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

The problem with that sort of nonsense--and there are tons of examples of this sort of thing, including things that are very noncontroversial that many people readily agree with, is that the person is assuming that their interpretation, their biases, their hang-ups, are in any sense universal.

This tells us a lot about Scruton's beliefs, and his personal hang-ups, including his self-centeredness and/or arrogance in assuming that his pitiful dispositions suggest any broader truth.

it's an excellent article — fdrake

:up:

I find it too eager to abandon the question of what one is doing to others. The distinction between "sexist" and "a person who does something sexist" is not one I'm down with.

People are always rasing the distinction to contrast their moral worth against those who are "the actual sexists." Supposedly, they get to hold they are really just fine in their actions, for it is someone else who is the real monstrous sexist. It's a comparison which doesn't take the effect of their action seriously.

In this social context, people are described as sexist for a good reason: to indicate what they've done is not some trival act, but one of morally seriousness (just like the stuff monstrous sexists do).

The guilt analysis doesn't fit with my experiences, even amongst "Tumblr" style communities people are always complaining about. I've have seen "wokeness" turned into a social credit and used in popularity contexts, but this is distinct from guilt.

In my experience of these sort of communities, let's call them intersectional, guilt doesn't factor into much. Coming from a position of knowing structural power relations, there's not really space for this kind of guilt.

If one has done something sexist in past, for example, it's a descriptive fact one has done something sexist/was sexist. One can regret or be ashamed of what they did, but agonising gulit isn't part of equation. You know you were sexist. You can't do anything about it or change it. You know you can only to better in the future.

Gulit, it seems to me, is a response or implication taken by those who do not understand this social context. Those who are unwilling to accept they have done wring. People who cannot stand the thought of being sexist because it would mean they've done something wrong.

I don't doubt guilt is choking people, but it's not found from people identifying sexists, even in Tumblr popularity hunts. It in our unwillingness to accept we have done wrong. We are guilty because we insist we could never be the type of person who is a sexist.

It's got nothing to do with a general postion against masturbation nor the sexual revolution — TheWillowOfDarkness

But it does, because that's the context in which he made the statement. As I guessed, he is broadly against masturbation in general for ultimately sexually conservative reasons which most of us disagree with, but it's not sexist if he is applying his judgments to both men and women equally (the quote we read was him addressing female masturbation during coitus, but there's additional context surrounding it that doesn't make it seem like he is singling women for special mistreatment.

If you don't care about context, then you don't care about what he actually meant, and if you cal him sexist on the grounds of "how you feel about what he said" instead of "what he actually said and meant", then you're just helping to make the charge of sexism incoherent.

There's a new interpretation of how hate crimes can occur that has recently come onto the books of a few nations (U.K to name one). Instead of having to prove the guilty mind of the offender, what instead must be established is the wounded mind of the victim. Under the new line of thinking, if someone says something which could possibly be interpreted as racist or sexist or targeting any specific protected group, and someone is emotionally upset by it, then by definition they have committed a sort of hate crime.

"Count Dankula" was convicted of a hate crime because he taught his girlfriend's pug to sieg-heil on command, and uploaded a video of it to Youtube. He thought it was a hilarious prank that could not possibly hurt anyone, but eventually the right people complained to the right people, and he was convicted by a hair on the basis that he was being intentionally "grossly offensive", where the comedy defense was outright rejected.

Why do I see a sexual conservative where you see a sexist? What does howling at him as sexist actually achieve? Might it get him further "de-platformed"? Are you hoping to sway hearts and minds?

If I were to criticize him on the basis of being foolishly sexually repressive, especially as it concerns masturbation (for all genders), and make practical arguments as to why his advice is to restrictive for contemporary society, do you think I would persuade more people (or even him) than if I just started calling him sexist and focused only on the ways in which his beliefs are detrimental to women?

Sure, you get to add the #Feminism to go viral on social media, but my way actually seems to yield moral and intellectual progress (as opposed to righteous feudalism).

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.

At the moment, I'm not interested about how sexually repressive it is or not (though there are those arguments to be made). I'm concerned about the sexist notion of a relationship he is advocating, for the damage it will do. Primary to women, for how presents a woman with her own action and volition as disgusting.

But it's also terrible for men, what is the man who cannot satisfy his wife with his penis to do? He is doomed to an abject failure, who cannot request the help of his wife. It's a shit understanding that a relationship is made by possessing. (in this case, to be the man who is the sole actor bringing his wife sexual pleasure, as if it were just a game he was playing).

