20 minutes only
Is it wrong
to have sex with a chicken?
In the pre-Kinsey era, those agreeing
it would be wrong would probably have cited Leviticus
18.23: “You shall not have sexual
intercourse with any beast.” Or, if not
the text itself, then at least its sentiments.
It’s against nature. End
of.
Nowadays, our society – or those who
run its morals for us – has rejected the idea of an external God who can
dictate to us how we should behave. With
most versions of the sex act now a valid expression of the god within us, those
who would say it was wrong to have sexual congress with a chicken are obliged
to use a different argument. It’s wrong
because we have not asked the chicken’s permission; it’s a violation of her
rights.
But chickens are used to that sort of
thing. When a rooster gets the urge, he
simply jumps aboard, rips out a few neck feathers, and sets about his appointed
task.
Does this have implications for animal
rights? Should we consider not only how
humans treat animals, but how animals treat animals? Is a re-education programme necessary? Do roosters need counselling?
If we go vegetarian to save the
planet, what about those animals that are still carnivorous? If they refuse to change their eating habits,
will they have to be exterminated?
As we have
rejected the authority of the Old Testament, so we have rejected that of the
New. Typical refutations of St Paul’s
right to adjudicate on sexual matters are that he lived long ago and was unmarried;
although by the criteria of the modern world, the latter might be all the more reason
for listening to him. As it is, we have
listened instead, among others, to Havelock Ellis (who was urinated on by his
wife to achieve erection) and to Alfred Kinsey (who would masturbate with a toothbrush
up his urethra, and with rope slowly tightened round his testicles). For
myself, I prefer St Paul.
On a more
mundane level, in the short-stay section of my station car park, there are two
notices. One, painted on the tarmac in
front of the relevant spaces, says ‘Ten Minutes only’. The other, a large sheet in the perspex display
area on the wall, says ‘Twenty minutes only’.
Which is it?
An appeal to modernity will not help in this instance. The tarmac painting has been freshly renovated,
and the wall poster is part of a new display.
Could there be a clearer symbol of the
unresolved contradictions within the mind of our society?
No comments:
Post a Comment