The uproar over Phil lRobertson's identification of sexual love with solely what goes underneath one's underpants has, as usual, missed the point. What the Lead Duck of the Dynasty said was completely understandable if people would consider the rest of the package. Let me expound:
I'm sure Mr. Robertson considers his wife or significant other something more than a walking vagina. I'm also certain that Robertson, in turn, is considered as more than a walking anus by most discerning adullts. The fact that Robertson doesn't seem willing to grant this courtesy to others tells us lots more about the Lead Duck than his somewhat restrictive view of sex. If physical attraction was nothing more than the Reagan either-or choice of vagina/anus, people would be a lot more like dogs, cats or - yes - ducks. Likewise, if people's choice in sexual partners was nothing more than giving a good quack and hopping aboard, life wouldn't involve the multiplicity of factors making up the world today.
Please follow after the break:
The truth about humans, as opposed to ducks, is that they are very complicated organisms. People fall in love for an infinity of reasons, only two of which apparently matter to Uncle Phil. A person might fall in love with a person's empathy, sensitivity, pretty blue eyes or dimples and these might have nothing to do with whether they're accompanied by the appropriate Robertson's sexual criteria. I know, for example, that I am far from a pin-up, but that hasn't kept an incredibly lovely woman from staying with me for more than 58 years. The thought, however, that something - anything - could be more important for forming a basis for dislike or hatred than either a vagina or an anus doesn't seem to occur to a fervent Christian like the Chief Duck. It's much easier, you see, to do an Orwell "Man and vagina, good. Man and anus baaaaaad!" Saves wear and tear on the brain cells.
I do not know Mr. Robertson. Nor have I ever seen Duck Dynasty and I doubt I ever will, which may well label me close-minded. However, I have heard comments like Mr. Robertson's before with very small variations. Almost invariably, these were the products of incomplete or aborted thinking. It was simply too mch trouble to investigate the many factors that make up human beings and far too easy to grab on to the nearest stereotype and sound the call.
My belief is that Mr. Robertson's rant is a product of what Jeff Foxworthy would call "Redneckism."
Pity.