I'll have to get to the other stuff later. I've got to get ready to go out.

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

I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't actually apply to him because he has said similar things about male masturbation. If I find a likewise quote of him putting down male masturbation (say, masturbating in front of a woman), will you get upset because he is implying that men are no more than a woman's object, not deserving of their own pleasure?

the man wouldn't be in his rightful postion as sole actor/pleasure giver. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I didn't at all agree with what he said, but did he actually say anything like "man in his rightful position . . . "?

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. The effect of denying women volition and action is given not by whether or not the same is done to man, but on the impact it has on women.

Yes, I would. My response would not be exactly the same, since there isn't the same expectation men should be passive things, with no act or personal involvement. While Scruton wouldn't be latching on to the same social expectation of passivity in the case of men, it would still define a relationship by objectification and possession. In that respect, it has all the same pitfalls. No-one should be approaching their relationship like it was just them achieving something.

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

This is exactly what I described. You've pre-judged what you think his statements mean bereft of real context, and based on how those make you feel, you're labeling him as sexist.

The "effect on women" that you're referencing requires your own subjective and unreasonable interpretation to have a real impact. Essentially you're saying that his words do harm to women, and the emotional upset that perceiving him as sexist causes is what actually incites emotional suffering and initiates the crusade against him. Are you objecting on behalf of all women? What would you say to women who outright agree with him under a sexually conservative/repressive framework?

You've been trained to over-react to the point that you need to justify your over-reactions by conflating your over-reactions themselves with proof of the harm you allege the original offense actually causes.

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.

Education is weaponizing oversensitivity.

I'm talking about the context of the statement, about what they hold women to be in society and to others. It's not a question of emotional harm (there would no doubt be some women who like the idea of being their husbands possession and have a positive emotional response to Scruton's connect). The concern is about the idea of who women are and who they ought to be.

Offence laws are miswritten in stating emotional harm. Emotional harm is a common response to being subjected to the actions which come under those laws, but is it not how they are hateful or discriminatory. The reason is the status or expectations about the group in question. In this case, the idea women are just objects for men .
The issue isn't women being emotionally upest. It's Scruton's understanding of who women are and ought to be. His statement would still be sexist if no women was upset by it and every women agreed with it.

I'm not describing him as a sexist because of some kind that of emotional feeling, I'm doing so because it is a fact of his understanding of women, that he holds they are just objects. No prejudging, I'm just describing what his understanding of women holds.

The issue isn't women being emotionally upest. It Scurton's understanding of who women are and ought to be — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're doubling down on your misinterpretation. If Scruton was giving a list of all the reasons why he thinks masturbation is harmful, and someone just happened to choose the one that involved a woman, then none of your object-possession rhetoric coherently applies because he believes the same thing applies equally to both sexes.

But if the problem is the very existence of his thoughts. What's your solution? Call the thought police?

This is why addressing the actual positions of your political opponents in a free and open forum is a better system than constant outrage based censure.

This is the perfect "Ouroboros". The serpent that consumes itself. You want to bring about fairness and equality but you try to do so by handicapping or socially eviscerating anyone whose shadow you fear. Ultimately this approach engenders resentment and resistance, and turns people into useful idiots for movements like the alt-right, while turning the left into a self-eating snake-pit of status and outrage, where everyone is really just vying for their spot on the sunniest rock.

it is a fact of his understanding of women, that he holds they are just objects — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wait, but everyone is just an object.

"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

I think his payment by cig companies should cast some suspicion on his motives, esp given the level of research on the topic and the undeniable harm that comes from smoking, but I don't think being paid by a particular company, cause, etc. necessarily precludes one from being a sincere supporter of said things. One may despise cigarettes (or porn, or guns, etc.) while also supporting another's right to smoke as a matter of personal freedom against government encroachment, or something along those lines.

Seems a slippery slope to dismiss arguments of those who receive personal compensation for taking a stance on a matter that aligns with the interests of powerful entities that may have, let's say, different motives than one's own. Suspicion is warranted once the financial relationship is disclosed, IMO, but not outright dismissal.

All that said, I do think the cynical appeal to protecting "trade secrets" as a means of refusing to disclose harmful information diminishes the position in this particular case. Don't know enough about Scruton to say one way or another so I'm just speaking in generalities here.

