Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:42:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1826 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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'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 who come to the US) are equivalently (or more) close-minded about
sexual issues. And they're also mostly unwilling to discuss religion -- at
least claiming that they just don't take it seriously.
I know a guy who claims it's caused by circumcision. I doubt that it's been
tested, but there's certainly a link to Abraham.
> > 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!
Yes, it is. And regardless of my own sexual response to breastfeeding
(essentially none -- I was surprised to discover), it is couched as a sexual
topic in modern America. An interesting tidbit: I understand that public
breastfeeding is much more common in areas with a high latino population. I
wonder what the relationships are that cause that comingling.
> > 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?
I'm not sure that what those people want is to pretned that we're above being
animals. You think? Either way, the 'why' is at most an interesting side issue
to me. The simple fact is that people raised with open attitudes toward
sexuality are happier. And no one was ever harmed by it. We should be having
sex in full view of our children. I don't, but at least I know I should.
Anyting less is to provide support for the taboo that we know is both senseless
and harmful.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
