aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/25/84)
Following up my own article with some more thoughts....
I suspect that many a (seemingly?) insensitive man may have a dream that some
"perfect" woman is going to graciously, with incredible humility, take him as
SO and thereby, shall we say, forgive him his sins and redeem him; that by
submitting her (imagined) purity and perfection to the possible depredations
of his impurity and imperfection, she would somehow relieve him of the gnawing
pain that comes from knowing that no matter how much one grows as a person,
one is never perfect; one always has sins. In other words, men are looking
for a woman to play the role of Christ in a visible, palpable manner. It is
probably for this reason that a man takes it as such a special honor to be
the first man to have sex with a particular woman -- that she cares so much
for him that she sacrifices even her virginity for him -- a blood sacrifice,
yet! Perhaps somehow the verse, "Without shedding of blood there is no
remission [of sins]" is floating around in their subconsciousnesses.
A darker possibility here is that a man may, at bottom, really have it in for
women -- really, actually, hate them, or at least bear a grudge against that
side of the human species. Thus, if his feelings of attraction to women, or
to a particular woman, are carefully analyzed, he may actually be considering
her to be pure and perfect with an eye to how good it would feel (emotionally
as well as physically) to defile all that sweet purity. Note that this
entails, again, his considering himself as wondrously impure, so that he can
be the defiling agent -- unless, of course, he can even gain pleasure from
the thought of a woman being defiled by someone other than himself, say by
rape, or by (if homosexuality disagrees with him, as it does with me)
lesbianism.
I have been criticized by one or two of my Christian brothers because I
sometimes do purchase Playboy. But it is astonishing what you find out when
you "show God your dirty pictures", as one pastor friend of mine put it --
i.e. be appallingly honest about your sexual fantasies; Playboy can thus
sometimes serve as a focusing device.
Anyway, returning to the theme of my earlier paragraphs, what would seem to be
necessary for marriage or SO-ship is that a man become sufficiently accepting
of his own and everyone else's sins/imperfections that he can be intimate with
a woman who is just as sinful/imperfect as he is, and love her nevertheless.
My only question is: how on earth can anyone pull this off?
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
[the man with the cornrowed chest hair :-)]ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/26/84)
-- >> I suspect that many a (seemingly?) insensitive man may have a dream >> that some "perfect" woman is going to graciously, with incredible >> humility, take him as SO and thereby, shall we say, forgive him his >> sins and redeem him; that by submitting her (imagined) purity and >> perfection to the possible depredations of his impurity and >> imperfection, she would somehow relieve him of the gnawing pain that >> comes from knowing that no matter how much one grows as a person, >> one is never perfect; one always has sins. In other words, men are >> looking for a woman to play the role of Christ in a visible, palpable >> manner. It is probably for this reason that a man takes it as such a >> special honor to be the first man to have sex with a particular woman >> -- that she cares so much for him that she sacrifices even her >> virginity for him -- a blood sacrifice, yet! ... >> Anyway, returning to the theme of my earlier paragraphs, what would >> seem to be necessary for marriage or SO-ship is that a man become >> sufficiently accepting of his own and everyone else's >> sins/imperfections that he can be intimate with a woman who is just >> as sinful/imperfect as he is, and love her nevertheless. >> My only question is: how on earth can anyone pull this off? >> -- Jeff Sargent Oh, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff--you told us you were getting better. Most of us with SO's desire them for companionship--you know, warmth. Not for confession or psychoanalysis. Just to be with. Such people are easy to find once you figure out that sinners are intrinsically more interesting than saints. As for these sacrifices-of-the-saintly-purity-of-virginity fantasies, Jeff, I think you've been reading too much lives of the saints, who had woefully little experience in this area. This "special honor", "blood sacrifice", temple-of-the-holy-spirit stuff may be entertaining philosophy, but it won't get you to first base. Not lusty enough. Think bawdy. Most people I know had their first sexual experiences in their teens, when everything in the world is exciting and confusing (ah, those hormones, like a sugar maple on a warm day in March!) and memories of embarrassing bumbling are quickly forgotten in a jumble of new experiences and you don't know who you are from one day to the next anyway. It must be a real nightmare for an adult with a bad self- image and a good memory. I feel for you, Jeff. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 25 Aug 84 [8 Fructidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq) (08/26/84)
