6:30 AM local time, Tuesday, October 2nd (2030 Oct. 1st UTC) 09 45 S
142 15 E. Temp. 79, Humidity 84%, Cloud Cover 50%. At anchor at Rennel
Island behind the Great Barrier Reef, waiting for the tide and current
window to make our attempt throught the Torres Strait.
A while back, before you knew what happened, the Captain promised,
in the dispatch entitled "Missionary Impossible," to comment next time
on a remark on penis sheathes contributed by one of our readers. The
editors held this back for a spell as being too frivolous, but we now
pick up where we left off and offer it as part of our ongoing dialogue
on matters of consequence. Torres Strait debriefing will follow as soon
as we make it through and the Captain has worked on some issues about it
with his therapist.
And now on to the discussion, promised in our last dispatch, on penis
sheathes and the argument of old friend and reader Bob Riedel that, "A
penis sheath is surely little worse than a codpiece, and serves the same
purpose." Mr. Riedel is, as we can see, a man of the world, but he is
also a man of the cloth, a consequence, no doubt, of his faith and of
his sensitivity to profound religious and moral questions like the meaty
one we consider hereunder. It is no small matter for the Captain to
presume to gainsay a man of his stature, as the Captain himself, since
Little League, has sometimes been called but seldom chosen. But if by
chance our inquiries lead us towards the unhappy burden of taking
exception to his thoughts, for any error the Captain makes in this
presentation, he has little doubt that his hubris will receive its
proper comeuppance on That Great, Gettin'-Up Mornin'.
Pastor Riedel's argument was offered, we believe, in defense of the
practice of the peoples of Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea, and to sound
the bell of racial and cultural equality, by showing that penis
sheathes, worn by what some would call the primitive (and non-white)
inhabitants of distant lands are really of the same category as
codpieces, worn by...ah...here the Captain must confess that the good
pastor has the advantage on him, as he cannot claim to know who exactly wore or
wears codpieces. For the sake of argument, however, let's stipulate that
except for Mick Jagger and perhaps the more flamboyant members of the
gay community, they were (white) Europeans of the 15th and 16th
centuries. If Mr. Riedel is to be counted among their number, he will be
happy to learn that his secret is safe with the Captain.
We will begin, as we should, by determining what, if any, features of
this argument deserve our praise. In this we will not be disappointed,
for the form of the argument rests squarely on that most solid of moral
principles, the Categorical Imperative. "Act only on that maxim which,
by thy will, could be made a universal law," said Kant, or words to that
effect. This means that if it's OK for me to do it, it's OK for you to
do it.
As the reader surely knows by now, the Captain is no relativist.
(Relativism, a boring but popular view with an ancient heritage, cannot
actually be practiced for reasons the Captain will forbear explaining
here, but be assured he could if he wanted to so consider yourself
lucky.) So he believes that if education is good in Kansas, it is good
Vanuatu, no matter how or to what extent it may cause villagers there to
question the decisions of their chief. If equality before the law is
correct in Alabama, it is correct in Fiji, no matter what group got
there first. And so on.
The form, therefore, of the argument, the Captain is pleased to
conclude, is sound. With the following reservation. As feminists
discovered in the seventies, insisting on this principle sometimes may
lead to unexpected results. Some women found themselves arguing, for
example, that, like men, they should have the right to go bare-chested
in public. When at the time the politically correct Captain (who was
then just an ensign) heard this, he lost his bearings and wandered in a
daze out of the protest march, and was found unconscious with his
placard by a wandering group of Picts. If, at any rate, the Categorical
Imperative were to force us into the position that we must include women
among those people for whom, we find, we endorse the wearing of penis
sheathes, some will find this unacceptable, and by reductio ad absurdum
find Kant's rule unacceptable as well.
Notwithstanding this twinge of reserve, having satisfied ourselves
with the form we will briskly move on to the content of our argument. We
have established that it is no more wrong for person X to do A than it
is for person Y to do A. It remains to be determined whether "A" is
really the same in both cases and whether it is, in fact, praiseworthy
to do A. The Captain believes that in the former we will find a small
difference and in the latter a rather more troubling fallacy.
