In which I blatantly offend yet another group of people.

I’d like to begin with a simple analogy that expresses my feelings on the subject at hand:

aborted llama fœti : Perestroika :: Flexitarianism : this analogy.

In other words, flexitarianism makes as much sense as grooming one’s pubic hair with a rusty vegetable peeler. I fail to see how flexitarianism is any different than, oh, say, being an omnivore. “I am a vegetarian… except for when consumption of animal products is required socially, nutritionally, culturally, or pragmatically.” STFU. In other words, you’re a normal omnivore who cannot always stomach eating meat for some reason, most likely due to moral dissonance. I have no problem with vegetarianism—or any other diet, for that matter—as long as its practitioners do not proselytize. I don’t care if you deprive yourself of certain foods on moral, religious, or nutritional grounds. What does offend me is the addition of a new word to our vernacular that adds little or nothing semantically. Also, it is concerning that those in moral conflict about eating meat are given a new term to legitimize their ethical limbo, thus postponing their decision about whether or not to give up being an omnivore.

I only drink to excess when it is socially acceptable.

The flexoholic.

I only cheat on my spouse pragmatically.

The flexadulterer.
← Older Post Blog Archive Newer Post →