There is another kind of sexual attraction that is universally denigrated in our culture. Those who merely describe it get canceled. What is this forbidden and controversial kind of desire?
Love the ending quote :). I've been increasingly thinking of sexuality like stewarding a garden, which helps ground me in the elements of beauty, life, and fertility. I'm continuing to listen to different reads of the Butler work, but I think your defense of complementary, chaste sexual desire can largely be upheld alongside these critiques which note the erotic missteps and reductionism of his work.
I want to give a little push back on your critical conservative posture expressed when you say "...as feminists always do misinterpret descriptions of the natural world". Take for example Leah Libresco Sargeant, who's substack is "Other Feminisms" (https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/). Her work is deeply rooted in the natural world (see https://comment.org/designing-woman/). I assume you would be frustrated if someone uncharitably painted with a large brush "well conservatives always...", eh?
David, I am thinking about both of your comments. They are very important for me in determining what posture to take in my public writing. Generally, it is whether and how to take a politically conservative posture or a somewhat neutral one that appeals to "both sides," presenting the Christian intervention as a third way, or a perspective from outside the political spectrum/binary. I have impulses in both directions.
Before that, let me mention that MLA gave some really good perspective on Josh Butler here: https://tinyurl.com/d35n2fhb. I still think much of the criticism comes from a discomfort with male, heterosexual sexual desire, but MLA gives good background.
On feminism, I am a fan of Leah's and also of Mary Harrington - "reactionary feminist." But the feminism that is all around us is second and third-wave, and it wants women to be freed from their biological nature. The given nature of things it reads as oppressive, confusing what is socially constructed with what is natural. The question is whether Sargeat and Harrington's feminism is "feminism" in the sense relevant to public debate. That determines whether I can and should use "anti-feminist" rhetoric.
More to say, but for now, I'm expediting a UK copy of Mary Harrington's "Feminism Against Progress" so I can read and review it before the US release. That should give me some perspective.
Wonderful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I generally lean towards a "perspective from outside the political spectrum/binary," though I understand trying to appeal towards where people are at, connecting in with their current sensibilities. Like with feminism, I assume those who espouse feminism are desiring the well-being of women, so articulating a critique from a pro-woman perspective should work with where their gut is, but attacking feminism will immediately put up the walls. Leah's I think is very strategic in this, though I understand from the philosophic focus will be dealing with the actual inner-workings of feminist theory, in which case I think it is fruitful to say "third-wave feminists," so that general pro-women feminists who aren't well aware of the nuance of the various waves and camps within feminism will start to learn that it isn't merely pro/anti-feminism.
I recently read the story of Brother Andrew, and I was encouraged by his witness of being consistent in being known for what he was for, and not what he was against. He worked in Communist countries during the 2nd Red Scare, and he kept himself separate from the fear-mongering campaigns, and instead of preaching anti-communism, he preached only Christ. I'm trying to hold this example up for myself, a critique against my own tendencies to soap-box on the evils of capital idolatry and such, without maybe being so clear on the God who I worship, the goods I am seeking, and the people for whom I am seeking them (I could probably say that better). Tied in with this I think is one of the most difficult ethics of Christ, enemy love. Now I know there is a kindness in clarity, and I don't want to sugar-coat or be conflict avoidant. And I'm still wrestling with cultural positionality and the annoying ways that certain words virtue signal or alert to folks which camp your in---I don't want to play that game, yet that is at some level the constant game of communication...
I'll have to look into Harrington! That book looks promising. And yes, I agree that many reactions against the article are indeed uncomfortable with male heterosexual desire, though I expect many of these reactions are rooted in experiences from oppressive forms of controlling complementarianism or real sexual traumas. yet any totalizing attack of male sexual desire is unwarranted (baby with the bath-water scenario). There is a sense this general antipathy towards heterosexual desire has a dangerous cultural effect on men, castrating them in a sense, rather than teaching stewardship, sexual continence, etc.
Love the ending quote :). I've been increasingly thinking of sexuality like stewarding a garden, which helps ground me in the elements of beauty, life, and fertility. I'm continuing to listen to different reads of the Butler work, but I think your defense of complementary, chaste sexual desire can largely be upheld alongside these critiques which note the erotic missteps and reductionism of his work.
I want to give a little push back on your critical conservative posture expressed when you say "...as feminists always do misinterpret descriptions of the natural world". Take for example Leah Libresco Sargeant, who's substack is "Other Feminisms" (https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/). Her work is deeply rooted in the natural world (see https://comment.org/designing-woman/). I assume you would be frustrated if someone uncharitably painted with a large brush "well conservatives always...", eh?
David, I am thinking about both of your comments. They are very important for me in determining what posture to take in my public writing. Generally, it is whether and how to take a politically conservative posture or a somewhat neutral one that appeals to "both sides," presenting the Christian intervention as a third way, or a perspective from outside the political spectrum/binary. I have impulses in both directions.
Before that, let me mention that MLA gave some really good perspective on Josh Butler here: https://tinyurl.com/d35n2fhb. I still think much of the criticism comes from a discomfort with male, heterosexual sexual desire, but MLA gives good background.
On feminism, I am a fan of Leah's and also of Mary Harrington - "reactionary feminist." But the feminism that is all around us is second and third-wave, and it wants women to be freed from their biological nature. The given nature of things it reads as oppressive, confusing what is socially constructed with what is natural. The question is whether Sargeat and Harrington's feminism is "feminism" in the sense relevant to public debate. That determines whether I can and should use "anti-feminist" rhetoric.
More to say, but for now, I'm expediting a UK copy of Mary Harrington's "Feminism Against Progress" so I can read and review it before the US release. That should give me some perspective.
Wonderful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I generally lean towards a "perspective from outside the political spectrum/binary," though I understand trying to appeal towards where people are at, connecting in with their current sensibilities. Like with feminism, I assume those who espouse feminism are desiring the well-being of women, so articulating a critique from a pro-woman perspective should work with where their gut is, but attacking feminism will immediately put up the walls. Leah's I think is very strategic in this, though I understand from the philosophic focus will be dealing with the actual inner-workings of feminist theory, in which case I think it is fruitful to say "third-wave feminists," so that general pro-women feminists who aren't well aware of the nuance of the various waves and camps within feminism will start to learn that it isn't merely pro/anti-feminism.
I recently read the story of Brother Andrew, and I was encouraged by his witness of being consistent in being known for what he was for, and not what he was against. He worked in Communist countries during the 2nd Red Scare, and he kept himself separate from the fear-mongering campaigns, and instead of preaching anti-communism, he preached only Christ. I'm trying to hold this example up for myself, a critique against my own tendencies to soap-box on the evils of capital idolatry and such, without maybe being so clear on the God who I worship, the goods I am seeking, and the people for whom I am seeking them (I could probably say that better). Tied in with this I think is one of the most difficult ethics of Christ, enemy love. Now I know there is a kindness in clarity, and I don't want to sugar-coat or be conflict avoidant. And I'm still wrestling with cultural positionality and the annoying ways that certain words virtue signal or alert to folks which camp your in---I don't want to play that game, yet that is at some level the constant game of communication...
I'll have to look into Harrington! That book looks promising. And yes, I agree that many reactions against the article are indeed uncomfortable with male heterosexual desire, though I expect many of these reactions are rooted in experiences from oppressive forms of controlling complementarianism or real sexual traumas. yet any totalizing attack of male sexual desire is unwarranted (baby with the bath-water scenario). There is a sense this general antipathy towards heterosexual desire has a dangerous cultural effect on men, castrating them in a sense, rather than teaching stewardship, sexual continence, etc.