rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/07/84)
> Trying to finish my arrears (how DOES Rich have time to write so much?): He doesn't. (Double indent = me, single indent = Jeff) > | Why is there a need to assign labels to sexual lifestyles & sex roles, > | and to designate who the appropriate people (and sexes) should be to take on > | those lifestyles and roles? Must there be a "husband" and "wife" in every > | relationship, according to "standard" definitions of those terms? And must > | it be the man who is the "husband" and the woman who is the "wife"? How can > | this thinking apply in homosexual relationships among both sexes, or even in > | the hypothetical two hermaphrodite relationship? Does it matter? > > I don't see a need for sex roles (except that only women can, physically, > be mothers and [not counting rare cases most often reported in National > Enquirer] breast-feed babies). I still consider that man and woman were > meant to complement one another, that while two MOTSS's may be very different > they still have a fundamental sameness which obviates the complementary > nature that makes for the optimal ultimate relationship (plus the little > detail, applicable to some male gays, that the anus's purpose is excretion > of feces; there is an orifice made to accept the penis, but it happens to > exist only in women). But there's nothing wrong with, say, the woman doing > yardwork, house & auto repair, checkbook balancing, et al. while the man > cleans the house -- if that's what they want to do; it is indeed a reversal > of traditional "sex roles" in task assignments, but so what? Agreed in full. With two exceptions. 1) Isn't the function of the penis to eliminate urinary waste? And thus, isn't your remark kind of irrelevant? 2) The notion of "an orifice *made* to accept the penis" implies the existence of a "designer" or "planner" or (go on, say it) "creator", which is of course where Jeff and I part company. He assumes one exists, I don't. > I'm not sure about the "husband" and "wife" (which have traditionally meant > "leader" and "follower" respectively). In my personal growth, I seem to be > realizing (if not yet internalizing) the idea that the best relationship is > between two persons who are free and equal, free to grow and develop their > uniqueness, equal in that neither dominates the other. This is probably the > toughest kind of relationship to develop, but the best. An interesting > interpretation of the verse in Ephesians which says "The husband is the head > of the wife" is the idea that "head" is like the head of a river -- i.e. the > source, someone who feeds and nourishes the wife, rather than the dictator. Pity most people don't interpret things that way. However, true equality would imply mutual "feeding and nourishing" of each other. Who said Jeff and I don't agree on anything. That's twice in one article. > I have recently read a book (not a religious one) in which at least one rather > "liberated" woman stated that even if she took the initiative in starting a > relationship with the man -- asking him out, paying for the dinner, etc. -- > she would still want to feel "pursued" by the man at some point. I.e. there > seems to be some validity to traditional sex roles after all -- i.e. the > "husband" (or reasonable facsimile) being the stronger. I guess that's biology, the fact that we all still have those "animal" hormones running through our bodies that promote our "survival in the wild". (Who's to say this isn't "the wild"???) As possessors of brains capable of more than just reacting to biological internals, capable of independent (sometimes even rational) thought to initiate action, we can go beyond the roles imposed by biology. (Some might say imposed by God; but then some would say just the opposite---that God would WANT us to use the rational parts of our brains to overcome those [sometimes counterproductive in the long run] biological impulses. Would such a deity lay down the outcome of such rationalism in advance (e.g., in a book), or would it think it best for people to grow into the results of such rationalism "naturally"?) (... and to think, we had agreed twice already in this article, and I had to spoil it...) >> I have stated in the past that it >> would seem that religionist doctrine values the value systems and rules >> more than the needs and wants of the people themselves. > > This is difficult to respond to. Part of this is because many religionists > (note the distinction from Rich's sentence) seem to indeed value the rules, > which meets their want for security and predictability. On the other hand, > the New Testament talks a great deal about freedom. ... In other words, > you're free to do anything you want; but some things, as you will eventually > discover, are not good for you, so you'd do better to avoid them. People > need freedom in order to grow. They may not always feel that they want it, > because it provides a lot more opportunity to get acutely hurt; but on the > other hand, it provides a lot more chance to become the beautiful humans we > all can be and, at bottom, want to be (I hope). The *doctrine* states that > the "rules" were given because God values us so highly He doesn't want us to > get hurt. That's only if you believe that the "rules" are indeed of divine origin. Again, what's wrong with getting hurt once in a while as you grow? Such growing pains are, in fact, an important part of growing, and to expect that a deity would provide you with life templates to avoid such a fundamental part of growing sounds a bit suspect to me. Methinks you skirted around the original question about presrvation of the value systems being more important than the needs and wants of the individual people. > The other reason it's difficult to answer this is that the rebellious