The Value Of Disgust

It is right and decent to be repulsed by a male 'breastfeeding'

It’s a little early in the morning to be talking about necrophilia, I appreciate, but it’s been on my mind lately. Namely, what’s wrong with it?

The person is dead, the body - corpse- can’t feel any pain. It obviously can’t feel pleasure either but that’s irrelevant. The necrophiliac will derive great pleasure from being able to penetrate or rub their clitoris against the cold, stiff body of the deceased. There are no consequences - the dead can’t be impregnated or catch an STD. The necrophiliac will experience ecstasy, euphoria, bliss. From a crude, utilitarian perspective, all is well. The only people who might be offended are the family of the individual being used as a sex prop but if they don’t find out, who is hurt? No one.

You might be spluttering but…it’s disrespectful! Is it? I doubt the necrophiliac sees it that way. To them, they are honouring the body, adoring it, finding beauty and pleasure in death. And, as I’ve just said, if no one finds out, what’s the problem?

At this point, the counter-argument you are left with is but it’s wrong. And luckily for you, in this instance, that’s the end of the sentence. You don’t need to add a ‘because’. In fact, doing so will only result in you creating moral loopholes for the persistent necrophiliac to confuse you with.

Let’s take another example: bestiality. Why can’t you shag a dog or horse or pig if that’s what brings you happiness? Provided you don’t do it in a way that hurts the animal (they may well enjoy it) and don’t sleep with any human after on the basis of hygiene, what’s the objection? One argument as to why it’s wrong may be that the animal can’t consent. It’s a pretty flimsy one though. Animals don’t consent to being killed and eaten but that doesn’t stop us from cheerfully tearing into a burger. Alright, if you’re a staunch vegan there’s at least an element of consistency but still, doesn't it seem like the beginning and end of the argument should simply be…it’s wrong.

Okay, one more example, eating your own faeces. Again, it doesn't technically hurt anyone else if done privately and teeth are brushed afterwards. Yet, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess if you discovered a close friend was doing it, you’d probably start ghosting them on WhatsApp, even if they were a lovely person otherwise. Why?Because. It’s. Wrong.

That feeling of wrongness, that sicky no, no, no, no echoing in your mind right now (at least, I hope to God it is) is called Disgust. If you’ve seen the Pixar movie Inside Out, you’ll know it’s one of the fundamental emotional instincts - in fact, other than surprise, it precedes just about all others. It’s what prevents babies from willingly ingesting poison and causes toddlers to be deeply suspicious of broccoli. And as we mature, it’s a key part of what shapes our moral outlook.

Like any millennial who went to university to study the arts (film, in my case), I’m going to capitalise on the opportunity to show off some of the otherwise absolutely useless knowledge I accumulated there. In my fourth year, while writing an essay on make up and costume in horror movies, I read Julia Kristeva’s theory of the ‘abject’. The abject, put simply, is when physical objects have an in-betweenness or out-of-placeness that creates an uncanny shudder that manifests as disgust. For instance, stray hairs being caught on a hairbrush will not seem disgusting to you as that’s the function of the brush. Stray hairs on a plate of food you are eating will…because they should not be there. Dealing with your own waste in the toilet won’t generally bother you but a fresh pile of dog crap in the middle of the pavement probably makes you squeamish. Because it shouldn't be there.

The photograph of a tiny infant, which I am not going to share further, being pressed to the nipple of a man claiming he is ‘breastfeeding’ her, has disgusted many. Because…yep.

---

Disgust shouldn't be unregulated or unexamined. Like all emotions it can be misleading and irrational; toddlers being ‘disgusted’ by green vegetables being one example. It’s also been used historically to justify mistreatment of fellow humans. For a long-time, the disgust felt about the idea of two women or two men engaging sexually was used to justify abuse and discrimination towards those who were same-sex attracted. Many aspects of natural female biology - menstruation, menopause and, indeed, breastfeeding are considered ‘disgusting’ by a dismaying number of people (women included), resulting in shame and stigma around discussing them openly. Socially constructed cultural norms do have a place too. Certain foods are considered delicacies in some countries and abominations in others. There’s a famous anthropological tale about two ancient tribes, one who cremated their fathers’ remains and one who cooked and ate their fathers’ bodies after he died, both who were equally appalled at the other’s disrespectful practice. There is room for a bit of chin-stroking and discussion.

So yes, disgust should be scrutinised on a rational basis. One test might be asking the question ‘Can [insert act] be permitted and society retain standards of civility and decency or even be improved by it?’. In the liberal west, there is a consensus that cultural exports such as forced marriage and FGM cannot be permitted if our society is to remain decently true to its values of freedom and tolerance - and rightly so. While you’ll find a certain type of pseudo-philosopher, generally kicking about academia and generally not a qualified philosopher, who might enjoy playing ‘devil’s advocate’ for moral relativism and our brainwashed, bigoted, westernised perspectives - who are WE to say what’s right or wrong, something something white imperialism - they thankfully have little influence outside of conferences and parties attended by equally tiresome morons.

And so to the question of can a man calling himself a ‘trans woman’ be permitted to have infants suckle for ‘milk’ on his nipples and our society retain standards of decency? My emphatic answer - and I think I speak for most - is no. No, it should not be permitted, normalised, celebrated or tolerated. It is wrong and it is disgusting. A fair amount of people on social media have made reasoned arguments against what Mika Minio-Paluello is doing on the basis of nutrition; that whatever substance is being produced cannot meet the nourishment needs of a baby and that the hormones and chemicals involved in trans body modification are potentially harmful. My objection is far more instinctive and basic than that. My disgust instinct tell me it’s wrong and, here, I trust it. Even if whatever is being lactated was just as nutritional as natural breastmilk it would still be wrong. It is wrong because a society that goes out its way to enable a man to ‘breastfeed’ is a society that has no respect for nature or evolution. It is a society that prioritises catering to the wants of grown adults who can’t accept the limitations of their biology over the safety, dignity and wellbeing of children, including infants. It is a society that worships individual desire and fetishism in the name of progress. It is a society that has lost its way.

What Mika Minio-Paluello is doing in that photograph is wrong and disgusting. Labour MP Clive Lewis and any other politician or commenter who has voiced support for Minio-Paluello are supporting something wrong and disgusting. The two hundred or so warped women and organisations who have signed a petition in solidarity with Minio-Paluello are encouraging something that is wrong and disgusting. If this makes me a prude or a reactionary in anyone’s eyes, let me say that I will legally change my name to Mary Whitehouse before I gaslight myself into going along with what any sane, decent person knows is morally depraved.

I never dreamed I’d ever use this phrase without irony, but on this matter, there really is no debate.