When a good blogger goes bad
Eugene Volokh posted an incomprehensibly bad theory -- just as an intellectual exercise -- in what could only be a lapse of insanity or a desperate bid for attention. I'm not going to link to it but his basic premise is that maybe unwanted sexual touching is only more illegal than accepted forms of non-consenual touching, such as someone grabbing your elbow to get your attention because of the possibility of involuntary sexual arousal. He also stretches this logic to ponder whether public masturbation should be a matter of law or do we want to criminalize the behavior of some guy jacking off next to us on the subway simply because we find it icky and/or involuntarily stimulating?
Belle Waring at Crooked Timber has the ultimate answer. The comment sections in both places were fascinating. This is the legal eagle crowd, so it's all very polite and cerebral. I added this more earthy response at Crooked Timber.
Reading the comments and subsequent posts at Volokh's made me feel like I had fallen into an abyss and come out in an alternate universe. They were suggesting that adults engaging in public sexual activity on a playground should be dealt with by society and not as matter of law. I would have asked them what exactly they expected "society" to do to express their disapproval of a guy masturbating on the bench, if not arrest him? It didn't seem worth it but really, should the parents tar and feather him, blungeon him, or just stand there and shout at him to go away? We do have too many useless laws but this is not one of them.
I should delink Volokh for this one. This sensationalism for sensationalism's sake is what's turning Blogtopia into a cesspool.
Belle Waring at Crooked Timber has the ultimate answer. The comment sections in both places were fascinating. This is the legal eagle crowd, so it's all very polite and cerebral. I added this more earthy response at Crooked Timber.
I'm with Belle. WTF? This is not a thought exercise, it's mental masturbation. It's a wet dream disguised as intellectual discourse. There's something utterly sad about pretending it's some kind of deep legal reasoning. I think it speaks more of some deep repressed sexual conflict than legal or sociological inquiry.
Perhaps Volokh should consider this thought exercise. If he feels like sticking his hand down my pants to test his theory, I'll have to test my theory of involuntary sexual arousal by trying to rip his testicles off. I wonder if he would object to that? He might only find it objectionable because it would possibly arouse him. I mean, how different is that than a tap on the shoulder? Feh.
Reading the comments and subsequent posts at Volokh's made me feel like I had fallen into an abyss and come out in an alternate universe. They were suggesting that adults engaging in public sexual activity on a playground should be dealt with by society and not as matter of law. I would have asked them what exactly they expected "society" to do to express their disapproval of a guy masturbating on the bench, if not arrest him? It didn't seem worth it but really, should the parents tar and feather him, blungeon him, or just stand there and shout at him to go away? We do have too many useless laws but this is not one of them.
I should delink Volokh for this one. This sensationalism for sensationalism's sake is what's turning Blogtopia into a cesspool.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home