We will assume that the function of codpieces and penis sheathes is the
same, if the form is different, and that function is to advertise the
virility of the wearer. Apparently, however, in the case of the Ni
Vanuatu, the penis sheath is a tribal advertisement, whereas the
codpiece seems to be a purely personal one. Or is it the case that there
was a sort of arms race, if you will, in the 15th century between the
French and the British in this regard? Whether tribal or personal, this
difference may be seen to have little effect on the substance of the
issue at hand.
Moving on to the question of whether we should endorse act "A," it will
not be necessary to point out to the reader that here we have a clear
case of the fallacy of petitio principii. For even if we have
established that's it's no worse to wear a penis sheath than a codpiece,
we haven't begun the difficult task of determining whether we can indeed
recommend "A," i.e., whether it's in general a good idea to wear a
codpiece. And so the question is surely begged. To demonstrate, if we
say that Pastor Riedel is "surely little worse than" the Captain as a
counselor of spiritual verities, we render unto him quite faint praise
indeed. If on the other hand, we say that he is "surely little worse
than" St. Paul himself, and in addition has--as far as we know--no
prison record, we are on the verge, and I think I can say this without
offense to the good reverend, of blasphemy. The point is that though we
have established their moral equivalence, as long as the question of the
advisability of codpieces remains unsettled, in our argument the
advisability of penis sheathes remains unsettled.
So, finally, to address this important matter. It is the Captain's
view that any person who would denigrate another on the basis of the
gifts nature has failed to bestow upon him reveals himself to be an ill-
bred boor. But just as surely, to attempt to conceal whatever
shortcomings one may believe one has by the use of prosthetic devices is
to play directly into this ill-bred person's hands and to confess that
his assessment of one's liabilities is a sound one. Moreover, in
adopting these appurtenances, whether they be penis sheathes, codpieces,
elevator shoes, falsies, or toupees, the wearer inadvertently calls
attention to the very inadequacy he or she wishes to conceal. Further,
there is a touch of dishonesty as one represents oneself, even to one's
friends, as someone other than who one is. It is far more effective, in
the Captain's view, to learn an honest trick or two to distract the
intended audience from the alleged lack. It might be drawing funny
pictures around one's belly button, wearing one of those amusing balloon
hats, or becoming a drummer, songwriter, or sailor. The Captain believes
it is a far better thing to be pilloried for deeds one has accomplished
through his own pluck and daring, than ridiculed for the feckless and
sometimes cruel accidents of nature.
But without question the most damning problem here is that
attempting to appear more virile, or larger, or bustier, or more hirsute
than one by nature is, is clearly an act of vanity. And vanity, as
Pastor Riedel knows very well, is one of the seven deadly sins. The
reader is referred to the Summa Theologica, wherein St. Thomas gives the
subject the thoroughgoing treatment we would expect, for further
details. (The Captain is sorry he cannot verify the exact status of
vanity in the hierarchy of sins according to Aquinas, although he
believes it to be number one. Alas, he had to hock his copy of the Summa
a few years back to raise funds for hairstyling and a manicure.) Now,
the Captain certainly does not presume to know more about sin than the
professional, and here he is most willing to yield to the superior
expertise of Reverend Riedel. But surely he would admit that, if the
Captain is correct and vanity is indeed the motive behind codpieces and
penis sheathes alike, then right-thinking people everywhere will shun
them both and seek the high ground of moral sanctity found comfortably,
and at reasonable prices, in standard underwear.
Or, to take another tack entirely, if we accept, as is taught in
Ecclesiastes, that "all is vanity," it follows that no particular vanity
is any worse than any other insofar as its being vanity is concerned, be
it sailing the wide ocean, wearing a penis sheath, or delivering the
Sunday sermon. So on these grounds the pastor's point stands. It
apparently depends on what the meaning of "is" is, and there's the rub;
but the Captain will save that discussion for another day.
|
