition, but people have a weird urge to eat objects that will actually kill them.
I mean… Have you seen my car? On a more serious note, those things aren’t similar at all, one is very weird but probably harmless, the other kills you. This is also where the foreshadowed shift from “disordered” to “unhealthy” to “wrong” starts. “disordered” and “unhealthy” are clinical terms, and “wrong”, which is more of a morality descriptor, does not follow from them.
The sexual organs of male and female very naturally fit together. Without going into too much detail, it is a very obvious point. The sexual attraction naturally flows into a relationship that is healthy and normal. There is no harm being done. Men and women get together and produce offspring.
None of those assertions are actually universally true.
Homosexuality is in a category of its own relative to other things. It isn’t pedophilia because it isn’t attraction to children, but it is still at odds with how the basic sex organs work for human beings, sort of like someone doing something that won’t kill you immediately but is still pretty unnatural (like smoking cigarettes). So, to draw an analogy, pedophilia would be like eating rocks, heterosexuality is eating chicken and vegetables, and homosexuality is only eating junk food.
Not really. I think you’re trying to analogize to things with negative connotations to try prove a point by inference. Homosexual sex is more like chewing gum than smoking or junk food: it’ll never kill you, it feels good, and it doesn’t accomplish much else. But there’s also the connotation that hetero sex is somehow specifically nourishing, and I’m not sure that that’s actually true… I’d challenge you to articulate what, outside of procreation, is accomplished by hetero sex that isn’t accomplished by homo sex. And if your contention is that procreation is the nourishing thing, how you square that with people who are sterile, or use condoms.
Anything that is going outside of what is naturally good for a human body and mind would be considered bad.
Absolutely not. The foreshadowing is complete! We’ve transitioned from “not well-ordered”, to “disordered”, to “wrong”, to “bad”. I’ll grant you that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, but you’re going to need to explain why that’s actually a problem.
There are degrees of course. Eating cupcakes everyday and getting chubby is not the same as being a chain smoker or getting hooked on fetanyl, but there’s still a fundamental order to what is good and bad for human beings in EVERY AREA OF LIFE.
Capitalizing something doesn’t make it more true, and this in particular is not. Statements like this, massive generalizations, are where nuance goes to die. I could, theoretically, grant you that there might be something approximating a perfectly ordered lifestyle, that there is a perfect blend of diet, exercise, activities and socialization… No one lives it.
So, my question for you is how homosexuality doesn’t fall into the disorder category. It violates natural human sexual anatomy and reproduction; it really tugs at the emotional balance of the ying and yang with women and men, and for gay men especially, it can be a very dangerous lifestyle.
None of this even requires a religious argument. It draws on natural law, but you don’t have to even believe in God to use the ideas. Think of “failure to thrive” or “not a good fit” if the argument seems too much like natural law.
It might. Again… It’s not good enough to call something a disorder and walk away like you’ve accomplished something. It’s not good enough to call something unnatural and pretend you’ve said something profound. You can’t just say it’s in the same broad category as pedophilia and infer that it’s a fatal act like chewing rocks. You actually have to do the work of describing why this disorder is actually a problem. Some people have a disorder where their feet hinge like flippers, they win Olympic Gold medals. And then comes part two, which you almost touched for a second, but steered away from the third rail: You granted that being gay isn’t a choice. So… What’s the point in all this? Let’s say you’re right, and that I’m suffering from a disorder… What follows from that?
I’m also low key annoyed by the inference that gay relationships are somehow unbalanced or dangerous or that we fail to thrive… It’s always assumed that we’re the worst of us, that every relationship is the casual fling of 80’s bar culture, when in reality gay relationships have the lowest rates of domestic violence out of any category (lesbians have the highest), we have the lowest divorce rates (ditto, lesbians), we have the highest median family incomes, top out every happiness survey…. If the average couple functioned as well as the average gay couple does, the world would be a much more balanced place.
FWIW, HPV vaccine IS recommended for boys…at least in the US.
Oooops, someone already noted that. Sorry.
Right… And just in case someone misses that exchange:
“Recommended” is not “Required”, it’s not even “Offered to”. The vaccine schedule varies by state, but most US states do not provide HPV vaccines to boys of any age unless they deliberately seek it. My example was Virginia, which requires the HPV vaccine for girls older than 9 to attend school, but never requires boys to have it.
the use of the term prepping is a link to the well advertised medication by the same name. prep is taken with n the hope of not contracting hiv.
That’s flipped from reality. Naming the medication prep was done for marketing reasons since the term was already in use by the gay community.
the use of the term prepping is a link to the well advertised medication by the same name. prep is taken with n the hope of not contracting hiv.
the use of the term prepping is a link to the well advertised medication by the same name. prep is taken with n the hope of not contracting hiv.
I saw it, and refrained from sending it to you. I too have the opinion that you shouldn’t share this kind of stuff…. and applied it to not sending it to you.
I don’t know guys…
I think it matters what we are talking about and why.
If you want to have a principled stance against overtly sexual advertisements… Sure. I can respect that stance. But in that case, it really feels like while this ad is sexual in nature, there’s a pretty hard stretch being done to find it particularly problematic, especially when compared to the billboard put up by Pinkcherry that featured a picture of an actual vibrator and the words “Scream Your Own Name!” or the Maxigel Lubricant ad that infers that their lube is so lubey that a woman was able to insert an entire boat bollard inside of her (although for fairness, I think we discussed that here), or basically any condom ad in the history of ever… Compared to what’s already out there, this seems kind of tame.
If you want to have a principled stance against pandering… I don’t know how that would function, particularly against the backdrop of advertising. All advertising is pandering, you’re trying to entice customers to buy your shit. I think there’s an argument that pride pandering might be a little different because as opposed to trying to entice purchases from the specific target demographic (gay men), the intent might be to signal membership in the broader progressive coalition and entice those purchases, but I don’t know if that actually makes a difference.