If you're writing paid advertisements / lobbying for a company or industry, you shouldn't be passing that off as authoritative content. He abused his position as an academic for money. And his actively seeking ways to help tobacco companies harm people even more because he wanted even more money place his motives well past the suspicious and into the blindingly obvious as far as I'm concerned.

But this character dissection of Roger's rotten insides is a tangent of questionable relevance to be fair.

a tangent of questionable relevance to be fair. — Baden

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).

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

But no one's telling him that. They're telling the government not to listen to his idiotic views. and in my case I'm also telling the universities and media not to listen to his views and to stop paying him for them. Let him express his views as widely and forthrightly as me. If he has the right to tell women how to have sex, I think I have the right to call him a sexist.

Yeah, I think you're probably right in this case. But would we take the same approach if he was being paid by an anti-tobacco group to push its agenda? Or by an anti-gun group? Or an organization dedicated to preserving the environment? Or pushing forward legislation favorable to unions? I feel like conservative groups try to dismiss the legitimacy of scientists, academics, etc. along those lines all the time (e.g., "They're being funded by George Soros!"). It's not the pay he received that's troubling but his apparent willingness to twist the facts in an attempt to advance his interests, and to do so at the expense of others.

I love to see others take principled stances on matters even if (especially if!) it hurts them financially (or otherwise). It's a way of asserting one's freedom & dignity in a world where a good deal of cynicism is warranted, if we can speak of these things as being more than mere platitudes these days. But again, I'm more concerned with this issue in general (getting paid de-legitimizes one's advocacy) than with the specific facts of this case.

Anyhow, if that's an unintentional misrepresentation of the position you're taking then my apologies.

Sorry for the digression. 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.

Kenan Malik in the Guardian:

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/david-lammy-roger-scruton-rush-damn-our-opponents

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.

It's a fair point to bring up. I suppose if an unscrupulous person lied to help people for money, I wouldn't criticize them. Nor would they deserve any plaudits in my book. But Scruton was not delegitimized in this instance just because he was paid or because he was a conservative, he was delegitimized and fired primarily because emails were leaked that suggested he was actively seeking financial reward to help a tobacco company harm the public. In other cases, yes, you'd need to look at the history of the individual's views and whether they were consistent with what he or she was being paid to promote. As long as everything is absolutely out in the open, there shouldn't be an issue.

His delegitimization with regard to accusations of anti-semitism and Islamaphobia is more questionable. It's much harder to untangle his motives there.

:up:

Just on the last point, that it's difficult to untangle his motives doesn't mean he shouldn't have been sacked. While it's right we ought not make decontextualised or disproportionate accusations of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, it's the responsibility of those on the government payroll to be careful with their use of language. If they're not, they shouldn't complain when their loose talk isn't given a charitable reception.

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

I agree.
On becoming a Sir.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/06/a-knighthood-for-the-movement-congratulations-sir-roger-scruton.html

'.....the debt that conservatism in Britain owes to Roger Scruton – philosopher, moralist, novelist, barrister, composer, conservationist, conservative and campaigner.

Scruton’s conservatism is very much of the English Tory flavour, and he is uncommon among modern philosophers in the breadth of his interests, rarer still in having the ability to project and popularise them, and even more unusual in his interest in conservative political organisation.'

Having read a few of Scruton's books, I would defend him as a subtle and humane thinker. — jamalrob

Really ? Like this ? On Foxhunting:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/9765963/Tally-ho-Let-the-hunt-remind-us-who-we-are.html

'This morning hundreds of hunts across the Kingdom will be assembling for the Boxing Day meet. My family and I will appear in our polished uniforms on polished horses to stand ceremonially among our neighbours in Cirencester Park. With us will be a crowd of thousands who have come to enjoy the spectacle. For an hour, three species – hound, horse and human; carnivore, herbivore and omnivore – will stand peacefully side by side in a little patch of meadowland, radiating tranquillity. One of the local bands will be playing...

...Hunting with hounds is ostensibly a crime. It continues, not because hunting people wish to defy the law, but because an activity so central to their lives can no more be stopped than their heartbeats. 

...In a sense we know much about the experience of the hunter-gatherer, since it is the experience that shaped us, and which lies interred like an archaeological stratum beneath the polished consciousness of civilised man. At its greatest, the art and literature of hunting aims to retrieve that experience, to re-acquaint us with mysterious and sacred things which are the true balm to our suburban anxieties, but which can be recuperated now only by returning, in imagination, to a world that we have lost.'