Well, I had to break my vow of silence some time, may the Goddess forgive me my transgressions.... >I suspect that many a (seemingly?) insensitive man may have a dream that some >"perfect" woman is going to graciously, with incredible humility, take him as >SO and thereby, shall we say, forgive him his sins and redeem him; that by >submitting her (imagined) purity and perfection to the possible depredations >of his impurity and imperfection, she would somehow relieve him of the gnawing >pain that comes from knowing that no matter how much one grows as a person, >one is never perfect; one always has sins. In other words, men are looking >for a woman to play the role of Christ in a visible, palpable manner. I don't know who should be more insulted by this-- men, women, or Gods. I know I am. Is it my imagination or is Jeff contracting a serious case of Religion on the Brain? Jeff, last time I looked, they didn't let women be priest. Asking them to absolve you of your guilt isn't in their job description. True, a woman who wants to be my SO will have to accept my faults and foibles because I'm not going to change them just for her (I might change them if I decide I want to, but not because she wants me to). Also, I'm going to accept hers on the same level. But asking her to take away the guilt of being you is silly! You shouldn't be guilty for being you in the first place. If you don't LIKE the way you are and are creating all of these feelings of guilt about it, don't ask someone for absolution. Ask yourself WHY you don't like yourself and then go out and change it. Anything else is a cop out. If you don't like yourself you will find that it is VERY hard for others to like you. Believe me, it shows. >It is >probably for this reason that a man takes it as such a special honor to be >the first man to have sex with a particular woman -- that she cares so much >for him that she sacrifices even her virginity for him -- a blood sacrifice, >yet! Perhaps somehow the verse, "Without shedding of blood there is no >remission [of sins]" is floating around in their subconsciousnesses. Ack. Should I laugh, or should I throw up? The historical purposes of virginity were simply that it was the only way that you could truly prove that anything that popped back out later was yours. Bloodlines tended to be VERY important for things like inheritances and so proof of the bloodline was similarly important. There is also (in cases) situations where a person gives someone they care for something they can only give once (well, it can be successfully faked, but that is beside the point.) Blood sacrifices? What are we, cannibals? Even us druids gave up blood sacrifices ages (well, weeks) ago... >A darker possibility here is that a man may, at bottom, really have it in for >women -- really, actually, hate them, or at least bear a grudge against that >side of the human species. Thus, if his feelings of attraction to women, or >to a particular woman, are carefully analyzed, he may actually be considering >her to be pure and perfect with an eye to how good it would feel (emotionally >as well as physically) to defile all that sweet purity. Note that this >entails, again, his considering himself as wondrously impure, so that he can >be the defiling agent -- unless, of course, he can even gain pleasure from >the thought of a woman being defiled by someone other than himself, say by >rape, or by (if homosexuality disagrees with him, as it does with me) >lesbianism. Jeff, what HAVE you been smoking? I'd love a couple of Kilo's if you have any to spare. Should do wonders for my meditation... (joke, dammit!) As far as I know (please let me know if I'm wrong...) there are only two ways a man can tell a virgin from a non-virgin. 1) she tells him. 2) he hunkers down on his haunches and looks. I've never noticed any difference in things like smell, and from the stats on teenage (and pre-teenage!) pregnancy age certainly doesn't do any good. I don't even pretend to understand your meanins and mootivations of this-- they certainly don't jibe with mine, whatever they are. I would rather just have a nice pleasant evening helping someone feel good. That isn't impure, and I'm certainly not out to defile them. Of course, maybe I'm different from the rest of the world. Again. >I have been criticized by one or two of my Christian brothers because I >sometimes do purchase Playboy. But it is astonishing what you find out when >you "show God your dirty pictures", as one pastor friend of mine put it -- >i.e. be appallingly honest about your sexual fantasies; Playboy can thus >sometimes serve as a focusing device. Hmm... maybe I AM different. The best part of Playboy for me is the fiction. Oh, well... I worry a LOT about people who are so insecure about they own sexuality that they need to foist their insecurities on others to prove that they are appropriate. If you like Playboy (and whatever it brings into your mind) there isn't anything wrong with that. >Anyway, returning to the theme of my earlier paragraphs, what would seem to be >necessary for marriage or SO-ship is that a man become sufficiently accepting >of his own and everyone else's sins/imperfections that he can be intimate with >a woman who is just as sinful/imperfect as he is, and love her nevertheless. sigh. Jeff, I think you worry too much... >My only question is: how on earth can anyone pull this off? The easiest way I've found is to simply stop worrying about it and let it happen... -- From the depths of the Crystal Cavern: Chuq Von Rospach {amd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Dreams, dreams, enchanter! Gone with the harp's echo when the strings fall mute; with the flame's shadow when the fire dies. Be still, and listen.