If you want to take a principled stance that anything that alludes to gay men shouldn’t be in public, because we’re icky and gross and deviant and sinning, well… You’re probably a great example of the reason why pride events still need to happen. I always am a little bit surprised at the levels of unaware entitlement straight people feel in the dissemination of their sexuality coupled with the overt hostility of anything else. I guess I understand why they’re unaware, it’s a milieux thing… but it’s just so jarring to someone who doesn’t swim in it.
The Pinkcherry ad that you referenced is equally tasteless; mentioning it is an “everybody does it” and “it’s not the worst thing” deflection. To some extent your complaint is redolent of the standard “the majority gets more attention than the minority” protest, which I believe is the nature of majorities, and its annoying, but get over it. In your face sexual details regardless of what they are is just uncivil, and there has always been an aspect to gay “pride” displays that aim to make people uncomfortable, and that’s just jerk behavior. My experience with gays is that they are no more jerks than anyone else, but a small percentage of jerks misrepresents the whole.
I think you’re chronically misdiagnosing this.
I don’t think companies are making ads assuming that they’re going to make people uncomfortable, I think they’re making ads for a specific group of people, and assuming that people will have the emotional maturity to treat those ads for other people like any other ad for other people.
Ever get triggered by a hair dye ad? How many ads for menstrual products do men have to walk by? How many Viagra commercials has the average woman seen? How about commercials for adult diapers by healthy young people? Kids diapers by people who can’t have kids? How many Christians walk by condom ads and suffer in silence?
I’m not *just* saying that everyone does it (although that is true) or that it’s not the worst thing (although ditto), I’m saying that if you can tolerate all of that, but you draw the line at this, the problem is actually you.
And I’m not saying you personally, because you’re at least consistent in having issues with overtly sexual ads, you’ve pointed them out before. I’m saying that I’m consistent in that I don’t have a big problem with these ads, and everyone who agreed with me on the Maxigel post but doesn’t here might have some explaining to do.
These ads? Come on: marketing and advertising hacks love buzz; I was in the game for a while, so was my father. The calculation is that the click and gawk controversy does more good than the “pearl clutching” does harm. And sometimes it works, like those deliberately semi-obscene ads that use coded vulgarities. The ads for cures for what my wife called “smelly puss” were also assaultive, and they ultimately failed, but for a while everyone was talking about that forbidding fat black model who said, defiantly, “My pits aren’t the only part of me that stinks!” Yeah, it made people aware of the product and what it was supposed to do, but that ad was pulled quickly.
So. Twenty-six comments later I think I figured out why the ad triggered people. Silly me, I thought that “prepping” had to do with storing emergency food and ammunition and digging spider-holes in the back yard….
I cannot be bothered about this gay pride stuff, although all the hoo-plaw caused by a special month is irritating — while actual veterans who served at various times to make such insanity possible get only a day, maybe 2 if you also count Memorial Day.
I am still not triggered by the ad. Partially this is because I like to take a more libertarian approach to sexual morality and refuse to be too upset about things. The other part is that I just do not get the sexual reference. Do you have to be gay to understand it?
I do not think this is an ethics issue but an “ick” issue.
I am not a marketer, and may be over my skies with the following statements. Food delivery services are more prevalent in metropolitan than in rural areas, primarily to younger people. Young urban professionals tend to have liberal values on sexuality including homosexuality, and may appreciate the ad for that reason. So the ad might not be a marketing blunder at all, like Budweiser.
Sex has always sold in advertising. I never had any issue with the use of attractive women for that purpose, and I am therefore not going to make an issue of something gay-themed.
The population segment that is the target of that official statement is a small abnormal* percentage of the overall population. When companies try to be part of the woke cabal and virtue signaling their wokeness, like this company is doing, it comes across to the “normal” majority as if the company is trying to force normal people to accept as normal that which is widely considered to be abnormal, and that’s going to cause push back. Choices have consequences, period. The official statement undermines the company, it’s in terrible taste, and it’s ick but others are going to have to convince me that it’s “unethical”.
*Abnormal: To help others overcome their fear of using the word abnormal, please read this 2022 essay titled What’s Considered Normal? There is nothing wrong with using the word abnormal, as long as it’s being used correctly.
I think this company’s Official Statement shows us a new low in our society’s race to the bottom of the gutter allowing everyone to crawl around in the muck of indecency. Remember the LGBT cabal has been fighting tooth and nail to keep sexually explicit materials in grade school libraries, including elementary school libraries. These people seem to think that decency is quaint.
How low will these people go?
What’s next?
If you want to have a principled stance against pandering… I don’t know how that would function, particularly against the backdrop of advertising. All advertising is pandering, you’re trying to entice customers to buy your shit.
Richard Weaver in his book on rhetoric said “All speech is sermonic”. He is a Platonist and bases his ideas on Phaedrus: That there are three ways for speech to affect us: 1) move to what is good, 2) what is evil, 3) fail to move at all.
What you wrote has the important phrase: principled stance. Rhetorically, you can try and try to defend and explain sodomy, but this will amount to advocacy. At least from a certain elevated stance, sodomy cannot ever be defended. It is comparable to the use of rhetoric for evil; it is mis-direction; and it is ‘disordered’. There is no principled stance that could defend it. And were there one, it would be by way of corrupted rhetoric.
You are extremely right advertising more often than not is a bad use of rhetorical power. It is trickery really. And then there is the notion of “The marketing of evil” which is a perspective generally only available to metaphysicians and religionists: Dependent on the possibility of defining what is ‘evil’.