----------

No mention of the fox.
And to return to the topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/roger-scruton-not-victim-leftwing-witch-hunt

'...Scruton, transfixed by the context and reception of his own remarks, fails to consider the broader political context: refugees, Muslims in particular, are demonised, their numbers magnified and their hardships minimised for a purpose. Jews are demonised for the same purpose – the sowing of social division to serve an authoritarian agenda. It’s really nothing personal when we challenge these narratives of otherness; no malice is intended towards the bullied conservative. It’s just that the principles of universal human rights – more than that, love, fellowship, solidarity – are more important than whether or not a reactionary dude gets to keep on chairing a commission.'

----------

I would call Scruton more than a 'reactionary dude'. I am with unenlightened on this. And others who see the bigger picture. Like Erik and Baden.

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

But enough about the Scruton. Already taken up too much time and space.
He is loving it.

Anecdotal evidence then. Or the weird assumption that porn is somehow representative of common sexual acts.

Also, what about me stimulating a clit during coitus (I'm a guy btw)?

And what about that girl that fingered herself while looking at me because she thought I was hot? How the fuck does that make me irrelevant? That made me super relevant at the time and I thought it was super hot too. There's a level of trust, openness and vulnerability involved that is far beyond banging away in a missionary position under the sheets with the lights out.

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.

Here's my prescriptive take on sex: "Have fun and don't kill each other".

↪fdrake Anecdotal evidence then. Or the weird assumption that porn is somehow representative of common sexual acts. — Benkei

Yeah, I didn't intend my statement to actually be supporting Scruton's moralism about sex. What I actually wanted to convey was...

Incredibly tiring and thorough research, I imagine. — fdrake

The image of Scruton's research being watching a fuckload of porn and proceeding to have a furious guilt wank. Which was supposed to convey something like you did explicitly with:

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

I've got a caveat though, but I'm sure you'll actually agree with what I say. When you say:

Here's my prescriptive take on sex: "Have fun and don't kill each other".

There are clearly times when a stranger can surprise you during the act and you can enjoy it, and vice versa. This clearly requires some trust, as that tantalising hinterland of ambiguity can rapidly turn unpleasant. One of the benefits of having a long term sexual partner is that you can visit amazingly good sex land from this position of radical safety, which allows deeper emotional responses than surface level pleasure to obtain or even motivate the act (say, anger and frustration, longing and extreme love). And also to ignore or challenge the usual (but necessary) rituals we establish consent through (as if feeling out a stranger's sexual boundaries).

I like to imagine Scruton first discovered erogenous ambiguity after a life time of 'thinking of England' when 'researching' sex through the medium of porn, and he jacked off so amazingly hard he had to spill a lot of ink to wipe up the stains.

Edit: but I don't think leftists should treat Scruton's ideas, despite how problematic they are, in exactly the same manner they'd treat someone much further right (IE instead of the usual habit of addressing the person's ideas, addressing the role their ideas play in discourse). Luckily how Scruton expresses himself is pretty easy to provide genuine critique of, and I think (at least I would like to imagine) that supporters of Scruton really could have their minds changed through reasonable discussion. Even if you (not you specifically, talking about fellow leftists) wish to treat his statements as a problematic symptoms of discourse (which they are, consistent with the reactionary heart of conservatism), you're just going to alienate people who would otherwise be receptive to your views. Though I doubt Scruton himself would be persuaded by such arguments.

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

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.

Really ? Like this ? On Foxhunting: ---- No mention of the fox. — Amity

Ah! And we hit the jackpot: Scruton is for Fox hunting! He obviously likes the sport.

Oh God, he is the incarnation of evil.

the weird assumption that porn is somehow representative of common sexual acts. — Benkei

Maybe this is because I'm reading your comment out of context, but I don't know what the heck you could be doing when it comes to sex that's not represented in porn. I've definitely never done anything sexually that's not well-represented in porn. It's difficult to imagine anything that could be done that's not well-represented in porn, really.

on the surface maybe and that's discounting the uncomfortable positions porn is filled with. I'm pretty certain they're qualitatively different although, admittedly, I've never participated in porn so that's an assumption on my part.

on the surface maybe and that's discounting the uncomfortable positions porn is filled with. — Benkei

But the majority of porn doesn't have uncomfortable positions. Maybe you're watching a pretty limited selection of stereotypical porn?

There's a ton of porn showing anything you can imagine, any way you can imagine it, including a lot of porn that's literally just everday people filming themselves having "garden variety" sex.