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

What's the context?

He's talking about masturbation

Yea I gathered that, but was he making a serious psycho-sexual point? (Maybe he is referencing or addressing the ideas of another?)

Is it founded in some larger psycho-sexual framework of his or was he using this to substantiate another point?

Edit: I guess he was trying to justify masturbation as harmful?

No it's just an exceptionally stupid sexist statement he made.

Far worse than that: it's a deeply sexist expectation that woman must have no interest in her own pleasure when engaged in sex with a man.

I don't think the passage is particularly sexist, unless you interpret any disgust in response to female masturbation as sexist. Scruton believes that all masturbation is obscene, whether male or female. Treating one's own body in that way, as a mere object, is obscene in his view, hence "the obscene display of her body". He thinks male masturbation is disgusting too, but it's not possible for a man to masturbate "during the act of coition" so the clearer case of the obscenity of masturbation intruding into the sacred act, as he sees it, of sex between a man and woman is female masturbation.

His views are fairly reactionary on this subject. He regrets the sexual revolution, which was a movement that I think was largely a good thing, especially in the way it expanded sexual freedom for women. So in the end his views do probably imply a more traditional role for women, that is, a restricted one. But this is a legitimate political position--traditional conservatism--rather than simple sexism or misogyny.

There's no gotcha here, no case for calling out. It's time to grow up and exit the vampire's castle.

But what are we to do with all these sharp wooden stakes?

But this is a legitimate political position--traditional conservatism--rather than simple sexism or misogyny. — jamalrob

What makes a political position illegitimate? Is it legitimate to propose 'a restricted role' for any group - blacks, Jews, women, homosexuals, whatever? It's all traditional.

There's no gotcha here, no case for calling out. It's time to grow up and exit the vampire's castle. — jamalrob

In case anyone wasn't aware of the reference, it's an excellent article. Though it's definitely pitched at people who are already very leftist.

Thanks, I should've linked to it.

Yes, in fact I would want to extend Fisher's criticism to cover all political interventions, not only the intraleft disputes that he addresses in the article. It's possible he wouldn't agree with me on that, I'm not sure.

The only comment I have on the article is that despite its great content it actually gets used as a device to bash 'witch hunt' leftists on the head with. Not really the author's fault most of what it did was fan the fire though.

gets used as a device to bash 'witch hunt' leftists on the head with — fdrake

Isn't that to be expected of an article that explicitly bashes witch hunt leftists?

Of course. I meant to convey that it, predictably, lead to a schism among witch hunt leftists and another witch hunt.

Edit: though, you don't actually 'see' the effects on those who were successfully persuaded by it and do not go on the witch hunts.

I see. Kinda feel like replying but we're off-course already.

Make a thread of it if you can be bothered. I fondly remember when North Star dropped it.

A: "He's right, we need to show solidarity regardless of petty disagreements, we care too much about dismantling the worldviews of allies and too little about defending and publicising our basic principles!"
B: "What a crypto-liberal this one is, you think that political results flow from reasoned disagreement? Can you just talk to the fascists and ask them not to kill you?"
A: "We're not talking about talking to fascists, we're talking about talking to leftists"
C: "Can't you see this is just another piece of divisive rhetoric from a bourgeoise ideologue? The old subordination of gender and race differences to 'the' class difference was debunked years ago'
D: "You vulgar intersectional fuckwads are the reason we're in this mess anyway"
E: "Well you're fucking racist for lumping post colonial critical theory in with the vulgarisation of standpoint epistemology and privilege theory that shows up on fucking Twitter"

Edit I forgot F, directed at people who had the same response as me: "You people who find all this funny with your apolitical ironic detachment are the fucking worst"

It's got nothing to do with a general postion against masturbation nor the sexual revolution. The sexism of the statement is in the expectation the man will be the only one who takes action within a relationship.

He didn't attack any old masturbation in that context, he specifically spoke of the women touching herself during coitus, only account it was meant to be the sole provision of the man to deliver her pleasure within their sanctified relationship-- that the man would (and should) be disgusted she took some action, felt something, unless he was the one doing it.

It's a toxic and possessive masculinity which doesn't recognise the woman as a person within the relationship.

:rofl: :cry:

I don't think the passage is particularly sexist, unless you interpret any disgust in response to female masturbation as sexist. Scruton believes that all masturbation is obscene, whether male or female. Treating one's own body in that way, as a mere object, is obscene in his view, hence "the obscene display of her body". He thinks male masturbation is disgusting too, but it's not possible for a man to masturbate "during the act of coition" so the clearer case of the obscenity of masturbation intruding into the sacred act, as he sees it, of sex between a man and woman is female masturbation. — jamalrob

No, the passage demonstrates a profound ignorance of female sexuality, given the importance of clitoral stimulation for most women during sex. Not sure how familiar people generally were with this in 1986, but it also substitutes communication between partners (e.g. "how do I make sex great for you") with unilateral disgust.

No, the passage demonstrates a profound ignorance of female sexuality, given the importance of clitoral stimulation for most women during sex. Not sure how familiar people generally were with this in 1986, but it also substitutes communication between partners (e.g. "how do I make sex great for you") with unilateral disgust. — Maw

While I largely agree with you, I'm amused that critiquing someone's morality can now mean telling them how to fuck better.

If you think about it, how one approaches sex might say a bit on how ones views morality.

Yes. Though, I'd love to see a conservative response longing for a return to the conditions soon after the sexual revolution, rather than what can seem as the sanitised discourse we can have about it now; I'm tempted to say the idea of being surprised by your desires and how you relate to someone is a bit at odds with the 'establish verbal consent before doing anything' memes you see about it.

How did Scruton come to know about this practice of women rubbing their clits AND become aware of its widespread use?

Incredibly tiring and thorough research, I imagine.

Certainly not because he personally experienced it and made him sad.

I mostly feel sorry for him/amused by his silliness on clitoris's.

For this previously mentioned issue though:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1382831/Writer-fired-over-tobacco-links.html

"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.

Conservative intellectualism is funded by and is in service to capital

He deserves to be called a few names. Which I will leave to the reader's imagination. — Baden

I won't. 'Malevolent' springs to mind.

his views do probably imply a more traditional role for women, that is, a restricted one. — jamalrob

My views imply a more restricted role for Roger Scruton. He affronts me with an obscene display of sexism, racism and the willingness to covertly propagandise on behalf of tobacco companies for money. A legitimate political position, and a malevolent one.

Conservative intellectualism is funded by and is in service to capital — Maw

I don't know what to say about this. This is wrong on a few levels and unbecoming of you considering your regular quality of posts.

Let's hear it then.