There is a snark in the title, covered with a URL

October 12, 2007 4:56 PM

I'm as big a fan as anyone of the LOL-christian/republican-does-something-out-of-character story, but this is in poor taste.
posted by Saucy Intruder to etiquette/policy at 4:56 PM (554 comments total)

How and why is it in poor taste?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:05 PM on October 12, 2007

Making fun of a dead guy who didn't do anything to you is in poor taste.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:07 PM on October 12, 2007 [5 favorites]

Indeed it is. It is also funny as hell. God protect me from an amusing death.
posted by LarryC at 5:09 PM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Clyde Bruckman: You know, there are worse ways to go, but I can't think of a more undignified way than autoerotic asphyxiation.
Mulder: Why are you telling me that?
Bruckman: Look, forget I mentioned it. It's none of my business.
posted by jamaro at 5:22 PM on October 12, 2007 [13 favorites]

Popular scorn is the price of hypocrisy. If you can't stand it, flag it "offensive content" and move on.
posted by nicwolff at 5:24 PM on October 12, 2007

I'm as big a fan as anyone of the LOL-christian/republican-does-something-out-of-character story...

...all evidence to the contrary.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:26 PM on October 12, 2007 [6 favorites]

Well, it's not exactly a new thing.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:27 PM on October 12, 2007

People who do this know there is a slight chance they could die in the process, be discovered wearing two wet suits, five ties and a dildo and be laughed at for it on the internets. He took his shot.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:27 PM on October 12, 2007 [6 favorites]

Q: Why did Jesus die on the cross?

A: He forgot the safeword.
posted by fandango_matt at 5:27 PM on October 12, 2007 [64 favorites]

Q: Why did Jesus die on the cross?

A: He forgot the safeword.

In the beinning was the safeWord. And the Word was "OmiGod!"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:31 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Also, eponhysterical.

because if I believed in Hell, I'd so be at its gates.
posted by jamaro at 5:31 PM on October 12, 2007

beinning?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:31 PM on October 12, 2007

Look, I'm as turned on as anyone by dead bodies in bondage with dildos in their anuses... wait-isn't this the forum for people turned who are sexually aroused by this story? Excuse me. I appear to have wandered into the wrong room.
posted by jonson at 5:32 PM on October 12, 2007

Possibly it's appropriate since his last thoughts were likely along the lines of "more inside."
posted by veggieboy at 5:38 PM on October 12, 2007 [9 favorites]

From the thread:

The poor guy wasn't exactly hurting anyone... seems somewhat mean-spirited to break out the schadenfreude. ~ Leon

From this thread:

Making fun of a dead guy who didn't do anything to you is in poor taste. ~ Saucy Intruder


I just do not get this notion.

This guy was an alumni and former dean of Liberty University. He was a Baptist preacher from Montgomery, Alabama.

Let's just assume, if we may be so bold, that he subscribed to either or both of the Liberty U. code of conduct, "The Liberty Way," (or this PDF for your downloading pleasure) and the Southern Baptist code of ethics. Let's further assume that he preached and proscribed those beliefs to his followers and his family.

Let me know which tenets of the aforementioned seem to make an allowance for the way that Aldridge died:

"As servants of God we confirm our duty to live morally clean, pure, holy lives. What we proclaim in public we are obligated to practice in private."

"Our priorities are: First, to a disciplined devotional life, insuring our personal spiritual development; second, to our families, demonstrating our commitment as companions and parents; third, to those with whom we minister giving evidence of the credibility of our message."

"Liberty University has always attempted to maintain a conservative standard in its approach to the arts and entertainment. Current policy for movie viewing allows for attendance at theaters but prohibits viewing of movies rated “R”, “NC-17” or “X”. "

"All students are asked to display mature Christian behavior in social interaction. Proper respect must be shown to all individuals at all times. Harassment of any type will not be tolerated. Handholding is the only appropriate form of personal contact. Improper personal contact or other forms of public display are considered in poor taste. "

Finally:

"Standard of Dress for MEN

Hair and clothing styles related to a counterculture (as determined by the Student Affairs Deans’ Review Committee) are not acceptable. Hair should be cut in such a way that it will not come over the ears, collar or eyebrows at any time. Ponytails for men are unacceptable. Facial hair should be neatly trimmed. Earrings and/or plugs are not permitted on or off campus, nor is body piercing. Questions concerning the standard of dress for men should be addressed to the Dean of Men’s Office."

"Swimming Pool Attire:
Speedos, spandex suits, or cut-off jeans are not acceptable."

You see? PLUGS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON OR OFF CAMPUS. SPANDEX SUITS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Clearly, Aldridge is a sinner and a rule-breaker.

Kidding aside, why should conservatives get a pass on "practice what you preach, or be mocked"? I mean, it's too bad he died and all, but right now, I feel far more for his family than for him. He seemed to go out doing who what he loved.

If this had been just another John Doe engaging in a little Tuesday afternoon hog-tied butt-plugging, this wouldn't be a story in the news. It's a story because of who the man was... and who the man was is why we have every right to have a little fun with it. I'm risking my own karma, I know, but I'm fine with that. Doesn't mean we are obligated to take the high road.
posted by pineapple at 5:43 PM on October 12, 2007 [12 favorites]

beinning?

I think that's an uppity liberal arts school in Vermont, where everyone majors in ennui and China White.
posted by pineapple at 5:46 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

I posted the following in the thread. It seems relevant here. A bit of background for those who don't keep track of such things... like the departed reverent, I'm a kinky bdsm-flavored pervert who lives in Montgomery, Alabama.

Hey, I feel very badly for him and his family. I admit there's a little bit of bitterness towards him, because he and his type have controlled this town since the beginning of time and are one of the reasons I can't come out of the closet. But mostly the whole thing is just fucking sad.
posted by Clay201 at 5:53 PM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]

You know Pineapple, if you hadn't used the term China White, I wouldn't be here trying to write a version of this story that could be sung to Walter Becker's "Junkie Girl"!

Damn you!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:53 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

reverent = reverend
posted by Clay201 at 5:53 PM on October 12, 2007

Doesn't mean we are obligated to take the high road.

Obligated? No. But, speaking only for myself, lately I find myself wanting to, if for no other reason than to be less of a hypocrite than this guy was.

So, while I decry the hypocrisy of the institutions he served, a part of me feels bad for someone suffering a humiliating death and for his family, who are the one's who will have to deal with the fallout.

If this had been just another John Doe engaging in a little Tuesday afternoon hog-tied butt-plugging, this wouldn't be a story in the news.

actually, among paramedics, cops and the like, trading tales of kinky deaths is a time-honored tradition. A buddy of mine who was an EMt in NYC told me about the time his squad discovered a guy dead of a heart attack with his dick out and pants around his ankles and figured he died jerking off (aka 'came and went'). They found a videotape in the VCR, which they took. My buddy showed it to some friends at a party. It was cheap and homemeade-looking and near the end a nude woman squatted over a dude's face. Knowing what was coming next (thank you, internet) I quickly turned away, but still got to hear the chorus of 'Ewwwwww!' and gagging from the rest of the room.

it's a weird world.
posted by jonmc at 5:53 PM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Popular scorn is the price of hypocrisy.

Must we be the cash register for all transactions though? OMG, TOTAL HIPOCRYTE, MIR!T3? It's nice to know the other 50,000 members here all have their sexual shit in a kit and are without hang up. I'll see you all in the baths.
posted by yerfatma at 5:54 PM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]

it's a weird world.

Let's keep it that way.
</Planetary>
posted by yerfatma at 5:55 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Frankly, I considered that post far LESS inappropriate than the one with the trumpet-playing local beauty queen. Embarrassingly total lack of talent in the talent competition is what the county and state competitions are there to weed out, and one of the thousands of demonstrations of that annually does not good schadenfreude make.

On the other hand, considering that, despite this particular douche-bag died alone, someone else did obviously help 'prepare' him for his little fatal adventure, and from that rings the possibility that this could open up into a massive scandal involving much of Liberty University. Now, if that happens, it will do so in bits and pieces over a period of days and weeks, all of which somebody will think makes good FPP material. But as long as this post stands, the mods can easily justify deleting related/update posts as long as this one is open, saving the front page from further abuse.

I have no idea what I'm arguing.
posted by wendell at 6:09 PM on October 12, 2007

But, speaking only for myself, lately I find myself wanting to, if for no other reason than to be less of a hypocrite than this guy was.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Do you tell others how to be moral, how to be holy and pure, while practicing what is widely considered a BDSM activity? Do you tell college students that they mustn't watch R-rated movies, and that hand-holding is the upper limit of acceptable sexual contact?

Wanting to be a better person, okay. But I don't see where a thread that is mostly schadenfreude somehow makes hypocrites of those who participate.

It's nice to know the other 50,000 members here all have their sexual shit in a kit and are without hang up.

I for one don't claim to have my act together. But neither do I go around literally preaching to others how to live a chaste and moral life, meanwhile perfecting my Gimp routine and leaving it for my family to find. I like my glass house, so I would never be so foolish as to throw stones in it.
posted by pineapple at 6:09 PM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

Wanting to be a better person, okay. But I don't see where a thread that is mostly schadenfreude somehow makes hypocrites of those who participate.

Fair enough. Call it nomenclature confusion.
posted by jonmc at 6:13 PM on October 12, 2007

It's meta-hypocrisy. And I agree with yerfatma; however much scorn may be properly heaped up this man, why must those heaps be on the front page of MetaFilter?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:15 PM on October 12, 2007

Really weird, Kid Charlemagne. I've had "Girlfriend" by Walter Becker stuck in my head all day. And that album doesn't come up every day.

As to why I posted this story, I guess I'm operating from a few premises: (1) there is such a thing as a funny death; (2) these circumstances are so absurd as to merit attention no matter who it was; (3) the man is a former dean at a Jerry Falwell-founded university, which makes it hypocritical, too; and, of course, (4) I thought some people here would enjoy it and (5) have things to say about it.

I understand why some people don't like it, but I think it was an OK post, on balance. I hope that people who don't like it are OK with just letting it slide and avoiding the thread.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:18 PM on October 12, 2007

Is it not written (somewhere): "As ye freep, so shall ye sow"?
posted by rob511 at 6:22 PM on October 12, 2007

You know, I totally expected that thread to be 100% a Rehash of Schadenfreude Past (Christian conservative variety), and hence dismissable, but I have to say that the calm and informative expertise provided by Clay201 made the whole snarkfest worth it, and is an excellent example of why I continue to hang around this place. Big ups to him.
posted by Kat Allison at 6:23 PM on October 12, 2007

I don't give a fuck what anybody does in their private lives, but he and his kind make it their business to make life difficult for people who have the same kinds of kinks they themselves indulge in. I'm going to laugh like hell everytime one of those fuckers publicly humiliates themselves.

I'm sure that he's not the only person in the BDSM community that accidentally offed himself or otherwise got outed this year, but most of them don't make national news because most of those people aren't public figures and hypocrites.

You think maybe one day the sheep that follow these losers will wake up and realize that they're being led by liars and criminals?
posted by empath at 6:42 PM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

Eponysterical, empath.

I'm named after Navin Johnson's nemesis, so I have free reign to act like an asshole.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:50 PM on October 12, 2007

I think these threads suck, personally, and it seems like we've had one of them almost every day or so. GOTCHAfilter isn't really much of an improvement on LOLXIAN and really weak sauce for MetaFilter.
posted by jessamyn at 7:06 PM on October 12, 2007 [7 favorites]

Doesn't mean we are obligated to take the high road.
Exactly. That's pretty much what makes it the high road.
posted by klarck at 7:13 PM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

Possibly it's appropriate since his last thoughts were likely along the lines of "more inside."

And his nickname for the condom-wrapped dildo was 'Saucy Intruder.'
posted by ericb at 7:20 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

I just do not get this notion.

pineapple: "practice what you preach" cuts both ways, that's all. I'm pro-privacy, pro-sexual-freedom, all those mundane socially liberal values. I can't tack on the end "except hypocritical Xians. They suck."

(Plus, of course, without people like this to tell us how bad we're all being, kink wouldn't be half as much fun...)
posted by Leon at 7:22 PM on October 12, 2007

jonmc, many thanks for your second-hand tale of life on the streets as told by the men who live it. However, you missed the salient phrase, which I've emphasized here:

If this had been just another John Doe engaging in a little Tuesday afternoon hog-tied butt-plugging, this wouldn't be a story in the news.

Of course EMTs, cops, ED workers—anyone who deals with humans in extremis—collect, tell, trade stories about what they've seen. Did you really think no one here knew that?

Those stories have no meaning or value outside that culture—they aren't "in the news"—unless and until there's something extra. The best, the most interesting, the most relevant-to-the-public something extra is hypocrisy.

Anyway, thanks for checking in with this week's "jonmc/man of the people" cred-points.

And what do you think of the musical selections cited thus far?
posted by cat.dog at 7:31 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think the guy's death is fucking hilarious.

And if he's up in heaven right now, reading this thread, I am certain he is laughing with me.

Any death that happens when a self-inserted, condom-wrapped dildo is up your butt, is funny. That's just self-evident. Yes, death is terrible, but deaths that occur right after you shove a condom up your butt is funny.

For those who think that laughter about this is inappropriate: I am not anti-sexual-freedom in laughing at this dude's death. I am completely pro-sexual-freedom. I just think it is fucking hilarious that Mr. Liberty University died with the indignity of having his dildo wedged up his butt.

It's funny in the same way that a Grand Wizard of the KKK dying when having sex with a black sex doll would be funny.
posted by jayder at 7:34 PM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

I think these threads suck, personally, and it seems like we've had one of them almost every day or so.

Maybe these threads are worthy -- even in their frequency -- as they highlight a trend. We've been subjected here in the U.S. over the past 7 years to a "holier-than-thou" weltanschauung in civic and political life. By shining a penetrating light on the many instances of hypocrisy (and resulting schadenfreude) such may prove to be instructive and constructive to this "community," and to others. Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor has No Clothes" comes to mind. Dangling genitals and all!
posted by ericb at 7:36 PM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

*The Emperor's New Clothes*
posted by ericb at 7:42 PM on October 12, 2007

Of course EMTs, cops, ED workers—anyone who deals with humans in extremis—collect, tell, trade stories about what they've seen. Did you really think no one here knew that?

Uh, no. I just thought it was a good story. And for what it's worth, I agree the guy was a hypocrite.
posted by jonmc at 7:42 PM on October 12, 2007

these threads suck, personally, and it seems like we've had one of them almost every day or so. GOTCHAfilter isn't really much of an improvement on LOLXIAN and really weak sauce for MetaFilter.

I agree. It is one thing to see the really big hypocrites take a fall, but it is sort of unseemly to revel in the personal trauma of every lowlife conservative just because they are on the opposite political side of an issue.
posted by caddis at 7:59 PM on October 12, 2007

By shining a penetrating light

"penetrating".

Nice one.
posted by meehawl at 8:02 PM on October 12, 2007

Uh, no. I just thought it was a good story. And for what it's worth, I agree the guy was a hypocrite.

Uh, duh. You're still missing the point. Your story, splendid as it was, has no relevance here. Yet you felt compelled to share.

Do you need an editor? Or an interventionist?
posted by cat.dog at 8:07 PM on October 12, 2007

This is some sad tawdry-ass shit.

It's informative and interesting and, yeah, lol hypocrisy. But I'm with Saucy and the sentiments I think i detect from yerfatma and jessamyn.

Should have been deleted without lingering prejudice to poster.
posted by psmith at 8:17 PM on October 12, 2007

I think you might be somewhat overselling the case for topical rigidity in metatalk, cat.dog, and it's not really clear why you're riding jonmc's ass so hard on this.
posted by cortex at 8:18 PM on October 12, 2007

It is very weird to have to do it, but I feel the need to explain that I am marking cat.dog with a "favorite" only to mark the comment for future use.

Because, sir, you are out of line and needlessly pontificating.
posted by yhbc at 8:20 PM on October 12, 2007

Do you need an editor? Or an interventionist?

No, what jonmc needs to do is take it to metatalk.

Oh, wait...
posted by found dog one eye at 8:25 PM on October 12, 2007

Your story, splendid as it was, has no relevance here.

"Eat shit and die" always has relevance.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:28 PM on October 12, 2007

My humble apologies to all involved.
posted by cat.dog at 8:28 PM on October 12, 2007

I AM IRON MAN.
posted by psmith at 8:29 PM on October 12, 2007

not like that guy was rubber man
posted by pyramid termite at 8:34 PM on October 12, 2007

Sometimes you've just gotta go off on jonmc.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:35 PM on October 12, 2007

Let us dub these posts... LOLPOCRACY.
posted by boo_radley at 8:39 PM on October 12, 2007

Watching 'Real Time with Bill Maher' right now with Joy Behar, Paul Krugman, and Tucker Carlson. They're talking about this story. Seems to have 'hit a cord/struck a nerve' in the public zeitgeist.
posted by ericb at 9:09 PM on October 12, 2007

it is sort of unseemly to revel in the personal trauma of every lowlife conservative just because they are on the opposite political side of an issue.

Like ericb, I see it differently. We're 10 weeks from a presidential election year, at which point the front page will become a deluge of "urgent" newsfilter reporting of dubious "Your Favorite Candidate Sucks" quality, and it will all fade into so much white noise.

That the standard-bearers of one particular stripe -- and the foundation of "family values" which arguably bore their ascent to the throne -- appear to be disintegrating in one tidy package of immorality right now, does seem to be newsworthy to me. Yes, conveniently, I support the other side, but it's not like we haven't discussed Obama Girl's undies, LOL HILLARYXTIAN, and "Slave Ownership is Bad, Mmmkeh." Tacky schadenfreude FPPs are equal opportunity offenders.

I actually wish the GOP foibles weren't so spectacularly tawdry; I prefer the "aide leaked dirty memo"/"corrupt cabinet members resign" type stuff, because it keeps the conversation where I believe it matters. I'm not "reveling" in Aldridge's personal trauma -- but this isn't cancer or a plane crash or a lesbian daughter or even a dead father's gold cock ring. This is the man himself revealed to be a moral and sexual hypocrite of such stunning order that it's likely to be a CSI plot before February sweeps. That death is part of that equation is tragic, but not actually crucial to the story IMO. The kink isn't the news; neither is the death. The hypocrisy is the news.

(Another interesting direction the discussion could go would be to talk about how the GOP has been hoist by their own petard, with the commingling of the Religious Right with their political machine. Ten years ago, conservatives could say, "Well, it's a shame about that Alabama minister and all, but it doesn't affect us," and step neatly to the side of it.)

I didn't post in the original thread because I had nothing to say about the actual incident. But I do find the Aldridge case to be a case of religious/political hypocrisy exposed, and I'm interested in where the line is vis-a-vis MetaFilter. If we're saying the line is, "Well, the guy is dead, therefore we shouldn't touch it, it's not respectful" that's fine.

If we're saying "Conservative sex scandals are okay... as long as they don't come in a big cluster," then I don't get it.

(I realize the thread is still alive and all, meaning it's likely going to ride even if the admins don't love it... but I honestly can't tell whether this MeTa is an indicator of future bad behavior site-wide in 2008, or whether one person's personal taste-o-meter got ruffled and we all just go forward.)
posted by pineapple at 9:21 PM on October 12, 2007 [6 favorites]

cat.dog, and it's not really clear why you're riding jonmc's ass so hard on this.
posted by cortex at 10:18 PM on October 12

Pastabagel answered this I think here.
One of the best cartoons I've ever seen was a drawing of a guy in high heels, fishnets, a garter belt and a black bra standing in front of a full length mirror holding a video camera. The caption read, "I'd shit if Jesus returned right now."
But that was in a Hustler sometime in the 80's, not on the front page of MetaFilter.
posted by Sailormom at 9:25 PM on October 12, 2007

pineapple, you may very well be able to do this, but I ask you to please connect this dead guy convincingly to the upcoming USA election in a way more than lol xian repubs are the suxor (i.e. why does he matter).

I'm not trying to be a douchetard, I'm just trying to understand why this is meaningful or important or the best of the web.
posted by psmith at 9:32 PM on October 12, 2007

shit, pineapple, i have to go for the evening and can't continue this discussion right now.
posted by psmith at 9:38 PM on October 12, 2007

As you saw in my post on the blue, I've been interested in the subject since the mid 1980's. One particular pharmacy I worked in was frequented by policemen, one of whom was a detective I became reasonably acquainted with. One day I mustered my courage and asked him if he was familiar with autoerotic asphyxia. He told me that he once investigated a case in which a substantial time had passed between the death of the subject and the discovery of the body.

In the great tradition of morbid cop humor, he described to me the state of decomposition of the body thusly; "Even the flies were bloated"...
posted by Tube at 9:39 PM on October 12, 2007

once i fucked myself
posted by psmith at 9:46 PM on October 12, 2007

In a world with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, about half of them under the effective control of one person, I find stories of people in positions of self-described ultimate moral authority acting out whatever is absolutely most forbidden in their own belief system compelling, and worth trying to understand at every opportunity, especially since the person who controls those weapons never tires of reminding us how much he has in common with those moral authorities who cannot seem to help doing what is most forbidden and eventually quite destructive to their families, their flocks, and themselves.

It's a foible of mine, I know-- but there it is.
posted by jamjam at 10:17 PM on October 12, 2007 [6 favorites]

Milligan's death significantly contributed to derailing John Major's "Back to Basics" policy initiative.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:32 PM on October 12, 2007

Know who else is dead and didn't do anything to me?

I'm not saying this is Teh Best of Teh Web [Fanfare], but I don't see the post as being LOLXtian in the manner that I've learned to loathe - while the dead man's vocation is what elevates this from being just another dead pervert, it is possible to, well, enjoy the story for its sheer oddness rather than trumpet how this is yet another victory for the shining forces of honest secularism.

Sometimes a trussed-up dead reverend in a couple of rubbersuits with a doobed dildo up his ass is just a trussed-up dead reverend in a couple of rubbersuits with a doobed dildo up his ass. And that's enough for me.

Also:

MetaTalk: Knowing what was coming next (thank you, internet) I quickly turned away.

That's right, TWO incredibly tired in-jokes in one comment, TWO! Oh, and wendell, suckahs!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:38 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think we're reaching a point where we're beginning to understand just why it is that some people are so deeply obsessed with policing sexual behavior.

Sen. Craig considers himself to be a straight man - yet (if the rumors are true) he finds himself compelled to seek out gay mens-room sex.

Rev. Aldridge considered himself a man of god, fighting to keep America pure - yet he himself had a HUGE rubber kink.

The average celibate priest is about one hundred times as likely to be accused of sexual predation of children as is the average male.

I think we're beginning to understand that conservatives feel the need for tightly regulating sexual behavior simply BECAUSE they themselves feel they need outside help in suppressing their own desires. And this certainly bears on the larger political questions facing America. The entire conservative movement seems to be full of this sort of hypocrisy:

- if somebody is obsessed with "protecting the children", they have a higher-than-average chance of being a pedophile;

- if somebody supports laws to ban sex toys (which is the law in Aldridge's Alabama), well, you know why;

- if somebody wants to make sure that homosexuality is kept marginalized (as Sen. Craig has voted), well, it's quite likely that they themselves are deeply concerned with controlling their own impulses.

The evidence is mounting that conservatives need to control sexual freedom simply as a way to control themselves. And America needs to finally understand just how twisted these people are. Because the last seven years have shown us that we can no longer afford the luxury of allowing conservatives near the levers of power.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 11:04 PM on October 12, 2007 [15 favorites]

Nah, this post was crap.

Call me a metahypocrite, but back in the day, this is what alt.tasteless was for. It'd be great for Fark or Sensible Erection. But Metafilter? We have standards.

If we're going to have autoerotic asphyxiation by self-loathing moralists on the front page, there needs to be a redeeming feature that makes it art.

I know that sounds like a joke, but I'm quite serious. Leave the poor guy alone. He is a common or garden casualty of paraphilia and there is nothing that makes this interesting other than prurient interest and a desire to sneer.

I'm all for prurience and sneering but I want a better excuse first. Probably in an earlier age I would have been commissioning portrayals of a classical scene with nymphs rather than just directing to artist to paint me some naked chicks. But I still want to draw the distinction for Metafilter.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:32 AM on October 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

All moral and aesthetic standards are utterly arbitrary. There's nothing whatsoever that makes a post about a dead pervert better or worse than any other post.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:18 AM on October 13, 2007

There's nothing whatsoever that makes a post about a dead pervert better or worse than any other post.

Au contraire, there has to be something else, otherwise it's just kind of meh.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:28 AM on October 13, 2007

Isn't that what they call this place? Mehtafilter, yeah.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:31 AM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Let me know which tenets of the aforementioned seem to make an allowance for the way that Aldridge died"

This is really clutching at straws to prove this guy was a 'hypocrite'. None of those rules have anything to do with private sexual behavior or masturbation, but rather public presentation.

Can someone point to something this guy actually preached that condemned private use of dildoes or bondage? (He might have, but this was the best attempt at evidence yet and it sucked)
posted by dgaicun at 2:32 AM on October 13, 2007

Can someone point to something this guy actually preached that condemned private use of dildoes or bondage?

He might have quoted 1 John 2:16 to his flock:

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:02 AM on October 13, 2007

joe's spleen: "If we're going to have autoerotic asphyxiation by self-loathing moralists on the front page, there needs to be a redeeming feature that makes it art."

Clothing: The decedent was received wearing two (2) wet suits, one scuba diving mask, one pair of diving gloves, one pair of slippers, one pair of rubber underwear, two (2) ties, five (5) belts, eleven (11) straps.

I may just be uninformed, but I am under the impression that this is not an everyday occurrence. This is something that could have happened off-camera to Lloyd Bridges in an R-rated version of Airplane (or maybe Peter Graves or Robert Stack), explained deadpan to the audience by Leslie Nielsen.

My take on this whole thing is the same as Alvy's, rather than pineapple's.
posted by ibmcginty at 4:25 AM on October 13, 2007

“Rev. Aldridge considered himself a man of god, fighting to keep America pure - yet he himself had a HUGE rubber kink.”

Everyone assumes that this man was a hypocrite. That assumption is based upon the assumption that all cultural ultra-conservatives abhor any sex that's not with a partner and in missionary position. And while this may be true for most of these folks, there's no reason to suppose that it's true for each individual. Because the specifics of their faith that I'm aware of which are relevant to this guy's kinks are the one that discourage masturbation. Masturbating in a very kinky way is obviously marginal socially, but I don't see how it's connected directly to his faith. Therefore there's no way to know that he specifically was hypocritical in this regard.

A very common fallacy is to accuse individual people who are members of a group of hypocrisy with regard to what the accuser thinks of as the standard party line of the group. But often there's no evidence whatsoever that the individual himself subscribes to that belief of which he's being accused of being hypocritical about.

Pundits and other people do this all the time. If a member of the “left” does something that seems not in accordance with the right's mental image of the left, then that individual is accused of hypocrisy and all the dittoheads chuckle with glee at the lack of integrity, nay depravity, of the left as a whole.

So the chain is this: construct an image of the average member of Group X and a list of all the behaviors that Group X says one should do and should not do. This is false, as very rarely are any such groups homogenous or list in detail their collective beliefs to which all are expected to subscribe. Yes, this generalization is often useful and unavoidable. But applying generalizations to individuals is invalid and is what stereotyping is.

Then you find some individual belonging to Group X that exhibits behavior that is not in accordance with that pre-constructed idea of the Average Group X Member. Accuse him of hypocrisy and laugh at him. This is invalid because there's rarely any way to know that this individual subscribed to the entire list of behavior norms that you've assumed to exist (which doesn't).

Then you use this individual as a stand-in for all members of Group X and thus accuse all of Group X as hypocrites. This is invalid for the same reason the previous step was invalid.

So it's basically three separate steps, each of which are very questionable, to an extremely questionable conclusion. Each step, and especially the conclusion, are motivated by very questionable motives. The whole sorry mess is very dishonest and irrational.

And yet most of us of all type, from all sides of all issues, do this to some degree or the other. It's extremely corrosive because it's basically a creation of villainy from whole-cloth of imagination, not fact. The whole thing is a vicious cycle because it furthers one's conception of those one disagrees with into greater and greater abstraction and caricature, all the while as one finds it easier and easier to believe that all individuals of the caricatured class are each exactly such a caricature. It's dehumanizing. It's also anti-liberal because the liberal (though, perhaps, not the leftist) creed is to see people as individuals worthy of individual respect and not as dehumanized members of a class which one is then mentally and emotionally safe to attack and scorn and hate and pity.

There's little real evidence that this man was a hypocrite, just speculation of the form of reasoning I described. Otherwise, we at MetaFilter are broad-minded people-though not everyone-and I would expect most of us to tolerate someone's weird masturbatory kinks. It's a very sad way to die and to laugh at the man only underscores this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:38 AM on October 13, 2007 [16 favorites]

christian/republican-does-something-out-of-character

it's not out of character. it's part and parcel of the human condition. A Christian aspiring to higher behavior in no way guarantees success. How can you think it does? to never again indulge in shameful acts, THAT would be out of character, and superhuman. how does reveling in such behavior make you superior to those who rue it and struggle unsuccessfully to overcome it?
posted by quonsar at 5:11 AM on October 13, 2007 [5 favorites]

and what Ethereal Bligh said is an excellent analysis.
posted by quonsar at 5:12 AM on October 13, 2007

If I am ever found dead, hogtied, dressed in two rubber suits with a dildo up my butt, I won't mind at all if people laugh.
posted by flabdablet at 5:24 AM on October 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Someone get a message through
To Captain Snort
That they better start assembling
The boys from the fort.
Keep Mrs. Honeyman right out of sight,
'Cause there's gonna be riot
Down in Trumpton Tonight.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:26 AM on October 13, 2007

Masturbating in a very kinky way is obviously marginal socially, but I don't see how it's connected directly to his faith. Therefore there's no way to know that he specifically was hypocritical in this regard.

• Michael Aldridge was a fundamentalist Baptist minister, preaching specific ideas about sin.

• He was a graduate of Liberty University, a fundamentalist Baptist sort-of-educational institution.

• He was a former dean of said institution. The current dean spends time preaching and doing research on creationism, if that is an indication of job requirements.

If Aldridge did not need to maintain two entirely separate understandings of morality, with respect to his daily behavior as a Baptist minister and a member of its pedagogical community, and his private behavior as someone into a rubber kink, the only other explanation I can think of is that he was on a deep, deep undercover mission of some kind.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:43 AM on October 13, 2007 [6 favorites]

...well then he didn't get the memo. We have robot spy dragonflies for that now. Wait, maybe they only are for deep undercover and not deep, deep undercover.
posted by WolfDaddy at 6:04 AM on October 13, 2007

We're still working the kinks out of the technology, you see
posted by WolfDaddy at 6:04 AM on October 13, 2007

Metafilter: We Have Standards
posted by psmealey at 7:38 AM on October 13, 2007

Normally I'm all for making fun of hypocrites but this isn't one of those posts for me, either. Mostly, I was intrigued by the circumstances of the death and the marvelously dry autopsy report. Of course we've all heard of these things before, but the amount of detail here was genuinely interesting to me. And yes, amusing.
But I'm going to cop to being a heartless rubbernecking (hah) voyeur rather than pretend to be all outraged that he's a preacher.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:46 AM on October 13, 2007

Masturbating in a very kinky way is obviously marginal socially, but I don't see how it's connected directly to his faith. Therefore there's no way to know that he specifically was hypocritical in this regard.

Is't a dildo a proxy for a dick? If so, then Mr. Liberty University died with a dick up his butt. And that establishes at least a rebuttable presumption that he was specifically hypocritical.

If you can produce, say, an article the guy wrote, or a speech he gave, saying that gay sex isn't against God's law, then I would reconsider my position that he is a hypocrite. But until such evidence is presented, the fact that he lived, worked, and worshipped in the very bosom of anti-gay sentiment, yet died with a facsimile of a rock-hard cock up his ass, pretty soundly establishes that he is a hypocrite of the first magnitude.
posted by jayder at 7:49 AM on October 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

A very common fallacy is to accuse individual people who are members of a group of hypocrisy with regard to what the accuser thinks of as the standard party line of the group. But often there's no evidence whatsoever that the individual himself subscribes to that belief of which he's being accused of being hypocritical about.

This is totally true, and I was very clear upthread in saying "let's assume that Aldridge adhered to and preached these things," because of his association with such vocally strict groups. I could be totally wrong.

My point is that I believe MeFites can handle the discussion itself. Will there be a joke or twenty? Sure, but under the tasteless is some actual conversation fodder, to my mind.
posted by pineapple at 7:51 AM on October 13, 2007

You know, I totally expected that thread to be 100% a Rehash of Schadenfreude Past (Christian conservative variety), and hence dismissable, but I have to say that the calm and informative expertise provided by Clay201 made the whole snarkfest worth it, and is an excellent example of why I continue to hang around this place. Big ups to him.

What Kat Allison said. Also, the guy was hogtied and dressed in two rubber suits with a dildo up his ass. That's funny, I don't care what you say.

And EB, come on. What do you think was the reaction of his fellow Lib U stone-age bigots to this? If his kinks weren't hypocritical but were perfectly in accord with his repellent beliefs, his co-cavemen should be celebrating them, not sweeping them under the rug. "Yes, Brother Michael was into the bondage and the dildos, but don't we all have our little kinks? At least he wasn't practicing heresy or adultery! Hallelujah!" But somehow that's not what's going on there in Church Swampy Hollow.

And what's Mister Fuck-Ann-Coulter-the-Ugly-Bitch doing standing up for autoasphyxiating Neanderthals who are equally bad for humanity?
posted by languagehat at 8:01 AM on October 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

I don't understand the dichotomy between "moral purity" and BDSM. I've been involved in BDSM for years, and I have never once heard a Christian say anything negative about it. Conversely, I've known plenty of Christians - even conservative Christians - who enjoy kink. I really don't know what churches think about BDSM, especially this particular minister. Can anyone have any evidence that he spoke out - publicly or privately - against practicing BDSM?

I think most of the far right-wingers are too consumed by homophobia to even bother commenting on kink. Hypocrisy WRT to gays is not the same thing as hypocrisy WRT kink, because kinksters aren't systematically oppressed in the same way that gays are. We can get married (if we're hetero), and we can live our whole lives just fine without anyone knowing we're kinky. A gay person, by contrast, is denied all kinds of rights if they come out. So, someone speaking out against homosexuality condones this inequality. Someone speaking out against kink has absolutely no legal effect on someone's life.
posted by desjardins at 8:01 AM on October 13, 2007

Is't a dildo a proxy for a dick? If so, then Mr. Liberty University died with a dick up his butt. And that establishes at least a rebuttable presumption that he was specifically hypocritical.

And any gay dude that strokes himself off is obviously a closet straight, jonesing for vadge. And don't get me started about so called "lesbians" who own vibrators or dildos.
posted by cortex at 8:02 AM on October 13, 2007

Yes, the guy absolutely WAS a hypocrite.

Here's a guy who choose a career that involved telling other people how they should behave: specifically, that other people should have only a tightly constrained range of sexual possibilities in their lives. He was a Dean at Liberty University: he was all about controlling other people's sexuality, and about making them feel shame about their desires.

But he did not follow those same rules in his own life.

So when he's found in these circumstances, it's only right and proper for less-hypocritical people to point out that the rules he was proposing (but only for others) don't actually work in the world of real humans.

Now, maybe it's possible that ALL moralists are hypocrites, and maybe that's only because humans can't achieve the Ideal they point us to; but more likely, it's because these so-called "moralists" are trying to gain power over other humans by instilling shame in them.

But whether or not their version of "morality" is actually something to strive for or not, there's no way to pretend that this guy was following the path he was urging upon others.

The man was a shameless hypocrite. And his death was of interest because the circumstances prove his hypocrisy.
And by extension, his demostrable personal hypocrisy adds evidence to the theory that's they're ALL hypocrites who are seeking personal power by shaming others.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 8:05 AM on October 13, 2007

I don't understand the dichotomy between "moral purity" and BDSM.

For starters, sex toys are illegal in Alabama.
posted by pineapple at 8:10 AM on October 13, 2007

the only other explanation I can think of is that he was on a deep, deep undercover mission of some kind.

Underwater mission, you mean.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:10 AM on October 13, 2007

In many ways it was the perfect MetaTalk death - an exercise in getting as far up your own arse as you possibly can.
posted by Abiezer at 8:13 AM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Actually, a lot of the comments in this and the FPP come off as LOLFETISH, rather than dealing with the perceived hypocrisy. If this guy had solicited sex from a man, I don't think the sexual act itself would be subject to this much scorn. I don't recall the Larry Craig thread(s) focusing on LOLSODOMITES.

And I see Ethereal Bligh and others already made my previous point.
posted by desjardins at 8:13 AM on October 13, 2007

I don't understand the dichotomy between "moral purity" and BDSM.

That too. It's odd—and it drives home what I think is the interesting thing about the post, even if it's not the same thing that everyone else sees in it: here's this, really, not clash but conflation of anti-hedonistic preachin' and hardcore kink. They're not opposites, they're orthogonal.

BDSM is a stand in here for having blatantly recreational sex of any sort, if you want to argue the moral purity angle. In which case, the kink thing is it's own thing: mixing up a little of "ha, gotcha!" with "wow, weird". That the reaction here is more focused on the wetsuits and dildo than it would be on, say, the girl's cheerleader outfit in a similar but more vanilla version kind of underscores the point. People are confusing "hypocrisy" with "fetishism", or at the very least letting the two mix without any sense of restraint or fairness to either argument.
posted by cortex at 8:17 AM on October 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

I don't recall the Larry Craig thread(s) focusing on LOLSODOMITES.

Ah, but the Larry Craig thread was full of toe-tapping and wide-stance jokes. It's not about the sexual act as much as the unusual trappings of said sexual act that amuses and interests people.
I never knew about the intricacies of the stall code before Larry Craig. Now, thanks to wetsuit boy, I know about the "smother mother" theory and how to tie myself up all by myself and what EMT scissors are. I'm getting an education here!
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:21 AM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

It is sort of unseemly to revel in the personal trauma of every lowlife conservative just because they are on the opposite political side of an issue.

This isn't exactly some guy who voted republican when he remembered to vote. What makes this noteworthy is the level at which he was opposed to things that were pretty much "the average sex life", meanwhile, when he had a weekend to himself, is up to things that make the kinkiest people I know look pretty tame.

It's the level of internal conteridiction that make this interesting. Sort of like "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" only with less brain damage and more KY Jelly.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:22 AM on October 13, 2007

we're reaching a point where we're beginning to understand just why it is that some people are so deeply obsessed with policing sexual behavior.

Beginning? It's all in The Use of Pleasure. That bald French dude worked it out a long time ago. See also the Paradox of Hedonism.
posted by meehawl at 8:32 AM on October 13, 2007

“People are confusing ‘hypocrisy’ with ‘fetishism’, or at the very least letting the two mix without any sense of restraint or fairness to either argument.”

Absolutely. BP response to my comment was basically just a variation on “hey, kinky stuff is self-evidently against the beliefs of Christian conservatives, amirite?”. Which is not true.

Languagehat's response was basically “other Christian conservatives are obviously embarrassed by this so that proves that he preached against what he was doing”, which is also not true and pretty sloppy reasoning, to boot.

And the dildo thing is just stupid. Just what you said: if this were true, then lesbians that use anything like dildos are, what, actually straight and want to have sex with men? C'mon.

There's a lot of tortured reasoning here on display in the attempt to claim this man was a hypocrite.

And even if we could find something in his faith or organizations he's belonged to that condemned this specific behavior, that still wouldn't prove he's a hypocrite. It's as if the MetaFilter community suddenly forgot there is such a thing as dissent. Lots of folks belong to organizations or causes or faiths who don't accept everything that those groups say. This is especially true for religions. Most people I've known that are religious have some things that they don't agree with their church about. For all we know, this guy was a force for acceptance of kinky sex within his community. We don't know he was not. We don't much of anything about this particular person.

Each of the people in this thread could be accused of hypocrisy on the basis of a claim that “mefites are like X” and “user X did or said something not in accordance with what mefites are like”. That's stupid. It's not hypocrisy until an actual individual says or does something not in accordance with his known beliefs and/or actual statements about correct behavior.

“What makes this noteworthy is the level at which he was opposed to things that were pretty much ‘the average sex life’”

You missed a negative in that statement. But, anyway, you don't know that he was opposed to things that weren't the average sex life. You're just assuming certain beliefs on his part on the basis of your mental model of Christian conservatives. But kinky masturbatory sex isn't something discussed or condemned in the Bible. We can guess that most Christian conservatives would tut-tut this kind of behavior. But so would most middle-class Americans.

So is he a hypocrite because you think he's not acting like a normal Christian conservative, or is he a hypocrite because he's not acting like a normal middle-class American? Why isn't it as interesting for people here to assume he's a hypocritical middle-class American and make a FPP about it on that basis?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:41 AM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

If you don't post these kinds of stories, then metafilter would be even more boring and pompous.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 8:51 AM on October 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

So is he a hypocrite because you think he's not acting like a normal Christian conservative, or is he a hypocrite because he's not acting like a normal middle-class American?

He's a hypocrite because he (supposedly) didn't act like a conservative Christian preacher. His job was to lead by example. If anyone can seriously claim that this man would stand up on Sunday and preach the virtues of BDSM, then the charge of hypocrisy would be wrong.

Of course it's supposition on my part, but I'm gonna guess that kinky sex got negative publicity from his pulpit, if it got any publicity at all. The typical fundie church is very big on teaching the flock that gay sex, extramarital sex, and sex for anything but procreation are wrong and sinful. Going out on a limb, I'll posit that even his own congregation would consider autoerotic sex in multiple rubber suits an affront to God.

I'm a big supporter of different strokes for different folks, and a person's sex life is their own business as long as everything's consensual. But this is definitely an issue of glass houses and stones. I doubt it would have ever made this kind of stir if it wasn't.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:00 AM on October 13, 2007

Languagehat's response was basically “other Christian conservatives are obviously embarrassed by this so that proves that he preached against what he was doing”

No, I think he was obviously embarrassed by this. No, I don't have a signed and witnessed document that proves that he was, but come on. The fact that there's no logical connection between Christian right-wing lunacy and opposition to sex toys is irrelevant; in the world I live in there's a strong correlation. And I have no problem making assumptions about anyone associated with Liberty U.

If you disagree, I presume you think he chatted about his rubber fun with his fellow parishioners/nutjobs?
posted by languagehat at 9:09 AM on October 13, 2007

Absolutely. BP response to my comment was basically just a variation on “hey, kinky stuff is self-evidently against the beliefs of Christian conservatives, amirite?”.

I really don't mean to be glib about this, but I'll gamble anyone $100 that if you ask nine out of ten fundamentalists, this stuff is proscribed in some part of scripture or rationalized interpretation of it.

I already quoted one example further up in this thread. "Lust of the flesh" is a clear representation of sexual appetite — and can include self-gratification — Onanism.

Many Christians interprete the Bible to believe that sex between a married, heterosexual couple is the only acceptable sexual act, and masturbation detracts from this and is therefore sacrilegious.

I would consider stuffing a dildo up one's ass for sexual pleasure to be masturbation — and if one were a Christian, and in particular a fundamentalist Baptist, that individual would more often than not, therefore, find that to be sinful behavior.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:11 AM on October 13, 2007

His job was to lead by example. If anyone can seriously claim that this man would stand up on Sunday and preach the virtues of BDSM, then the charge of hypocrisy would be wrong.

This is bullshit. Believing that something is private does not make you a hypocrite for engaging in it. People who like to talk up BDSM are boring -- I mean, really: their genitals are Goth, super for them, but I don't care. Also, one can be a kinky conservative Christian -- I've met plenty. I really didn't enjoy hearing about the sex life of my Assemblies of God-member boss, but I heard enough to know that her and her husband enjoyed their God-sanctioned boning to the max. (She knew her sons masturbated, too, and didn't beat them or lock them in a closet! The hypocrite!) A lot of you guys have cartoon images of these people that leads me to think you've never spent any time with them.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:35 AM on October 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

Oh, but dying with a dildo up your butt is funny. No matter who you are.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:35 AM on October 13, 2007

I'm not trying to be a douchetard

I really, really wish that all standards of personal excellence were phrased this way, especially in the workplace.
posted by spaltavian at 9:44 AM on October 13, 2007

Also, one can be a kinky conservative Christian -- I've met plenty.

So have we, apparently.

A lot of you guys have cartoon images of these people that leads me to think you've never spent any time with them.

Spent plenty of time with them, thanks. My first wife was from a very active Southern Baptist family. I spent a lot of time not dancing - and if dancing is verboten then you can pretty much guess what the opinions on rubber play are.

If your private life is different than your public life, you're a hypocrite - and we are all hypocrites to one extent or another. But when your job is to instruct others how to live (lest they lose their mortal soul), and you live in direct opposition to the syllabus, then your shortcomings, when discovered, are fair game.

I am not saying that this guy was a bad person; I didn't know him. In fact, I think it's sad that some people have to live with huge chunks of their personalities hidden away.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:06 AM on October 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

Clyde Bruckman: You know, there are worse ways to go, but I can't think of a more undignified way than autoerotic asphyxiation.
Mulder: Why are you telling me that?
Bruckman: Look, forget I mentioned it. It's none of my business.

This was the first time I had ever heard of autoerotic asphyxiation. I was a kid, I didn't know what the term meant, but I knew enough to know I couldn't exactly ask my dad. I thought it might have something to do with cars (auto). For the next, uh... 6 or 8 years I was obsessed with the phrase, and hoo boy! Was I ever surprised when I learned what it was. I still can't hear the phrase without thinking of X-Files.
posted by arcticwoman at 10:17 AM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

To be a fundamentalist southern baptist is to live in a never-ending whirl of hypocrisy, proclivities aside. That he died with a rubber dick in his asshole is just gravy, if you'll pardon the expression.
posted by trondant at 10:23 AM on October 13, 2007

But when your job is to instruct others how to live (lest they lose their mortal soul)

Perhaps the real problem is the fact of instructing others how to live, not what those instructions may have been. For such instructions are unlikely to be followed by student and teacher alike.

Look, this guy died a lonely death, and if he thought - as is likely - that his kinks were out of bounds according to his faith or his community, he probably lived a lonely life too.

(So does Larry Craig, but I take no pity on him: for he has managed to deal with the fallout of his escapades by being an even bigger dickwad than before. This particular individual has no such luxury.)
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:26 AM on October 13, 2007

He may have actually been a hypocrite. That's not the point.

The point is that this sort of reasoning—where you assume that group X says Y, person A is a member of group X; person A does something not in accordance with Y; therefore person A is a hypocrite; and that since person A is a member of group X, therefore members of group X are hypocrites—is rationally wrong and morally wrong. I thought that my example of how this is done to us, liberals, by conservative pundits would drive the point home. Apparently not.

Yes, conservative Christians and Catholics and others tend to view the Onan story as condemning masturbation. But tend is not all and, anyway, they certainly don't have anything to say specifically about rubber fetishes and dildos. Yes, we can guess that most conservative Christians would say that there's something, somehow morally wrong and un-Christian about dressing up in a rubber suit and shoving a dildo up your ass as you masturbate. But we still don't know that this individual person ever made such an argument.

And the idea that someone would have to publicly make an argument defending their behavior in order to prove themselves not hypocrites is really, really absurd. There's lots of things I do that I don't believe are wrong that I've never spoken publicly about. So if I do them, I'm a hypocrite? And this is just as true for a preacher. A preacher isn't required to exhaustively list every possible thing that he/she thinks is acceptable.

This type of reasoning is a fallacy that I wish had a name. It's very, very common and very destructive to civil discourse. If all commentators, paid and voluntary, would refrain from doing this, the level of discourse would rise dramatically. I used to do this a lot and I've had to work at not doing it. It's only been in the last few years that I've recognized how rationally suspect it is and how much damage it causes.

If you can find specific examples of hypocrisy, then that's great. It's not hard to do with people like Larry Craig. I have no problem with showing how people like him have said things and voted on things that prove his hypocrisy when he's caught soliciting sex in a restroom. And, sure, preachers are semi-public figures and we can guess that this guy has said some thing that make him a hypocrite. But the onus is on the person making the accusation to actually find evidence of it, not making up evidence in their imagination.

Languagehat is idiosyncratic in a number of his views, including some political views. But if he were taken only as a member of a class of leftists, or editors, or linguists, then in each case someone could claim, on the basis of his behavior (which, unknown to them, conforms to his idiosyncratic views) people could call him a hypocrite. This is obviously stupid when someone actually knows languagehat. But when someone's just looking to make charges of hypocrisy against any random member of a group, and knowing that languagehat is a member of said group, then knowing that languagehat once did X is fodder for such a charge. It's dishonest and insulting because it treats LH not as an individual, but as a cookie-cutter cutout of someone's idea of leftists, or linguists, or editors...and usually that person doesn't like leftists, or linguists, or editors, making their stereotypes even more suspicious.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:36 AM on October 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

If a person is trying to be "good" in the power of his or her own strength instead of resting in the finished work of Christ to justify and sanctify oneself, then one can expect to eventually "fall" and fall hard.


None of us are good. None of us can be good. We have to know that each one of us is totally, utterly depraved, and can only escape that depravity through the power of God working in us.

I don't know anything about that man. I could even imagine a murderer going to great lengths to set up such a scenario to desecrate this man's memory in death. But since that doesn't seem to be the most likely explanation here, I'd just have to say he couldn't fight his inner urges on his own. Which makes him exactly like the rest of us.
posted by konolia at 10:43 AM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Get a grip, EB. Your arguments have merit in and of themselves, but on the face of the available facts of this case come over as some unnecessary special pleading.
The balance of probabilites is that a man seeking the status of pastor to a conservative Christian community would indeed have condemned in his public persona the kind of sexual behaviour that led to his unfortunate death. I might be wrong there and I do think the thread is in poor taste, but it's in no worse taste than plenty that never ends up debated at excruciating length here.

None of us are good. None of us can be good. We have to know that each one of us is totally, utterly depraved, and can only escape that depravity through the power of God working in us.
That's exactly the aspect of Christian theology that always struck me as patently false, konolia. We are neutral emanations of the great unfolding of the Universe, and any moral aspect to our lives is something we create while we are here.
posted by Abiezer at 10:59 AM on October 13, 2007

“The balance of probabilites is that a man seeking the status of pastor to a conservative Christian community would indeed have condemned in his public persona the kind of sexual behaviour that led to his unfortunate death.“

Maybe or probably. But that's the argument that people will make every time they do this. “Well, most leftists support free speech so this guy is a hypocrite if he wanted to censor someone.” Or whatever. I think this is a bad habit and accusations of hypocrisy should be founded upon actual, known hypocrisy and not supposed hypocrisy based upon stereotypes and probability.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:39 AM on October 13, 2007

We have to know that each one of us is totally, utterly depraved, and can only escape that depravity through the power of God working in us.

Just like that dildo which was 'doing its work' in good ol' Rev. Aldridge's butt!
posted by ericb at 11:44 AM on October 13, 2007

The typical fundie church is very big on teaching the flock that gay sex, extramarital sex, and sex for anything but procreation are wrong and sinful.

Really? I've known some fundy Protestants and their churches did not condemn masturbation or non-procreative sex. I thought the old stereotype was that Catholics aren't supposed to have non-procreative sex but do anyway, while Protestants are allowed but have no desire to.

EB has had some wise things to say. I haven't been impressed with the logic of 'hypocrysy' here.
posted by dgaicun at 11:48 AM on October 13, 2007

To rephrase myself, I'm saying I agree with your general point EB, but the bizarre nature of the poor guy's death made it the kind of thing that gets bandied around Internet forums. The original question raised here was of taste. I think it's poor, but no so awful as to merit deletion or whatever. I've cracked a few crude jokes myself.
Then we get on to the question of hypocrisy. I went back to look at the wording of the post, as I didn't recall it containing any mention of that, and now see that's in the tags. Is that the Meta-objection? Otherwise this discussion would surely have sat as well in the main thread on the Blue.
posted by Abiezer at 12:02 PM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

“Well, most leftists support free speech so this guy is a hypocrite if he wanted to censor someone.”

But it's not "most leftists" that would be the analogy here - it's "most leaders of the ACLU".
posted by mdn at 12:11 PM on October 13, 2007

The balance of probabilites is that a man seeking the status of pastor to a conservative Christian community would indeed have condemned in his public persona the kind of sexual behaviour that led to his unfortunate death.

Actually no one here has demonstrated any personal knowledge whatever of the views of masturbation on nonprocreative sex among American Christian and Fundamentalist denominations. My understanding is that it varies widely among these denominations and among individuals within these denominations.

So, no, no one has done anything to demonstrate the "balance of probabilities" go in any particular direction.
posted by dgaicun at 12:14 PM on October 13, 2007

the fact that he lived, worked, and worshipped in the very bosom of anti-gay sentiment, yet died with a facsimile of a rock-hard cock up his ass, pretty soundly establishes that he is a hypocrite of the first magnitude.

Ugh, seriously? Arguing that enjoying things in your butt means you're gay is a truly ignorant and repressive statement. Did you learn that in church?
posted by oneirodynia at 12:17 PM on October 13, 2007

OK dgaicun - you believe that, and I'll continue to believe that if I sought pastoral advice from a similar minister about my desire to engage in the behaviour at question chances are I'd be told it was wrong.
posted by Abiezer at 12:26 PM on October 13, 2007

This particular preacher did not ever, as far as I know, tell his congregation to burn anyone who uses rope and clothespins for sexual gratification. But he was thick with the people who have contempt for us.

When my local BDSM group wanted to acquire a building in which to hold meetings, demonstrations and play parties, (the group in Birmingham had one, so it seemed possible for us, in theory) the biggest argument against it was not any specific law or regulation. In fact, when BDSMers are prosecuted (or denied a permit or whatever), it's almost never under a law that deals specifically with BDSM. You can search the fifty states for a law that says "Anyone found spanking the buttocks of their sexual partner accompanied by audible moaning from either party shall be subjected to a fine of 500 dollars or a jail term of no more than six months," but you probably won't find it. Such laws basically just don't exist. Once in a while, you'll se a sadomasochist get prosecuted for assault. But usually it's something like prostitution (pro dommes get this one regularly), zoning regulations (for clubs and organizations), or obscenity (which might come into play if the perverts in question have dirty pictures or sex toys in their possession). And of course parents can lose custody of children and employees can lose their jobs. This puts us in a rather gray and poorly regulated area. Will we get nailed for this, that or the other? The law just doesn't say. It depends almost entirely on the individuals in the local government. (It's not unlike that whole "community standard" obscenity thing, actually. Is this particular piece of smut illegal? Well... why don't you put it in your store? If we decide later that it's obscene, we'll arrest you for it.)

There was a gay bar on the outskirts of town for a number of years and they had every kind of regulatory hassle known to man. They got harrassed by ABC (Alabama Bevrage Control). There were complaints about water drainage. You name it, it was thrown at em.

Some years back, someone tried to open up a strip club in a small town just outside of Montgomery. The local board or council who issues liquor licenses denied them. The would-be strip club owners asked them why. The politicos admitted they didn't have a reason other than that they just didn't want this place to open.

A local bar tried to bring in male dancers - sort of a low-rent Chippendale's type thing- for ladies night. The city council had a meeting, checked the books, and was surprised to find that the laws might not specifically forbid this sort of thing. (I don't recall the details, but my guess is that when the laws were written, they were directed at female dancers and actual nudity; probably no one wanted to even think about the possibility of housewives shoving dollar bills down mens jock straps). So the council quickly made a new law that did specifically forbid such things.

In 1979, when he first became mayor, Emory Folmar set out to ban the sale of adult books and magazines. But see, he wasn't able to make them illegal. Not immediately, anyway. So he hatched a plan. The main distributor of adult materials was a small store/newsstand type operation downtown. They had a "back room" into which only adults were admitted. Folmar set up a video camera at the post office across the street. Soon, on the evening news, you could see video of people going in and out of the place while the newscaster went on about the lurid materials available for purchase there. Never mind that some of the people were just going in there to buy Newsweek or Boy's Life or a fucking local paper. Their business threatened, the store capitulated. It wasn't too long after that that Folmar got his local ordinances banning smut.

Folmar remained mayor for the next couple of decades and, as recently as 1998, it was still illegal to sell or rent for profit anything harder than Cinemax-type softcore porn. The local non-profit theater did exhibit Showgirls, but that was about as brazen as the resistance got. At the video store where I worked, customers often asked about adult movies and I always had to tell 'em... drive to Dothan or Birmingham or Columbus.

Things improved a bit when Bobby Bright got elected in the late nineties. We even got a couple of adult stores around that time. But there were still legal battles over what kind of porn they could carry. The police raided the places pretty regularly.

I'm not sure what the current status of the dildo laws are. I keep hearing about them, but a friend of mine and I shopped for sex toys just a few months back here in town; they had damn near everything you could think of. The impression I've gotten is that there's an uneasy truce; the DAs and attorney general recognize that these things aren't going away, but they have to keep up the legal harrassment to keep their political supporters happy.

Given all this history, the prevailing feeling in my BDSM group was that if we tried to get a building (even a rental), they'd find some obscure law to use against us, enforce zoning regulations in some creative manner, or just write a new law. At the very least, we'd have to worry about our names ending up in the paper.

That's the situation where I live. The laws aren't actually our problem. Nor are the majority of the people; most of them have a live-and-let-live attitude about it. It's, to quote Trainspotting, "a few assholes" who are the problem. And Aldridge was firmly alligned with those assholes.
posted by Clay201 at 12:40 PM on October 13, 2007 [6 favorites]

[pineapple responding to EB]: This is totally true, and I was very clear upthread in saying "let's assume that Aldridge adhered to and preached these things," because of his association with such vocally strict groups. I could be totally wrong.

This is very funny, because just the other day Ethereal Bligh was telling us all how very carefully he picks his words, especially his use of qualifiers, and how dumb fucks should learn to read his messages better.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:44 PM on October 13, 2007

I'm all for giving a few benefits of the doubt to a dead, dildo-up-the-pooper type of guy like this. That said, if you don't know what Liberty University is and is about, you really should take the time to educate yourself. Are we really supposed to bend over (LOL. I mean, not LOL'ing.) backwards and assume that this dude might have been the one bible-thumping Liberty U. higher-up who actually wasn't (in his public life) anti-gay, and therefore someone who fomented anti-gay bigotry, among other sorts?

Ethereal Bligh protesth too much, as usual, at his typical mefi strawmen -- the atheist/librul member of this community who's somehow so far mired in anti-Christian ideology as to lack the true perspective (and unwarranted verbosity) of the one, the only EB himself. Which is fine -- egos are tied into this place more than most people would care to admit, but honestly, I'm really tired of the lecture.

Shorter me: Maybe many of us will go to hell for condeming and/or laughing at the one Liberty U. guy who really wasn't that bad, who was genuine in his convictions for peace and understanding among all people (vanilla, kinky, and otherwise). But ya know, that burden of proof ain't on me any longer. As long as prominent conservative/Christian/Republican figures continue to have "wide stances," IM boys for a fuck, snorth meth with male prostitutes, or die with things lodged up their butt, I will continue to be curious and even a bit uncouth in wanting to know the gory details and in joining in on the LOL HYPOCRITEZ train.
posted by bardic at 1:03 PM on October 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

assume that this dude might have been the one bible-thumping Liberty U. higher-up who actually wasn't (in his public life) anti-gay

He didn't do anything homosexual.
posted by dgaicun at 1:17 PM on October 13, 2007

He didn't do anything homosexual.

That's not why he's a hypocrite, but it's been explained why too many times by now.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:22 PM on October 13, 2007