Just learned that this is an actual quote from Roger Scruton in his 1986 book, Sexual Desire
Consider the woman who plays with her clitoris during the act of coition. Such a person affronts her lover with the obscene display of her body, and, in perceiving her thus, the lover perceives his own irrelevance. She becomes disgusting to him, and his desire may be extinguished. The woman’s desire is satisfied at the expense of her lover’s, and no real union can be achieved between them
damn this guy's a loser — Maw
It's got nothing to do with a general postion against masturbation nor the sexual revolution — TheWillowOfDarkness
My point was the comment had more in that just a case against general masturbation. He specifically referred to how a woman touching her clitoris was terribly because then the man wouldn't be in his rightful postion as sole actor/pleasure giver.
I care entirely about the context he's speaking in here: that the act is so terrible because it means the woman is more than a man's object. — TheWillowOfDarkness
the man wouldn't be in his rightful postion as sole actor/pleasure giver. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It does apply because the in question is defined not on a comparison between intentions of men and women, but by the effect on a woman. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The issue isn't women being emotionally upest. It Scurton's understanding of who women are and ought to be — TheWillowOfDarkness
it is a fact of his understanding of women, that he holds they are just objects — TheWillowOfDarkness
"In a leaked e-mail, he was shown to have suggested that the cigarette company extend his two-year-old contract by a further £12,000 a year in return for his placing of articles in the media defending smokers' rights.
In the e-mail, Prof Scruton advised the company that it could avoid giving the health department details of its cigarettes' ingredients by claiming that to do so would give away "trade secrets"."
He deserves to be called a few names. Which I will leave to the reader's imagination. — Baden
a tangent of questionable relevance to be fair. — Baden
Just because one repressed idiot writes that people shouldn't masturbate doesn't make it a law for all women, and telling him that he should not have the right to express his views would have a more chilling effect than does risking exposing his views to women. — VagabondSpectre
Most of those who excoriated Eaton replayed parts of the interview that made his tweets look misjudged but ignored the uglier parts of Scruton’s views. Like Eaton himself, they seemed more interested in feeding the outrage machine than in illuminating debate. So we have a curious situation in which Scruton is sacked for his comments, there is ire at how his comments were presented by an editor on Twitter, but little discussion about his actual views, their context or consequences.
Part of the problem is that the conditions for fruitful public debate involve many elements, some of which may seem contradictory: a willingness to be robust in one’s critique while also being charitable in interpreting our opponents; refusing to portray opponents as simply “evil, pernicious and wicked” while also not ignoring that which is so; being committed to free speech but also to a kind of speech that allows debate to flourish.
To be fair, I think I would not sack a distinguished professor from a post as advisor over one controversial remark. But when you add the many questionable remarks on various topics to the questionable ethical behaviour, a picture emerges of a rather nasty piece of work, bringing the government into disrepute (if only it had any repute to dis). — unenlightened
Having read a few of Scruton's books, I would defend him as a subtle and humane thinker. — jamalrob
I do think it's somewhat relevant to the larger issues addressed here as it relates to Scruton's character, or lack thereof. It establishes (if true) that he's been dishonest about his aims & motivations in the past, and may therefore be dishonest in the cases under discussion here, anti-Semitism & Islamophobia. — Erik
↪fdrake Anecdotal evidence then. Or the weird assumption that porn is somehow representative of common sexual acts. — Benkei
Incredibly tiring and thorough research, I imagine. — fdrake
My psycho-analytical guess is that Scruton is disgusted with himself either for being excited about something he thinks is morally wrong or the insecurity it causes in him to make himself that vulnerable to the other. Since that uneasiness is caused by something the woman does, it obviously must be her fault. — Benkei
Here's my prescriptive take on sex: "Have fun and don't kill each other".
Scruton is a traditional conservative thinker and his hounding just shows that traditional English conservatism isn't so hip (never has been). What a surprise that leftists find him annoying.I think this is about right. Having read a few of Scruton's books, I would defend him as a subtle and humane thinker. However, I wouldn't defend his long-standing anti-immigrant views or his anti-anti-smoking writings, and I often disagree with him, e.g., on sex, politics, and music. But mostly I'd want to see these things addressed in debate, certainly not with offence-finding witch-hunts, misrepresentation and banishment beyond the pale. — jamalrob
Ah! And we hit the jackpot: Scruton is for Fox hunting! He obviously likes the sport.Really ? Like this ? On Foxhunting: ---- No mention of the fox. — Amity
the weird assumption that porn is somehow representative of common sexual acts. — Benkei
on the surface maybe and that's discounting the uncomfortable positions porn is filled with. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.