gds@homxa.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (08/26/84)
> From: ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) -- > >> From: aeq@pucc-h.UUCP (Jeff Sargent) ... > >> In other words, men are > >> looking for a woman to play the role of Christ in a visible, palpable > >> manner. As I read it, in Genesis 2:24, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." It doesn't seem to me that a man is looking for a woman to play the role of Christ in his life, rather that in finding that woman, *together* they can glorify God. It was God's idea that man should not be alone (Genesis 2:20) and that is why he made woman. > >> Anyway, returning to the theme of my earlier paragraphs, what would > >> seem to be necessary for marriage or SO-ship is that a man become > >> sufficiently accepting of his own and everyone else's > >> sins/imperfections that he can be intimate with a woman who is just > >> as sinful/imperfect as he is, and love her nevertheless. > >> My only question is: how on earth can anyone pull this off? I'm finding it hard to reply to this, because (1) I don't agree with it but (2) I don't really consider myself an authority on the subject, having never been married and not really having an SO (just occasional dates). I guess (to me) you become involved with someone because of mutual goals, similar likes and dislikes, companionship (as ken perlow has stated below) and some commitment to the relationship (as the relationship approaches marriage I guess the com- mitment gets stronger). I don't see how sins and imperfections have anything to do with it. > Oh, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff--you told us you were getting better. > Most of us with SO's desire them for companionship--you know, > warmth. Not for confession or psychoanalysis. Just to be with. > Such people are easy to find once you figure out that sinners > are intrinsically more interesting than saints. However, I do not agree with ken perlow's last statement. It seems to be a myth among non-Christians that Christians are boring people. Why do people think this way? (Reminds me of the line in "Only the Good Die Young" -- I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun.) If going to prayer meetings or gospel concerts isn't your bag, don't do it and don't associate with people who do it! But don't label these people as *boring* just because they don't do the things you like to do, because their lives are just as fulfilled to them as yours are to you, and most Christians I've met do not feel that non-Christians lead dull lives, just different. > As for these sacrifices-of-the-saintly-purity-of-virginity > fantasies, Jeff, I think you've been reading too much lives of the > saints, who had woefully little experience in this area. This > "special honor", "blood sacrifice", temple-of-the-holy-spirit > stuff may be entertaining philosophy, but it won't get you to > first base. Not lusty enough. Think bawdy. Another thing that I disagree with is this attitude of people that you should have "experience". If you don't want "experience" but rather to be with some- one who you really care for, would have/be the father of their baby, would stand behind them, etc., doesn't mean you're strange, just that you want some- thing else out of a relationship outside of sexual gratification. (I'm not saying sexual gratification is bad either, *if that's what you want*, then go for it, but don't belittle the people who don't want it, because their reasons are just as good for not wanting it as yours for wanting it.) > Most people I know had their first sexual experiences in their teens, > when everything in the world is exciting and confusing (ah, those > hormones, like a sugar maple on a warm day in March!) and memories > of embarrassing bumbling are quickly forgotten in a jumble of new > experiences and you don't know who you are from one day to the next > anyway. It must be a real nightmare for an adult with a bad self- > image and a good memory. I feel for you, Jeff. As an aside, dunno where you came from, but in NYC where I grew up, it was still down in the thirties in March :-) About the only thing that I agree with in the previous paragraph is that life is exciting and confusing when you're a teenager (however, I'm 23 and life is still confusing, if not exciting :-). I don't want to speak for Jeff, but (I'm going to anyway) it seems to me that he would benefit from a loving and caring SO (wife maybe?). You're right in that he can't expect his SO to heal him, but perhaps they can fill the gaps in each other's lives. -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!hou2e!gregbo
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/27/84)
