Disgust and the law

[undergroundpanther]

A fascinating commentary

There are many areas of law to which such ideas might lead us; let me focus on just one. Legal accounts of the obscene in the Anglo-American common-law tradition standardly refer to the disgusting properties of a questionable work as they relate to the sensibilities of a hypothetical "average man." The legal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California in 1973 holds that "a work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." That determination is to be made from the point of view of "the average person, applying contemporary community standards." Disgust enters the picture in two ways: as a means to articulate the notion of the "patently offensive," as well as to define "prurient interest" (something that is a "shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion").

In order to make those connections clearer, Justice Burger, writing for the majority, analyzed the concept of obscenity in a fascinating footnote. Criticizing an earlier decision for not offering a precise definition of the obscene, he first traced the etymology of the word "obscene" from the Latin caenum, "filth." Next he cited a current dictionary definition of "obscene" as "disgusting to the senses ... grossly repugnant to the generally accepted notions of what is appropriate ... offensive or revolting" and another dictionary definition of "obscene" as "offensive to the senses, or to taste or refinement; disgusting, repulsive, filthy, foul, abominable, loathsome."

That, however, was not the end of the matter. The note then added that the material being discussed in the Miller case was "more accurately defined as 'pornography' or 'pornographic material.'" In other words, the concept of the "obscene" underwent further refinement and analysis via the concept of the "pornographic." The etymology of "pornography," from the Greek term for "harlot," is then discussed, and pornography is defined (via a dictionary) as "a depiction ... of licentiousness or lewdness: a portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement."

The mingling of ideas in that account is truly fascinating. In order to offer a "precise" definition of the notion of "prurient interest," the court brought in the concept of the disgusting; that concept, in turn, was rendered "more accurately" by reference to the concept of the female whore and the related idea of a "portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement." In other words, that which appeals to prurient interest is that which disgusts, and that which disgusts is that which (by displaying female sexuality) causes sexual excitement. But aren't disgust and sexual arousal very different things?
http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_archive.html

[undergroundpanther]

1. More

Reason: What, more generally, is your objection to the appeal to disgust in public reasoning?

Nussbaum: I believe that we should not say that no emotions belong in public reason. Emotions aren't just mindless urges; they contain thoughts about matters of importance. Anger, for example, contains a thought about harm or damage; the emotion can't be defined, or distinguished from other negative emotions, without referring to those thoughts. Some emotions are essential to law and to public principles of justice: anger at wrongdoing, fear for our safety, compassion for the pain of others, all these are good reasons to make laws that protect people in their rights. Of course individual instances of anger, fear, and compassion may be misplaced, but in the cases where they stand up to scrutiny, we should go ahead and make law in response to those emotions. John Stuart Mill observed that in this way all of a society's ideas about law and justice might be seen as built on anger and fear.

Disgust, I argue (drawing on recent psychological research), is different. Its cognitive content involves a shrinking from contamination that is associated with a human desire to be non-animal. That desire, of course, is irrational in the sense that we know we will never succeed in fulfilling it; it is also irrational in another and even more pernicious sense. As psychological research shows, people tend to project disgust properties onto groups of people in their own society, who come to figure as surrogates for people's anxieties about their own animality. By branding members of these groups as disgusting, foul, smelly, slimy, the dominant group is able to distance itself even further from its own animality. Such irrational projections have been involved in antisemitism through the ages, and in misogyny in more or less every society. They are also involved in more localized forms of discrimination, such as the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy, or American discrimination against homosexuals.

Unlike anger, disgust does not provide the disgusted person with a set of reasons that can be used for the purposes of public argument and public persuasion. If my child has been murdered and I am angry at that, I can persuade you that you should share those reasons; if you do, you will come to share my outrage. But if someone happens to feel that gay men are disgusting, that person cannot offer any reasoning that will persuade someone to share that emotion; there is nothing that would make the dialog a real piece of persuasion.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/33316.html

Maybe this is why right wingers arguments fail in the logical sense, it;'s NOT about logic...There is no REASON to their arguments, other than THEY are claiming disgust for irrational reasons, SELF serving reasons like to elevate themselves,is what the motive is behind it all, because they fear so much of what they are.The ol'Icky factor.


Me, I just feel sad about the condition of life on Earth.Torture rape and bullying makes me ANGRY because it HURTS people. it wounds,and it should repulse because of the damage it does. But to right wingers they are NOT repulsed by torture and are hypocrites about sex..They are not disgusted if THEY do it.And often shame and disgust are the weapons of a bully to dominate and control society..

So that said..I might as well say it I am angry and disgusted at right wingers ..Anger for the harm they inflict,disgusted at their bullying and hypocrisy to justify the damage they do, when they call"disgust" over an activity others may do (like gays getting married)Gays marrying causes no harm to anyone but the right wingers just find it icky and they know that is a stupid argument so they rant about values..A bully loses his right to yell icky at others who are NOT bullies because to me a bully IS icky because his neurotic paranoid personality flaws harms other people.It is because a bully is a dangerous person who contaminates conversations and law with a driven insecurity, manipulation and cruelty. Just so he can feel superior to us "animals"and"softies" on the left. The Right wing thinks we are Icky..Ya'll...Psychopaths are disgusting and they piss me off both.Why? because of the harm they do..And suffering as far as I am concerned feels very icky to the person being shamed stigmatized and discriminated against.For me Empathy overrides the hyped disgust of the right wing's fear of their animal selves.

I am a Trans furry gender queer panther and I look like one too? Disgusting? Only to those fearful of the animal inside.

[lunerod]

2. Kitten?

[undergroundpanther]

3. Nice fursuit

Is it yours? Nice costuming job.

I don't wear fursuits myself, not comfortable.
I do my panther thing through body modification and tattoos..
Everyone should be able to be and find who they are..

Even if it offends the normals
*smirk*

I don't harm anyone with my looks unless they have a neurotic problem with creativity and body mod unless they get abusive over it.I persue my happiness my own way.If some people don't like it , I tell them,don't look than I don't care.I am not responsible for making other people's life uniform and "normal"looking for them.

Some, they just need to get over themselves,and grow up.

A real crime harms others and hurts them and it has an intent to wound them.

Being creative and different in appearance is not a crime.
Like having an opinion is not a crime.

Killing someone who is not attacking you,because you don't like how they appear or find it"disgusting" THAT is a crime.

Right wing has trouble understanding where to draw that boundary.They have control issues.

[lunerod]

4. fursuit

I used it as a template in making mine. Not exactly the same (I'm a little more, ahem, anatomically correct. And by anatomically correct I mean cats don't let themselves go all flabby like that). I think that all furries should stand up against the "normal" people who think that what we do is gross or deranged.

It is part of our jobs to make sure that people are always "disgusted." Where would music be today if no one was ever disgusted with rock music in the '50s? The height of fashion would be ankle-length dresses with sleeves that covered up to the elbow. Pretty absurd.

No one is going to control me, I embrace my inner furry :)

So when you complained about people being disgusted, I figured what better way to respond than being me :)