Posted on 02/07/2011 4:20:12 PM PST by wagglebee
A few days ago I complained about positive book reviews for a new book that partially involves explicit depictions of sexual intercourse between a chimpanzee and a woman, with the reviewers either lauding the bestiality or praising it with non damnation. I saw the acceptance of bestiality/literary porn as a disturbing symptom. Here is part of what I wrote in that post:
This is a real storm warming. Positive and pornographic depictions of bestiality are nothing to smile about or shrug off. Standing against the normalization or acceptance of bestiality is far more important than having our “sensibilities” offended. As I have written elsewhere, it is a crucial matter of defending and upholding human dignity.
And now–just as I expected–the grand dame of book review publications, the New York Times Book Review, seals the degeneration. Not only does the reviewer Christopher R. Beha–yes,of course! the editor of Harper’s–find the bestiality perfectly fine, but he looks down his intellectual elite nose at those who wouldn’t agree. From “Primal Urges:”
Hale’s daring is most obvious in his portrayal of the relationship between Bruno and Lydia, which eventually breaks the one sexual taboo even Nabokov wouldn’t touch.
Such material will prove an insurmountable barrier to certain readers, the same ones who will never pick up “Lolita.” And the depictions of interspecies love are certainly discomfiting, but not for the reasons you might imagine. Ultimately, the point of these scenes is not to shock us but to ask what fundamentally makes us human, what differences inhere between a creature like Lydia and a creature like Bruno that disqualify the latter from the full range of human affection. In a twist that sounds heavy-handed when summarized but is expertly managed, Lydia suffers an illness that leaves her helpless and aphasic, reduced to her animal self, making the differences between the two seem even more superficial, and their need for each other even more moving..
Please. We rubes understand the subversive game that is afoot among the liberal intellegentsia when they laud works that undermine traditional morality, and more specifically–as in Beha’s statement quoted above–applaud destroying the principle that being human is something unique, important, and special.
Disdaining even fictional accounts of human/animal sexual intercourse is important to both upholding standards of moral decency and a proper respect for human exceptionalism. Color me disgusted, but alas, not surprised.
God's messengers were not raped! They blinded everyone and next Lot and his family are heading for the hills!
Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. The Sodomites WANTED to rape the angels, Lot offered his virgin daughters instead.
Read, read, read, and then think about what you are reading!
I don't know where else to start.
I would be happy to offer suggestions, but I don't think you would like them.
I'm busier than a three-legged cat in a barn full of rats and you two knuckleheads can't read. READ!
As I stated earlier, it's your comprehension that is the problem.
I understand why all you folks don't want to look at this world right now, it is horrible.
Agreed, so why did you try to sidetrack this thread into a debate about which translation of the Bible is better?
But if you don't watch or read so you know what is going on for your self at least read our Father's letter yourself, not what some other person who listened to someone else and all of them are just coughing up the same ole hairballs.
You aren't making nearly as much sense as you think you are. My guess is that the rattlesnake venom has built-up over time.
Get yourselves an old KJV not an NIV and read.
I don't consider either translation to be valid, but the desire of the Sodomites in Genesis 19:5 is pretty clear in both of them.
LOL. Rattlesnake venom.
What translation do you like best, wagglebee? We’re trying different ones right now.
In other words, you’re totally psychotic.
Okay, got it.
This is certainly interesting.
I mistakenly thought you were truly upset at this.
metmom, you have a great idea. Just toss me in with my trash and set me out of this.
And I will bid you gentle folk a good night.
Your bewilderment is not surprising.
I mistakenly thought you were truly upset at this.
I have neither the time nor inclination to catalog the mistakes you have made on this thread.
metmom, you have a great idea. Just toss me in with my trash and set me out of this.
Your remedial comprehension skills have caused you to totally misunderstand what metmom said.
And I will bid you gentle folk a good night.
Be sure to take your medication.
Your point is what?
Courtesy ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.