-- [What I said] > ... once you figure out that sinners > are intrinsically more interesting than saints. [greg skinner] >> However, I do not agree with ken perlow's last statement. It seems >> to be a myth among non-Christians that Christians are boring people. >> Why do people think this way? ... I don't. What makes you think Christians == saints? Most Christians I know are sinners--by their standards, anyway--and not at all boring. I was trying to tell Jeff that less-than-perfect people are not only OK, they're downright nifty. I used religious imagery because I think Jeff looks at the world through a rather low-bandwidth filter. [me again] > This"special honor", "blood sacrifice", temple-of-the-holy-spirit > stuff may be entertaining philosophy, but it won't get you to > first base. Not lusty enough. Think bawdy. [greg] >> Another thing that I disagree with is this attitude of people that >> you should have "experience". If you don't want "experience" but >> rather to be with some-one who you really care for, would have/be the >> father of their baby, would stand behind them, etc., doesn't mean >> you're strange, just that you want something else out of a relationship >> outside of sexual gratification... But I didn't say "go have sex", though I think Jeff would like to. And who said that sex was the alpha and omega of a relationship? But to be warm and caring demands a lot more lusty thoughts than Platonic dialogue. It's too bad Jeff thinks such thoughts are so sinful. [me again] > Most people I know had their first sexual experiences in their teens, > when everything in the world is exciting and confusing (ah, those > hormones, like a sugar maple on a warm day in March!) and memories > of embarrassing bumbling are quickly forgotten in a jumble of new > experiences and you don't know who you are from one day to the next > anyway. It must be a real nightmare for an adult with a bad self- > image and a good memory. I feel for you, Jeff. [greg] >> As an aside, dunno where you came from, but in NYC where I grew up, >> it was still down in the thirties in March :-) I'm from Wisconsin--the 30's in March *IS* warm. >> About the only thing that I agree with in the previous paragraph is >> that life is exciting and confusing when you're a teenager (however, >> I'm 23 and life is still confusing, if not exciting :-). I don't want >> to speak for Jeff, but (I'm going to anyway) it seems to me that he >> would benefit from a loving and caring SO (wife maybe?). You're right >> in that he can't expect his SO to heal him, but perhaps they can fill >> the gaps in each other's lives. I don't know what you disagree with. Didn't you do crazier things when you were 17 than you'd do now? I guess at 23 you haven't put enough distance between yourself and your adolescence to notice. Lucky you. (Don't!) Jeff would indeed benefit from a loving and caring SO. He seems to be scared to try to find a real, live, down-to-earth woman. He also doesn't seem to understand that a man can respect a woman as a person and still want to kiss her all over. And that I don't understand, because I couldn't have it any other way. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 26 Aug 84 [9 Fructidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/27/84)
> [Ken Perlow] > Oh, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff--you told us you were getting better. > Most of us with SO's desire them for companionship--you know, > warmth. Not for confession or psychoanalysis. Just to be with. > Such people are easy to find once you figure out that sinners > are intrinsically more interesting than saints. Regarding the last sentence... The net produces yet another unwarranted and blatant generalization derogating the religious. The truth of which is, of course, obvious upon even the most fleeting perusal, right? Naturally those slammed by it are supposed to lie down and play dead instead of objecting. Uh-huh. Please explain what's so exciting about sin, and why it makes one "intrinsically" more exciting. Failing that, please refrain from making such statements. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (08/28/84)
Jeff, The ideas in your article are bizarre (to say the least). Aren't they projections of your own confused feelings? If you come into a relationship with nothing, saying, "I'm empty, fill me," you aren't a lover, you're just a beggar. Who wants to be with a beggar? The bad news is that no woman will ever be what you need. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The good news is that, once you stop being so needy, you may find a woman who's very good at being what she is. It may not be what you (thought you) needed or wanted, but that doesn't make it any less special. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
gds@homxa.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (08/28/84)
[me] >> However, I do not agree with ken perlow's last statement. It seems >> to be a myth among non-Christians that Christians are boring people. >> Why do people think this way? ... [ken perlow] I don't. What makes you think Christians == saints? Most Christians I know are sinners--by their standards, anyway--and not at all boring. I was trying to tell Jeff that less-than-perfect people are not only OK, they're downright nifty. I used religious imagery because I think Jeff looks at the world through a rather low-bandwidth filter. Ok. Now I understand what you meant. It is true, by definition, all have sinned, etc., so Christians are sinners too. In general though, I've encountered people who thought Christians were boring. Sorry about that. [ken perlow] But I didn't say "go have sex", though I think Jeff would like to. Wouldn't we all! [ken perlow] And who said that sex was the alpha and omega of a relationship? But to be warm and caring demands a lot more lusty thoughts than Platonic dialogue. It's too bad Jeff thinks such thoughts are so sinful. If you mean being intimate with your SO/wife, I wouldn't use the word "lusty", as its connotations do not imply what I think you're trying to say. [ken perlow] I don't know what you disagree with. Didn't you do crazier things when you were 17 than you'd do now? Yes, I did. [ken perlow] I guess at 23 you haven't put enough distance between yourself and your adolescence to notice. Lucky you. (Don't!) I'll try, but it ain't easy. [ken perlow] Jeff would indeed benefit from a loving and caring SO. He seems to be scared to try to find a real, live, down-to-earth woman. He also doesn't seem to understand that a man can respect a woman as a person and still want to kiss her all over. And that I don't understand, because I couldn't have it any other way. Perhaps he is afraid of his (as you call them) lustful thoughts. Well Jeff, I guess I have to agree with ken on this one, it's ok to feel that way about your SO/wife (provided that what you do with your SO/wife is an expression of love). It's only natural to want to have an intimate relationship. We as human beings were built that way. God didn't create Eve so that Adam could put her up on a pedestal, but to be a helper and companion. -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
