Eating With Your Feet

[Hilde]

This is getting lamer and lamer.

[jeffpugh]

That's the point. Those boys are going to bring this thread down.

[MIKolbe]

[img]http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n129/corsetti3/double_fail.jpg[/img]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1851716' date='Apr 28 2009, 08:02 PM']Your mom fails.[/quote]
My mom is dead.

[jeffpugh]

Oh boy, "your mom" jokes. Rule #4

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't mind the incredulity. i posted the thread half in jest, and have incredulity at my own ideas.

but with that said, i don't know how to create meaningful distinctions here.

"my question is: what philosophical basis is there for saying feet aren't made for grabbing things? or that tongues aren't meant for cleaning?"

this is where warranted, the counter equivalent to the catholic response: "feet are made for walking. period. that's their purpose, as indicated by their design. no opposable thumbs etc. it's common sense"
now, you phrase it more as a negative "how can't they". but, the same negative could be applied to sodomy or no contraception too. why can't they be used for love only, or pleasure without openness to life etc?
(plus, it's another thread but. when talking about contraception, NFPing is a whole lot worse in terms of denying their purpose, cause it denies life. and even if in principle it's open to life, it's still less so than condoms etc, cause NFP is said to be more effective. and condoms etc can be used in moderation, if that's the ultimate argument that NFP is a moderation tool. and, NFP seems mostly a psychological openness if anything compared to condoms etc, but not a true principle of openness to life given the effectiveness etc. what kind of distinction is that? it's not a thing of the objective acts, just the mindset of those doing the acts that's wrong? if that were the case, also, then the acts aren't wrong just the mindset.
plus, the only real way to be consistent is to only use sex etc to create babies without acts of mitigation like NFP etc. NFP has to wrong, to be consistent. a whole bunch of convuluted arguments if you ask me)

"there is a large and consistent body of philosophy that goes along with the idea of only sticking sexual organs in the places they belong; moreover, it's based more on the idea of what orgasms are meant for than just the idea of what the body part itself is meant for."

tradition is a decent argument. but tradition doesn't necesssarily mean truth. circumstantial evidence only. duly noted though.
orgasms are meant for pleasure, too. etc tradition could be wrong.
your "consistent" argument as it pertains to my argument in this thread, at worst in the eye of the beholder, and at best not something that you're truly being consistent on.

"sodomy (both the homosexual and heterosexual kinds of it) isn't like eating with your feet by grabbing the food and sticking it in your mouth from your feet, it's like trying to taste with your feet. and yes, that'd be wrong, trying to make your feet themselves eat and taste. it also wouldn't be possible, but it's wrong. the difference between it and sodomy is solely that the one is possible and the other is not."

you act like it's a meaningful distinction, that you can't taste with your feet etc. but, if you can't taste with your feet, it seems more like your analogy doesn't fit. (pun intended)
with nonprocreative orgasms/sex etc, and with eating with your feet, both are possible, not impossible as per your analogy.
cue the intial argument that their fundamental purpose is being dneied, and if they can be used for other things, then nonprocreative sex could be too

im not saying the anaolgy is wrong either, necessarily, as it makes a certain point, but it's not an "necessarily so" analogy, and seems weaker to me than strong.

im not saying there isn't a distinction that says you can eat with your feet but can't do nonprocreatie sex. but it doesn't seem to lie in the 'common sense' that catholic often say it does based on the physiology.
it lies in 'we (or the pope or whatever) perceive the truth to be such that sex organs i nn prcreative sex their purpose is being denied. so feet and tongues can be used for utilitarian purposes aside from normative use while sex cannot, that's just the way it is". not that this is a bad argument either. my point only is that this seems to be the argument, not the 'it's common sense' etc stuff based on physiology.

i do again though, sense somethign wrong with licking random things clean with your tongue and saliva processes. it's just weird. and just seems wrong. (not that that's good argument necessarily but

i also have a certain incredulity with my own arguments. i just don't know how to create meaningful distinctions without "that's just the way it is".
(and sometimes "that's just the way it is" has to be the argument, not logical reasoning in and of itself etc. that's why i said the pope argument etc is compelling. and perhaps tradition

Edited May 4, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[The Bus Station]

I was about to post something lame.

but then I clicked on page two...

[Aloysius]

I am not necessarily arguing from tradition, I'm pointing to the arguments made within tradition. There's a lot of them, and they're consistent and make sense. But I have never seen any serious argument against using feet for some other purpose... you would have to provide a consistent philosophical argument that says feet have only one purpose to make the analogy fit. the point is that the analogy doesn't fit, that there is no philosophically set meaning for feet exactly, but that there is one for orgasms and sexual organs... there are wide ranging ones, mind you, but they exist as arguments.

again, the better analogy would be TASTING with your feet.

what is your philosophical understanding of human nature is the question. do you see everything that is capable of being done with our bodies as conducive to our bodies' natures? I assume one would have to say no, because self-mutilation is something our bodies are capable of. so then it really goes back to the analogy of tasting with one's feet... saying you can only have orgasms in the context of procreative actions is like saying you can only taste with your tongue more than it's like saying you can't eat with your feet... it's like saying you can't taste with your feet because that'd be unnatural.

[dairygirl4u2c]

perhaps you're not arguing solely based on 'that's just the way it is, says tradition'. but more, you're arguing 'we have a solid body of phiosophy that says sex organs can only be used for one purpose', and creates signifiant distinctios for why it's acceptable, and one's not.
im not sure what the ultimate reasoning of that body is, though, other than "that's just the way it is- only one purpose", at least, not sure wha the reasoning is, that couldnt also be applied to feet and tongues.

im sure the same sorts of reasoning, looking at nature, applies to feet. they dont have opposable thumbs. they dont grip to a significant extent. and even more so with cleaning things with your tongue. it's saliva, meant for food, not meant for clearning the table. (if one were to want to clean the table with their tongue).
and again, the tasting with your feet thing doesn't fit at all really.... cause it's inherently impossible to taste with your feet. how could you sin by tasting with your feet, when it's not even possible to? (the cc says it's a sin to use condoms, that's why i bring up the sin point) it's possible to pick things up with ones feet, or clean with one's tongue... so it's more a matter if you want to argue against me, of saying why feet could also be used for picking things up, or tongues cleaning. what of their nature means you may pick things up with feet? and arguing why sex organs are so unique.

just because the body of literature doens't exist, doesn't mean the arguments im making aren't sound. cause ultimately, if there's no real distinctions being made, it's just the fallacy, 'argument from authority' that assumes that because some authoritative source says it's true, it must be true. argumentum ad verecundiam, ipse dixit
im using latin.... my arguments must be true.

Edited August 7, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Hilde]

Depends what you mean when you say "purpose".

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

Isn't there another thread with a poll where we are discussing this same thing?

[Hilde]

Yup

[elizabeth09]

I will like to try one day.

[dairygirl4u2c]

an you all said i was crazy....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD-VuwulVgI

 

that's based on a Tosh.O episode about a girl with no arms who eats with her feet.

 

the question still remains though, about hte morality of this stuff for those with arms and hands etc.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i have heard some orthodox who are against masturbation and certain sexual acts. just like catholics.

 

i have heard some who say these things are often over blown and more trivial than they should be considered to be. i wonder if to them it's like eating with your feet or licking an object clean when you can use water. perhaps they view sexuality a lot moe seriously than that, as i would expect, but it is intereting to think about.