Thursday, 7 February 2013

Unnatural Acts

Stay safe . . . stay sterile!

A fable . . .

For many years those who practised mutual mutilation were discriminated against. The law did not recognise that the removing of limbs could be a fulfilling and enjoyable act when done with the mutual consent of the parties involved, and insisted that mutilation should not be practised, even sending to prison those who were found guilty of lopping off the limbs of their partners.

Of course now we know better. The idea that the human body has any intrinsic value, dignity or purpose belongs to a past era, an era of dogmatic and authoritarian morality, that has no place in modern society. Partners in mutual mutilation, who consummate their relationship by the removal of an arm or leg of their lover, are now recognised in law as civil partners. Isn't it time the discrimination were removed completely? Shouldn't they be allowed access to marriage too? Why should these bigots who insist that amputation cannot be a natural way of consummating a relationship be allowed to continue to promote their poisonous mutilophobia?

For many years now the exponents of this perfectly legitimate means of loving expression between partners have been promoting their cause in our schools. The Terry Hogwash Trust has published a leaflet for use in school classrooms, entitled 'Your Stump and Mine', explaining how teenagers can experiment safely, expressing their perfectly natural desires to remove parts of their lovers' bodies. The leaflet advises amputation virgins to start with fingers and toes, before making the move to the removal of larger body parts. 'But remember,' the leaflet helpfully explains, 'it's your body: you'll know when you're ready.' The leaflet also provides useful guidance on avoiding the common pitfalls of mutual amputation, particularly the necessity of 'staying safe' by using sterile equipment to perform this loving, intimate act.

A few groups of parents have protested at this so-called 'corruption' of their children into 'unnatural behaviour'. But a spokesman from the Terry Hogwash Trust was firm in his refutation of their attempts to constrain their offspring. 'What right have they to prevent their children expressing themselves?' he said. 'It's disgraceful that some parents want to force their children to stay in the closet, not recognising their need to grow into their identity as mutilators.' Some groups have questioned whether such bigoted parents should be allowed to raise their children, or whether they should be removed by social workers and placed with more open-minded foster parents.

But the worst hot-bed of mutilophobia is to be found among religious fanatics. Stuck in a medieval mindset, they have repeatedly claimed that the human body has an intrinsic purpose and dignity beyond the sensual enjoyment of the individual, and spurred on by these abstract arguments, some among them have even dared to suggest that partners in mutual mutilation should not receive equal recognition under law. Hopefully the government's plans to open up marriage at last to this much-maligned group will silence these zealots. And if they will not be silent, isn't it time they were made to pay for their hate-filled comments against these respectable members of our modern, pluralistic society?

[This post originally appeared on A Tiny Son of Mary's blog.]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...