Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:09:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1697 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > It's also interesting to me that pundits are constantly railing against the
> > alleged banishment of religion from the public square, but sexuality is much
> > more thoroughly banished from public view, and certainly from public
> > discourse, though it's been a part of human culture for far longer than
> > relgion!
>
> What is the link you see (or want to see) between time-in-culture and publicity?
> Maybe the fact that religion keeps reinventing itself is specifically why it
> stays newsworthy while human sexuality is mostly static. (And note that when we
> do have cultural discussions about issues of a sexual nature, it is in response
> to changing mores (e.g. those produced by the advent of serious sexually
> transmitted infections) or once-fringe sexual behavior gaining momentum (e.g.
> pornography and bondage).)
This is a really good question, and I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I
guess I would have to note, as you suggest, that attempts to reinvent sexuality
(or the expression thereof) are met with vigorous resistence, often by the very
same groups that are eagerly and simultaneously promoting their own religious
views. Perhaps I should ask why so many sects of Abraham-descended religions
are so pathologically antisexual?
I'll need to think about this angle some more.
> But I'm all for taking a stand in the de-tabooization of sex. My daughter (2.5
> years old now) is still breastfeeding (which is scandalous in itself :-) and my
> wife is starting to feel uncomfortable doing so in public.
It's interesting that breast-feeding is comingled with sexuality in this
context! Of course, I've read enough of your views previously to know that you
don't identify breast-feeding as a "hubba-hubba" sexual activity, so I'm
certainly not accusing you of interjecting sexuality where it otherwise would
not be found. But your observation is a good one.
As an aside, there's nothing more fundamentally natural or human than
breastfeeding; it's a shame that our culture has stigmatized this most basic
act.
> I'm helping her to stay comfortable and telling her that it's her duty to
> keep it up as long as she can stand it to bring needed change to the world.
> We should feel comfortable with our bodies and our mamalian reproductive
> habits and our almost uniquely human recreational adaptations of those
> behaviors.
That's essentially what bothers me about the demonization of sexuality; we're
animals, our parents were animals, and our grandparents were animals, all the
way back to the beginning. What is the benefit in denying this aspect of
ourselves? We may have habits that other animals do not precisely share, but is
that minor distinction sufficient cause to pretend that we are not what we are?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipping) (...) It is a misnomer to characterize the Judeo-Christian tradition as antisexual. We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage erodes at the institution (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) I'm surrounded by Abrahmics. I'm not sure if I have enough perspective to verify what you're saying. My experiences with Indians (fairly extensive across fifteen years in university and IT) do lead me to believe that they (at least the ones (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) What is the link you see (or want to see) between time-in-culture and publicity? Maybe the fact that religion keeps reinventing itself is specifically why it stays newsworthy while human sexuality is mostly static. (And note that when we do (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
