Let us imagine a particular woman, residing in Beverly Hills, and she is quite attractive in that prefab way that some women have. But her remarkable tan is fake bake, and her hair is a species of blonde not found in nature. Thirty percent of her chest area comes to us courtesy of chemical researchers somewhere, and only from the Lord of nature in a pretty roundabout way. Her heels jack her up to perilous heights, making her gait something not found in nature either. So she is walking down the street in that come-along-boys kind of way, but she is actually going to meet a friend at some swanky bistro for lunch. Got the picture?
Now here’s the curve ball. What is she going to have for lunch? Rather, I mean to ask, what kind of lunch is this woman likely to have? Parts of her are originally woman, but a not insignificant part is what might be called sex doll android upgrades. So it should therefore be obvious to us what she is going to have for lunch. Her lunch is going to be all-natural, whatever she orders, because eating natural is important to her.
So this means that the real question is how deranged our whole society has gotten, in which such things can flourish and grow, and all quite unremarked. She fits right in. This means that something is seriously unnatural about our definitions of natural.
Â
Many on the hard right wing of the natural foods movement might agree with me about eating natural in a Beverly Hills joint, but I want to maintain that we still don’t have a definition of natural. Suppose this woman were a hippie mama instead. Now we can just point to other inconsistencies — another subject for another time.
Whenever we use any term as a way of praising or blaming, the basic question is this: by what standard? The Bible does use natural and unnatural as terms of praise and blame, sure enough, but it does so in the course of saying that men should generally keep their hair shorter than women’s, and that men should desire women, and not other men. Nothing about molasses intend of white sugar.