edhall@randvax.UUCP (08/28/84)
Hold on a minute, folks. Before you jump down Jeff's throat, look for the *context* of what he is saying. I found his comments on the similarity between the traditional attitudes towards women and Christian mythology to be extremely insightful. (NOTE: I am not passing judgement on the validity of Christian belief by my use of the word ``mythology''--mythology does *not* equal fiction.) He didn't say that all men felt the way he described, or even that he necessarily felt that way himself. That some men are looking for an SO to ``forgive'' them is simply a statement of fact. That some men want their SO's to be ``pure'' is another fact. I've met men who fit one or both of these--enough men to say that perhaps these things are an ingrained part of our culture. And I think the ``light'' and ``dark'' sides are connected: in order to ``grant absolution'' a woman must be ``pure''. Is the sexual revolution so complete that even more traditional men no longer desire virgin brides? Hardly. The double standard still lives here, as well as in our attitudes toward infidelity. Guilt is still such a large element of our culture that Jeff's observations should come as no surprise to anyone. Throwing off the bindings of childhood-inculcated guilt feelings can be one of the most difficult tasks of a lifetime. Trivializing this by saying it is ``irrational'' and therefore no problem does no good whatever. Using an SO to help loosen these binds of guilt makes a certain amount of sense, since intimate relationships often take the place of the prototypes provided by parental relationships. (For instance, lots of men seem to be looking for someone to continue mothering them.) This is an unhealthy solution to an unhealthy problem, perhaps, though I sometimes wonder if such ``unhealthy'' things might not be natural phases in a process of personal growth. And, as a non-believer myself, I can still see the usefulness in having God ``help'' free oneself from guilt; if this works, isn't it far better than using another human being for the same thing? I was surprised at the gross intolerance displayed by some of the people who replied to Jeff's article. Chuq in particular usually displays far more compassion than he did here. He and I have discussed the problem of guilt before, and I know he knows better. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
crs@lanl-a.UUCP (08/31/84)
I think "lusty" was exactly the choice words that Ken should have used: From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: lust-y ... adj. Full of vigor; robust. Charlie
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/31/84)
-- [What I said] >> > Oh, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff--you told us you were getting better. >> > Most of us with SO's desire them for companionship--you know, >> > warmth. Not for confession or psychoanalysis. Just to be with. >> > Such people are easy to find once you figure out that sinners >> > are intrinsically more interesting than saints. >> Regarding the last sentence... >> The net produces yet another unwarranted and blatant generalization >> derogating the religious. The truth of which is, of course, obvious >> upon even the most fleeting perusal, right? Naturally those slammed >> by it are supposed to lie down and play dead instead of objecting. >> Uh-huh. Please explain what's so exciting about sin, and why >> it makes one "intrinsically" more exciting. Failing that, please >> refrain from making such statements. >> Paul DuBois I guess I'd better speak up then. Christians do not have a lock on the concept of sainthood. And I thought we were all supposed to be sinners in the eyes of God, well your God, anyway. You don't have to be a Christian to want to live an exemplary life, nor to feel you are not doing it as well as you could. It's the trying and failing--irrespective of religious particulars--that's interesting. Is that clear? If not, please realize that we do not share the same taxonomy of sin. I suppose I should have said "sinners by their own definition are more interesting...", but as you see, it doesn't scan as well. As for your question, "What's so exciting about sin?", the answer's the same as the price of the yacht: "If you have to ask, you can't afford it." -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 31 Aug 84 [14 Fructidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (09/08/84)
>As for your question, "What's so exciting about sin?", the answer's >the same as the price of the yacht: "If you have to ask, you can't >afford it." Seems to me that this used to be a Rolls-Royce slogan, or part of their adds, or something. -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk