A Modest Agenda Proposal

Nathan Richardson

For the first part of this satirical conversation, read “A Modest Lifestyle Proposal.” In it, two people converse about anorexia and bulimia, and what factors might lead to people getting involved in eating disorders. The first speaker (regular typeface) uses arguments in favor of eating disorders that are very similar to the ones most advocates of the homosexual lifestyle use. The second speaker (bold typeface) questions the coherency and conclusions of those arguments.

It baffles me that such a rationale has become accepted today, even by the educated—not for eating disorders, but for homosexuality. One of the greatest injustices of this deceptive “logic” is that it has discouraged so many people from seeking needed help. Even more alarming is that it has been used to encourage so many more to participate in a lifestyle that is deadly both spiritually and physically. Imagine the outrage if such rhetoric was used to encourage bulimia and anorexia?¹

In the past, people have adopted a live-and-let-live approach. We have supposed that, even though we strongly disagree with the lifestyle, they aren’t affecting us directly so why not just let it alone? Over time, though, we’ve seen that homosexual activists have begun to affect society at large more and more, using ever more vociferous rhetoric. A couple decades ago, who would have ever predicted that homosexual activists would cease to be content with legalizing their behavior and would begin to openly attack the heterosexual lifestyle? But that’s exactly what is in the headlines today, and people have become so confused by the repeated rhetoric that they can’t see how far we’ve come from normal reasoning.

Again, this conversation has nothing to do with criticizing people who struggle with eating disorders or with same-sex attraction. On the contrary, both groups deserve our sympathy and help, not our harmful indulgence. The purpose of this fictional dialogue is to illustrate the smoke-and-mirrors argumentation used to promote homosexual behavior.

Imagine, for example, if people separated eating from nutrition, the way many people today separate sex from child-bearing.

---

I’ve read about people who struggle with anorexia and bulimia. I don’t know how you can in good conscience encourage someone in such a self-destructive lifestyle.
That is so offensive! What’s wrong with their lifestyle? They’re not hurting anyone.
It’s an unhealthy practice. If someone doesn’t eat, they’re not going to get much nutrition. That’s plain as day.
There you go confusing separate issues. Boy, are you behind the times.
What do you mean?
Eating is a totally separate issue from digestion and nutrition.
That’s what eating is for.
No, eating is about enjoying the physical pleasure of taste.
Well, yeah, that’s part of it, but I don’t see how you can separate eating and digestion. Why would you want to separate them?
How Victorian. Look, some people who enjoy eating don’t want to be burdened with excess calories and fat that come from digestion.
That’s the natural consequence of eating.
Not if people practice safe-purging. That’s why contradigestives should be made available in schools and why health teachers and dieticians should instruct teenagers on using protection.
Boy, that’s a pretty twisted view of the purpose of the health profession.
I should think that it would be obvious that eating is distinct from digestion. Do you never enjoy eating for eating’s sake? Do you only ever eat things for their nutritional value?
No, of course I enjoy eating, too, but—look, you’ve completely turned things around. This conversation isn’t normal.

Tinkering with Age-old Social Customs

Now imagine if people separated meals from food, the way many people today separate marriage from child-bearing and rearing.

---

That’s the problem with appetitists.
What’s an appetitist?
A conorexic—someone who has a traditional appetite, who likes eating and digesting food.
What’s the problem you see?
You think everyone should think your way. You’re so close-minded that you assume your view on social issues is what constitutes “normal.”
. . . I’m sorry, but I think eating for sustenance is normal.
That’s exactly the kind of burdensome thinking that leads to so many oppressive social practices today.
What kind of social practices?
Like not allowing anorexics and bulimics to join in meals.
What? Of course they can!
Not in the way they’d like to. Current laws, societal structures, and definitions of “meals” are designed to favor appetitists.
What do you mean?
Have you ever seen restaurants accommodate purging? Do free soup kitchens do anything but offer food to the homeless? Those prejudices are ingrained in our society.
You think it’s unfair that mealtimes are designed for people who want to eat?
You bet it’s unfair. Have you ever seen a school meal plan include provisions for an anorexic who doesn’t want to eat?
Why would someone who doesn’t want to eat buy a meal plan?
Because they want to take part in a meal.
You just said . . .
Someone who wants to have a meal but doesn’t want to eat.
But eating and meals are the same thing.
There you go again, confusing two separate issues.
You don’t think eating and meals are the same thing?
No, that’s a rather artificial, out-dated social construct. Meals aren’t essentially about eating.
What! The very purpose of meals is nutrition.
Oh, you’re so sheltered and ethnocentric. Do you really think that every society sees mealtimes the same way?
Every society has mealtime. They always have!
Yes, but there’s an incredible variety of cultural views on meals.
What kinds of views?
Some societies see mealtimes as a sacred event, but some don’t. Some societies eat meals in private; for others, meals are a public affair. Some societies eat sitting around a table, others eat standing up. Even within the same culture, some meals are cooked in the home and others are bought out in public.
What are you trying to say?
Mealtime has no “essence.” There’s no intrinsic purpose that mealtimes serve that remains constant across all times and cultures; it’s all relative.
I’m not contesting the fact that there’s differences, but it doesn’t prove your point. Regardless of cultural variations, meals have always been about eating and sustaining the body.
No, a meal is a social gathering where people who enjoy each other’s company spend time together talking and laughing and fulfilling a variety of other purposes. It’s any mutually agreed-upon gathering. It’s not about nutrition.
Of course it is. The purpose of mealtimes is to eat. That’s the definition of it.

Clinging to Exceptions

Don’t you see the inherent flaw in defining meals by eating?
No. Enlighten me.
That definition would exclude even some appetitists.
How would it exclude people who weren’t anorexic or bulimic?
Well, it would exclude someone who wasn’t hungry or was too sick to keep their food down.
They are still welcome to come to a meal! No one would ever prevent that. Anyone is welcome.
Anorexics and bulimics should be allowed to join in meals. The inequality needs to end.
They are allowed to join in meals. They’ve never been barred from it. In fact, they’re usually encouraged to join in.
Maybe, but can’t you see that your narrow expectations make anorexics and bulimics feel oppressed and excluded. Maybe they’re not interested in ingesting nutrients but still want to take part in the other benefits of a meal.

Government Benefits Available to All

Well, no one has ever said that a person with an eating disorder can’t join in a meal, even if they don’t want to eat.
Yes, but government favors appetitists by its policies.
Like what?
Take for example state-funded meal plans for students. It’s not fair that tax money is used to give people food because it favors people who like food. An anorexic draws no benefit from a state-funded meal plan.
What would you prefer?
They should expand the definition of mealtime so that anorexics could use those funds on things they want, like clothes or books.
Look, that’s a totally separate issue. You don’t need to redefine meals to get those benefits.
That’s what I mean by bigotry. You don’t think anorexics should be allowed to buy clothes or books.
That’s not what I said; they can do that all they want. I said meals are inherently about eating, no matter how you might try to deny that.
That’s fine if you believe that, but you can’t try to force that view on others through the law.
The word means what it means; the practice is what it is. We should expect that to be reflected in laws. How could it not be?

Historical Examples

There’s still no justification for redefining meals as “a mutually agreed-upon social gathering.”
What, so you don’t gather with others at mealtime to talk and enjoy their company? I mean, the Bible even defines it that way. Ecclesiastes 10:19 says, “A feast is made for laughter.”
Well yes, that’s a descriptive characteristic, but it’s not the defining characteristic.
Well, that’s your definition, but you can’t force it on someone else. And you certainly can’t base legal and social institutions on your own concept when others in our society don’t see it that way. (Food stamps for those who like eating—how prejudiced!)
That definition has been a necessary part of life on earth for eons. How can any society survive if the people don’t eat meals? Every society has had this practice.
Yes, every society has had meals, but it’s not always about nutrition or sustaining life. Haven’t you heard about the Roman vomitoriums?
Remind me.
They’d have huge banquets and then go to special rooms designed for purging. Then they’d go back to the banquet. You see? It’s not about nutrition. It’s about a social gathering for mutual enjoyment. That’s an example of an advanced civilization that didn’t meet your limited definition of “meals.”
The Romans civilization isn’t around anymore, is it?
Oh brother, do you really think it fell because they had these unique eating practices?
Not exactly, but they sure didn’t help. Look, I don’t care if you find a hundred aberrant examples. That doesn’t change the fact that meals are necessary for the perpetuation of civilization—for survival! I mean, think of the effects it would have if people didn’t eat at mealtimes.

Conclusion

Your fears are ungrounded—stop being an alarmist. This is just the next step in an advancing social consciousness.
Listen to yourself. In the last ten minutes, you’ve managed to justify seducing people into a physically and mentally destructive lifestyle, convince them that they have no power to choose another course, assert that the natural outcomes of a dangerous behavior are really the result of prejudice, twist and redefine such basic concepts as eating and meals, and undermine a social institution as old as mankind.
It’s called progress.
It’s called blindness.

---

Sound like science fiction? It’s called current events.

---

---

Notes

Thank you to my friend Tessa Farr for helping me develop this analogy. Of course, I alone am responsible for any factual errors I might have made.

1. In fact, disturbingly similar rhetoric has been used to encourage and support eating disorders on sites that fancy themselves to be “support groups,” such as BlueDragonfly.org. (The site has since been removed, but for a description, see NBC4, “Bracelets Reveal Secret Society of Eating Disorders,” NBC, 15 Feb. 2005).

This site is never meant to teach people how to be anorexic. I don’t think it’s something that you can learn anyway. And even if the tips on distracting yourself can get you to skip a meal or two one day, that does not an eating disorder make. . . . This site is for support: we pat each other on the backs for our successes (as they are successes to us). . . . So much more than anti-food-ness goes on here. . . . It’s a support group in the best sense of the phrase. . . .

Anorexia Tips: Instead of buying food, buy yourself flowers! Food is depressing, but flowers make you happy! . . . . Exchange a bad habit for a good one. Exchange eating for yoga, or meditation, or reading more. Make yourself nauseous! You won’t eat! Think higher or yourself! You’re too good to put THAT in your body! [And so on.]

2. Writer Julian Sanchez asserted the same idea about marriage in his review of Stephanie Coontz’s Marriage, a History.

Does marriage, as some conservatives seem to suggest, have an intrinsic nature and a deep purpose that remain constant across millennia, such that changes in its form or meaning should be considered inherently suspect. . . . Not so much, according to Coontz, who finds that when it comes to marriage, the most reliable constant is flux. . . . What emerges from Coontz’s account is the realization that marriage has no “essence.” There is no one function or purpose it serves in every time and place. (“Marital Mythology: Why the new crisis in marriage isn’t,” Reason Online, 17 Oct. 2008)

Sanchez quotes several interesting examples of cultural variation regarding marriage customs. The irony that he is apparently blind to is that every marriage system he describes from Coontz’s book involves (1) man-woman marriage and (2) rearing children. To have missed this constant in a book designed specifically to look for constants bespeaks a lack of rigor on the part of either the author or the reviewer.