part > of me agrees with Rich's statement. Part of me wonders how on earth it could > hurt to have sex with a woman without committing my life to her, provided that > I was not destroying her virginity and that proper precautions were taken to > avoid pregnancy. (Side note: The hymen seems to have been one of God's most > sexist ideas; it treats women like aspirin bottles ["Do not purchase if seal > is broken"]. Curiosity: In the non-religious view, why on earth would > something so seemingly useless as the hymen have evolved?) Any of the other > net Christians care to answer this one? I'm really struggling with it. Oh, Jeff... What "rebellious" part of you? Rebelling against what? What you say here sounds quite logical (I'm surprised :-), and also shows a good deal of sensitivity. In fact, the "Do not purchase is seal is broken" line is perhaps THE single funniest line I've ever heard in this newsgroup. It's an incredible analogy pointing out sexist attitudes toward women and "requirements" of virginity. (The fact that women have had to put up with such stuff is NOT funny, but the analogy is incredibly apt and totally cracked me up.) > | A bad reason to get precepts out of books of wisdom is precisely because > | these people may have thought up some rational things (occasionally), but > | they failed to explain the reasoning behind their thinking, and as I've > | already mentioned, if there's no clear cut reason why a law exists, it's > | worthless. > > 1. If it has helped to make people live happier lives (IF), then why worry > about the reasoning of the originators? If it works, go with it; just as > we have some code floating around here that even the guy who wrote it > isn't sure he understands, but which works. I wouldn't want to have to support that code if it should break. (To complete the analogy.) Why doesn't anyone want to tackle my remarks about post-nuclear-holocaust societies in grade B or made-for-TV SF movies where the leader (sometimes the only one who can read) declares that, because the sign on the road says NO LEFT TURN, they must never turn left, for that is the meaning of the sign, praise the Highway God who makes the signs? > 2. You seem to consider your own reasoning powers to be strong. That being > the case, you might be able to figure out the reasons behind the laws on > your own. (The Bible says, though not in these words, "The proof is left > as an exercise for the reader." [:-), but true; differing from math texts > in that you "prove" it in the sense of testing it in real life rather than > writing up a dry analysis of it]) Not different at all. In the case of the Bible, the "exercise" left to the reader would in fact BE life itself. Fact is, with my strong reasoning powers (thanks, Jeff!), it seems to me that much of the content therein does NOT provide valid reasons behind it. I and someone else whose name escapes me have mentioned that such laws may actually have been applicable in those times, when the needs of society were "be a strong and stable society, be fruitful and multiply, so that we can productive and vanquish our enemies, therefore none of these things can be done, lest our society destabilize..." These things may have included not coveting a neighbor's wife ("If a man cannot claim sole possession of "his" woman (-en?), how can we ensure that our society will be stable?"), homosexuality ("This means that one can enjoy sexual pleasure without producing children, and our society needs children, so..."), murder ("If a person can go ahead and murder someone else, then is anyone's life secure in this society, and will any productive output come from having a society rather than just fending for ourselves individually?"), etc. Of the three "reasons" I've offered, which still hold up as rational? > | It makes more sense to formulate rules for a society of imperfect people > | by using rationality rather than wisdom. Rationality means that you design > | laws and give reasons for their existence. ("No murder, because a precept > | of our society is that interfering with the rights of another human, > | especially the right to live, is wrong. > > You've provided a reason for the law "No murder". Fine. What's the reason > for the precept? Where did it come from? You're not at the bottom of this > yet, though I will admit that a case could be made out in favor of that > precept. See above. (Since it's "above", I obviously haven't gotten to the bottom :-) Again, in those days when the laws were conceived (by people, I contend [OF COURSE]), the needs of a society were the making of babies (to tend the farms and to fight the wars). The two problems of greatest magnitude facing the world today: too many babies, too much war. Do ALL of the old rules still apply? Which ones still do? And furthermore, can we make the case that while in those days society had needs that pre-empted or usurped the needs of the individual (it was rough, I tell ya, it was rough), today we can place the wants and needs of the individuals above the "needs" of a society? The purpose of a society has always been based on the notion that the whole (society) can be greater than the sum of its parts (its individuals) when brought together. Some brought the parts together forcibly. Others sought the benefits of community more rationally, realizing that if you can improve an individual's ability to survive by having him join a common pool of individuals, and if you make assurances about the safety of each person's possessions (including, in those days, wives) and the commitments of/to the society, you've got a working organism. Hence the precept. In this article, I've out and out agreed with Jeff twice and I laughed at one of his jokes. What more could you ask for from a net.religion article? -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!