Posted on 01/09/2013 1:39:16 PM PST by oliverdarcy
A public university plans to offer a course this spring on “sibling incest in theory and literature,” Campus Reform learned on Tuesday.
According to the University of Missouri’s official description, the class will “examine the deployment of erotic desire, love, and sympathy as political, economic, and textual strategies, and analyze the gender dynamics involved in such deployment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreform.org ...
Please ping your lists and call your state representatives. There is no reason for the taxpayer to support an endorsement of perverted behaviors that are (still) against (what passes for) “the law.”
Those are some really sick bast#$ds at that university. Cut all funding to ANY college who teaches such crap. Time to take a hold of this country!
You are making a good point. The mythological and literary impact of this theme is evident - it is even found in the story of Abraham and Sarah. In 17th and 18th century French novels, they were very fond of the story of a young lady and gentleman who meet, fall in love, then find out they are a long lost brother and sister. They then flee away and live in some remote place.
When I first saw this thread, I was going to put in a post saying:
“And what’s wrong with that? Signed, Lord Byron.”
As much as we blame the colleges for these courses, they are not the REAL problem. The real problem is the parents that PAY to send their kids to those colleges, co-sign for loans, and then look the other way when their kids tell them to “Back Off!!”.
I suspect half of the FReeper parents out there are like that. Why? Simple - they want their kids to get that college degree and NOTHING is more important. So if the kid wants to take Art History, then fine, the kid takes Art History. Is the degree productive? Of course not, but it is still better than nothing (in an academic sense), in that the kid likely can now read, which is more than can be said for today’s high school graduates.
But the bottom-line is that the ONLY reason that colleges get away with this crap (and their high tuition) is because of parents that enable it.
“At WVU the course is titled ‘Animal Husbandry’.”
My God, that’s even worse - promoting bestiality. How far must this go. The next thing you know there will be a play about a woman falling in love with her horse!
i think this class is crap... however, i don't think higher education should solely be about preparing one for a specific job... at least that is not the kind of education i want for my boys... okay--my two cents...
hear, hear! you and i believe the same...
Long, long before the left began its long march through the institutions, ruining most of the American university outside of science and engineering department, John Alexander Smith, the Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford prefaced a two year lecture course with a remark the core of which is often misattributed to Churchill or Macmillan (both of whom may well have quoted it):
Gentlemen, you are now about to embark on a course of studies that (will) form a noble adventure…Let me make this clear to you. ..nothing that you will learn in the course of your studies will be of the slightest possible use to you in after life – save only this – that if you work hard and intelligently, you should be able to detect when a man is talking rot, and that, in my view, is the main, if not the sole purpose of education.The problem with courses of the sort described (leaving aside the possibility that this one will seek to normalize incest) is not that they do not prepare students for jobs, but that they are antithetical to the purpose of education Smith suggested: rather than teaching students how to detect rot, they teach them to talk rot.
How you going to ask mom and dad for money for that class?
Now I see why they joined the SEC.
Easy. Their intent is for a student to ask their dad and dad or mom and mom for it.
Mr. Darcy, is that really you!
Pass the smelling salts.
“Exactly what job does this course prepare someone for?”
1. University Professor.
2. Activist.
3. Community Organizer.
4. Community Leader.
5. Council Member.
6. Professional Student.
In case anybody is wondering, the photo in post 18 is of that freak, Angelina Jolie, and her brother.
She and her ex-husband, Billy Bob Thrornton, use to wear vials of each others blood on a chain around their necks, by the way.
I do think we need to know more before jumping to conclusions. This might be a legitimate course, but questions do need to be asked.
Prof. Engelstein’s focus appears to be German history and sociology prior to World War II. I could easily imagine an entirely appropriate course on the Bohemian collapse of basic morality that happened in that era and helped create the moral revulsion that caused support for the rise of authoritarianism. I could also imagine a course on incest from a law enforcement perspective, or a course on how, with the breakdown of the extended family unit due to urbanization, the term “incest” came to be limited to parental or sibling relationships, not cousin relationships.
We need to make sure we've got the right target before firing, but this does not look good. Let's make sure the right questions get asked.
____
Here are links to some academic websites on Dr. Engelstein:
http://lssp.missouri.edu/leadership
http://grs.missouri.edu/people/engelstein.html
http://darwindays.missouri.edu/committee.php?id=stefani_engelstein
_____
The article is off the Tribune website, but since nothing is ever **COMPLETELY** off the internet, here's the cache:
Idea behind Akin’s rape comment has ancient roots
By RUDI KELLER
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
U.S. Rep. Todd Akin’s explanation of how a woman's body prevents pregnancy during rape has been roundly condemned as false, but as the controversy has unfolded, he has revealed that his source for the idea is a doctor who also has advised Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The idea might have its roots in ideas that were widely held from about 300 B.C. until the Age of Enlightenment, which is dated to have begun about 1785, said Stefani Engelstein, director of the Life Sciences & Society Program at the University of Missouri.
“From at least 200 or 300 B.C. through the Enlightenment, people thought both partners needed to come to orgasm and release something that would form the offspring,” Engelstein said.
A woman would not orgasm during a rape, and that made pregnancy impossible under that set of ideas, she said. If a woman became pregnant, it was interpreted as she was probably lying, she said.
“Blaming the victim was always a component of the theory that women needed to experience pleasure to conceive,” Engelstein said. “It allowed people to claim that women were deceptive because their bodies told one story and they themselves another and that women in general were also more lascivious than they might claim to be.”
But I congratulate you on noting how freedom of pedophiliacs and from the taboo of sex with your own children combines to fit someone's twisted agenda. Rush noted today how he'd been questioned for simply mentioning an article on pedophiles as a "legitmate" interest group. Sigh.
Dr Judith Reisman has been warning of this for years. MANY YEARS . Read her books. She exposed Masters and Johnson research as perverse. She is a dynamic, fearless speaker. A priceless resource.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
I believe I agree with Darrell here.
This could be a legitimate course - BUT - It needs to be looked at very closely.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
I believe I agree with Darrell here.
This could be a legitimate course - BUT - It needs to be looked at very closely.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
I believe I agree with Darrell here.
This could be a legitimate course - BUT - It needs to be looked at very closely.
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.