Certain left-wing Canadian academics seem to have adopted the old Star Trek adage: “to boldly go where no man has gone before.” Unfortunately, these people are going where no man or woman should ever go, exploring what they call “sexual democracy,” “alternative sexual discourses,” and other aberrant (and abhorrent) ideas advocating the obliteration of traditional Christian morality.
The kinds of behaviors embraced by these academics make same-sex marriage look staid and conservative by comparison. They represent part of the next angle of attack on Western civilization now that the homosexual rights movement has achieved “equality” with heterosexuals. This is another social tsunami on its way towards the West after the moral earthquake of the 1960s.
Supported by university profs
There have likely always been people drawn by various forms of sexual deviance. But it’s only been since the 1960s that they have been able to publicly (and sometimes proudly) announce and advocate their destructive tendencies. While the homosexual rights movement has now become part of “mainstream” society, even more radical branches of deviance are still on the fringes. But a big step towards credibility for more advanced forms of deviance has now been taken: their cause has been embraced by professors at some prestigious Canadian universities.
A clear example of this phenomenon is the book Bad Attitude/s on Trial: Pornography, Feminism, and the Butler Decision. It was written by four professors (three from York University and one from the University of British Columbia) and published by the University of Toronto Press in 1997. The University of Toronto Press is probably the most prestigious academic press in Canada, and that would add credibility to this monstrous book. The “Bad Attitude” in the title refers to an American lesbian sex magazine that was banned from Canada. The “Butler” in the title refers to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992 upholding Canada’s obscenity law, thereby restricting the importation of the most extreme forms of pornography into Canada.
Feminists vs. lesbian feminists
The feminist movement has, for the most part, opposed pornography. Many feminists see pornography as reinforcing negative stereotypes of women as objects to be used by men. In Canada feminists have been in the forefront of attempts to restrict pornography, and the Butler decision itself was largely based on feminist argumentation.
Lesbian feminists, however, are strongly in favor of pornography, and the authors of Bad Attitude/s on Trial are themselves lesbian activists. The purpose of their book is to challenge feminist opposition to pornography. In fact, it seems that they challenge restrictions on just about any form of sexual behavior or its representation in print or image.
Almost unmentionable
It’s a tremendous challenge to convey the extremism of this book to a Christian audience. The authors openly announce the kinds of behaviors they personally enjoy, and discuss “alternative sexualities.” You probably can’t begin to imagine (and you shouldn’t try to imagine) what they are talking about. And much of what they do say will not be quoted here, strictly out of concern for decency and good taste. Thus we face a dilemma: to inform Christians about new absurdities in the universities, but at the same time being unable (due to the diabolical nature of the material) to clearly explain the full range of pertinent issues. Keep in mind that we are talking about a book written by university professors and published by the University of Toronto Press.
Shannon Bell, a political science professor at York University, contributes an article to this book that promotes the concept of “pornosophy.” The introduction to the book describes pornosophy as “a strategy of conscious porn resistance through representation (words and images) of lesbian, sadomasochistic, and youth sexualities” (p. 30). Representation of youth sexuality, by the way, is commonly known as child pornography. Bell states that her “essay (ab)uses philosophy to embrace pornography on the terrain of ethics” (p. 201). This is academic literature? Here is a person who not only opposes homophobia, but also “whorephobia,” “sadomasophobia,” and “transgenderphobia” (p. 215). She apparently likes to coin new words. But, as mentioned, the views expressed by Bell cannot adequately be explained in a Christian magazine. You have to see it to believe it but it’s not the kind of thing you’d want to see.
Another contribution to this book is by a sociology professor from the University of British Columbia, Becki Ross. Among other things, she emphasizes the importance of pornography to lesbians. People who produce lesbian pornography are, in her words, “lesbian cultural workers” (p. 190). Their work is threatened by “erotophobia” (p. 190). (Apparently there is a whole smorgasbord of phobias out there). In one passage that is tame enough to quote, Ross summarizes part of her argument as follows:
Simply stated, the production of sexually explicit images highlights what is specific and unique to lesbian and gay communities: our same-sex desire. Erotic images validate our sexuality as one healthy, meaningful, and empowering part of our lives as lesbians (and gay men). Sexually explicit images produced by and for lesbians challenge the barriers of sexual fear, inhibition, ignorance, and shame by unapologetically foregrounding lesbian desire, and thus expanding the realm of knowable human sexual expression. (p. 187).
So pornography validates their form of sexual deviance, challenges barriers to their behavior, and expands the realm of knowable sexual activity. From a Christian perspective, these are all good reasons to ban pornography.
Professor Ross is not shy about what she wants. “In general terms, I feel strongly about increased access to materials that foreground the plurality of perverted and inverted desires. I want pornographies or eroticas that figure multi-sexual, multi-abled, multi-racial, and generationally mixed bodies . . . “ (p. 193). (It’s best not to finish quoting this sentence). Anyway, the “generationally mixed” idea raises the specter of children, especially since this quote comes immediately following a somewhat sympathetic reference to the infamous North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Into the sexual abyss
So what we have in Canadian universities today are professors who describe themselves (p. 
as “postmodern sex radicals”. They follow the French homosexual philosopher Michel Foucault in believing that sexuality is largely a “cultural construct,” that is, determined by human moral codes rather than determined by biology. “Sex has no essential nature or meaning and never exists outside discourses of sexuality” (p. 23). Heterosexuality is just one arbitrary form of sexuality and should not be privileged above other forms of sexuality. Thus laws that restrict forms of sexual behavior and representation are themselves arbitrary and should be abolished. The Canadian laws against pornography that are based on feminist analysis are derided as “just sexual morality in drag” (p. 30).
Bad Attitude/s on Trial can plausibly be seen as a kind of manifesto for the most extreme elements of the social Left. But it wasn’t churned out in the basement of a run-down building in a seedy neighborhood. It came from the Ivory Tower. The perspective advocated by these postmodern sex radicals hasn’t yet won the day, but they have to start somewhere. And when they start at the University of Toronto Press they’ve already attained a considerable degree of credibility. Sadly, since they are pandering to the worst elements of human nature, there is bound to be a growing market for their views. The popularity of postmodernism (at least in the universities) will only aid their endeavors. These professors take their postmodernism seriously, and they have used it to begin a very joyful and defiant march into the sexual abyss.
-30-
This article first appeared in the April 2005 edition of “Reformed Perspective” magazine.
Public date: April 9th, 2008
