Minor thought experiment on the idea that destigmatising certain male sexual behaviours - "understanding the poor suffering man better" - is the best strategy and will make something pro-social out of something anti-social.
What if we substitute a different human impulse that is anti-social rather than pro-social? Let's take theft. Some people are covetous. They get really distressed if they can't have the things they want. If they can't buy them, they steal them. Some become kleptomaniacs.
Well, it's sad for the kleptomaniac, isn't it? We live in a materialist society after all. Some people are more vulnerable to it. Some people are even born covetous. They remember those covetous feelings from when they were 3 or 4. They were born that way, poor things.
We shouldn't stigmatise them. We should help them. Shop owners should accommodate them, not ban them from the premises. Even set aside a portion of stock for them. We shouldn't take them to court, send them to prison. That would be bigotry. They can't help it.
You're laughing, right? Because there is nothing pro-social about kleptomaniacs going about stealing from others. It's anti-social. Duh. And so are many other things. That's why we have laws and social conventions. To prioitise the pro-social and minimise the anti-social.
So ask yourself: why is any male sexual behaviour that causes harm to, or threatens the rights of, others, treated any different? It's okay to stop laughing now. It's not funny. Men can control themselves and if they can't we should make them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
