Angels with bodies for pets

The sexual revolution begins with the Pill or other acts of sterilization, which are neither acts of grooming nor do they fix something diseased but are the assertion of the sort of control over the body we exert over animals. If I can kill a bull a fortiori I can castrate it; if my dog is my pet I can neuter it. Why not render my self sterile, whether by surgery or chemicals?

The reason our control over animals is not moral and just because we are stronger or cleverer than they, but because their existence is subordinate to our own. Unless we transcend them our control over them is unjust. But our bodies are not ordered to our existence- they are our existence or at least are comprised by it. We are not sexless, pseudo-angelic persons with bodies for pets.

The sexual revolution is the progression of the logic of viewing the person as an inherently sexless angel transcending an inhuman self. That we would eventually feel trapped in a body other than ourselves is unavoidable.

While the liberal tradition is proud of having figured out that persons cannot be possessions in the domain of labor relations (slavery) it repeated the error in our embodied sexual identity. In fact, that there are human non-persons is a recurrent theme in the sexual revolution.

Much of the tu quoque argumentation over human sexuality needs to be put to rest: Who cares if those of us against contraception have no problem with infertile persons copulating? The copulation of the infertile doesn’t have anything to do with a commitment to a view of human bodies as possessions-not-persons or a view of the person as a sexless being commanding a pet body. There is something like this view of the person in the idea of the soul commanding the body, but it is a denial of the usual way of understanding soul-body composition, namely as giving rise to an awareness that one must both train himself and endure the pains of doing so, i.e. temperance.

%d bloggers like this: