Just kidding, of course, there are exactly zero celebrities that I’m DTF with whom I’d have sex. My beautiful and vengeful wife reads this column, for reason’s sake! I have heard that polyamory may well be a viable lifestyle choice, but it’s just not the way we roll. Obviously, though, Danica McKellar would make the list if I had one.
Polyamorous or otherwise, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with a publishing a little lighthearted sexual fantasizing about sexy people that you’ll probably never meet, much less seduce, and that despite reading through all of Luke Muehlhauser’s thoughtful and methodical posts on the topic, the last of which was a graceful mea culpa.
That said, here are a few trenchant objections from P.Z. Myers directly on topic:
…the important concept is that women should have the choice, and their decisions should be respected. Men do not get the privilege of having the roving eye, of being able to pick individual women out of the crowd to tell them that here, they get to be object of sexual interest, especially not if they’re going to then publicly display them as clever eye candy.
In keeping with the radical notion that women are people, I’m supposing that “men” and “women” are interchangeable in the above passage for purposes of moral analysis, and that it would not matter which sex or gender was using their roving eyes to pick out an “object of sexual interest” to put on public display as “clever eye candy.” Maybe I’m wrong about that. Perhaps there is something about women in general that makes their roving eyes significantly less dangerous when they are staring hungrily at images of people who are in fact hundreds or thousands of miles distant. If so, I’d be quite interested to hear what that morally significant difference might be.
That’s all for now. Oh, yeah, here is a pretty celebrity/mathematician just for giggles:
