tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/15/86)
> Why is it that religious types say things like, "God created man in > his own image", "The body is a temple", "Sex between a married couple > is the most beautiful experience", and others like that. Yet, movies > and pictures of naked people, whether sexual acts are depicted or not, > is called filth, trash, sewage, garbage, sick, perverted, and so on. Until very recently, very few Christians would have made the concessions to modern attitudes about sexuality that you mentioned. Almost all would have been quite overt about feeling that sex was at best a neccessary evil. This is the attitude throughout the New Testament, which recommends at least celibacy and at most self-castration. (Squeamish moderns will deny that Jesus really advocated castration, but he openly supported men "making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" - castration was a fairly common practice in various religious sects of the day, and if this were meant to be figurative, Jesus would certainly have inserted a warning to that effect.) Christianity has always been prudish and anti-sexual, and the recent concessions concerning sex within marriage being good even if not for procreation (which a few Protestant sects have made) sit very uneasily with most Christian leaders. The majority attitude within the fundamentalist and Catholic worlds, as well as most Protestant church leaders, is still that sex is evil and disgusting. When concessions are made to the beauty of sex, their motive is obviously to slow down the drifting away from Christianity that has been caused in large part by more enlightened sexual attitudes. These attitudes result directly from the efforts of humanists like Sanger, which were viciously opposed by all mainstream Christian denominations. -- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Self-Assigner of Pretentious Titles {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa) "Little people, with tiny brains; little bullets flowing in their veins! What do they want? They want you!" - Oingo Boingo, "Tiny Guns"
mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/16/86)
> > from a posting by Stuart Gathman: > > > When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and > > found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy > > marriage someday) and read several articles. ... [a few lines omitted] > > ..... Note, Playboy is considered very mild pornography. The real > > stuff is better compared with sewage than garbage. > > Let me ask a couple of questions: > > 1) How does looking at pictures of naked ladies in Playboy have *any* > effect upon your potential for having a happy marriage in the future? While it may seem compulsive to some, this type of activity is avoided by many because it is believed it can lead to viewing people (women especially in our society) as sexual objects rather than as equals, people, and partners. Also, the sexual intimacy experienced in marriage is held to be sacred and special. Like a lesser form of adultery or fornication, viewing pornography is believed to lessen then special nature of marital sex. Thirdly, many people do not find any reason for supporting what is thought to be a practice that is degrading to people (again, especially women in our society) everywhere. Larry Flynt's arguments aside, I can't think of a single porno- graphic publication that has done anything positive for our society (though it will have little if any direct effect on my marriage). In my experience this may be a litte compulsive, as I *have* viewed pornographic materials fairly extensively, and still have a great marriage. Still, I agree with the sentiment, because it can certainly do my marriage no good, and could (and has, in my experience) harm others'. > 2) Why is it that religious types say things like, "God created man in > his own image", "The body is a temple", "Sex between a married couple > is the most beautiful experience", and others like that. Yet, movies > and pictures of naked people, whether sexual acts are depicted or not, > is called filth, trash, sewage, garbage, sick, perverted, and so on. I think most of your list of adjectives is the product of very restricted minds, not necessarily religious ones. There is nothing "wrong" with the human body; there is only something "wrong" when people use it to play with your mind or for the sole purpose of encouraging lust within you. Everyone has their limits. I loved the movie "Witness", and did not find the Kelly McGillis' topless scene at all gratuitous; it fit right in with the movie. On the other hand, the movie "Stuntman", while an excellent vehicle for Peter O'Toole, disturbed me because I felt like I had been taken for a ride (in many ways, which was the intent of the movie; the use of sex in the movie is what disturbed me). Other people I know, however, are uncomfortable with Sigourney Weaver's "underwear scene" in Alien. It all depends on who you are. Still, as a more static standard, I see no reason in viewing a movie (etc.) that is not going to edify me in some way (even if it only distracts me for a while, like Fantasia or Starwars, etc). In short, it is not the bodies that are sick or perverted or trash, but what the purveyors of the images hope to instill into you. > I've always felt that this contradictory attitude causes, rather than > prevents, many of the sex related problems of society. Venus de Milo is > art. Miss September is porn. Why? I don't think we're going to solve the issue of transendence in art (that is, art is that which transends its vehicle -- otherwise it is just a blob or a bunch of colors). Miss September is to be viewed sexually; the Venus de Milo is to be viewed with an eye for Beauty (big "B"). Various pages in Gray's Anatomy are to be viewed for neither, but solely for their informational content. The first and the last are not art, since the focus is on the instance not the larger class. The second is art, since it is able to evoke qualities of Beauty; not just the beauty of a single woman whom men would wish to possess, but the Beauty in all women and in all things. Its kind of like Jazz: "If you got to ask, you can't be told." Also, your comment about your supposed contradictory attitude about sex causing social sexual ills is nonsense. Given the current state of upheaval about just what exactly causes sex related problems in society, I don't think you can make anything more than hot electrons out of your statement -- but perhaps you'd like to try to document it? > It's odd that murder and other violent acts are illegal to do, but considered > great TV fare. Sex (at least some varieties) is legal, but considered trash > and so on, thus not fit for TV. Murder and other violent acts are not depicted in the same explicit way on general TV that you would have sex portrayed. Implicit sex and implicit violence *are* portrayed about equally, though (compare, say, Miami Vice to Dynasty or any daytime soap). Just like movies that portray really explicit sex, I don't enjoy those that portray really explicit violence (say, Scarface or the Texas Chainsay Massacre). > Burch Seymour -Gould C.S.D. at ....mcnc!rti-sel!gould!bseymour -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
johnf@garfield.UUCP (09/18/86)
In article <1092@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Until very recently, very few Christians would have made the concessions to >modern attitudes about sexuality that you mentioned. Almost all would have >been quite overt about feeling that sex was at best a neccessary evil. This >is the attitude throughout the New Testament, which recommends at least >celibacy and at most self-castration. (Squeamish moderns will deny that >Jesus really advocated castration, but he openly supported men "making >themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" - castration was >a fairly common practice in various religious sects of the day, and if this >were meant to be figurative, Jesus would certainly have inserted a warning >to that effect.) >Christianity has always been prudish and anti-sexual, and the recent >concessions concerning sex within marriage being good even if not for >procreation (which a few Protestant sects have made) sit very uneasily with >most Christian leaders. The majority attitude within the fundamentalist and >Catholic worlds, as well as most Protestant church leaders, is still that >sex is evil and disgusting. When concessions are made to the beauty of sex, >their motive is obviously to slow down the drifting away from Christianity >that has been caused in large part by more enlightened sexual attitudes. >These attitudes result directly from the efforts of humanists like Sanger, >which were viciously opposed by all mainstream Christian denominations. >-- >Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Self-Assigner of Pretentious Titles I'd really like to know where you get your information. The attitude of Catholicism is NOT that sex is dirty; at least, *I* was never taught that, nor were my parents, nor were *their* parents (this in a place that was up until recently somewhat dogmatic in its observance of church laws, be they Catholic or Protestant). We were always taught that sex was a wonderful, precious thing. God made it enjoyable, not Satan. We are simply taught that sex is wrong only outside of marriage, because it was meant to 1) bond a man and a woman together in body as the marriage binds them in spirit and 2) to bring itty-bitty bipeds into the world that God put here for us. In the Old Testament, God said "Go forth and multiply"; in the New Testament, God (the Son) says that in marriage, a man will cleave unto his wife (and vice versa), and they become ONE (He doesn't mean only spiritually, but PHYSICALLY, too; God is saying, OK guys, party time...). As a matter of fact, the Church believes that inside a marriage having sex FOR IT'S PLEASURES' SAKE is ok, wonderful, fine. It's just that the door must be left open to procreation: children are supposed to be a blessing, not a curse. Now where in the New Testament does Jesus say one must castrate oneself? Could you at least give me a few chapters and verses to work with? And as for the watching of naked bodies and the like, Jesus Himself said that nothing that goes into a man from the outside can make him unclean; only that which is in his heart can do so. (Sorry I can't give chapter and verse right now, but I don't usually tote a Bible with me wherever I go, pious as I am 0|-). I'd leave an e-mail address (if I knew what it was). Is it the same as ean or not? Qvid, me anxiovs svm? John. Waiver : These views are personal and in no way reflect the views of this university.
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/29/86)
In article <2208@garfield.UUCP> johnf@garfield.UUCP (John Field) writes: >I'd really like to know where you get your information. The attitude of >Catholicism is NOT that sex is dirty; at least, *I* was never taught that, nor >were my parents, nor were *their* parents (this in a place that was up until >recently somewhat dogmatic in its observance of church laws, be they Catholic >or Protestant). We were always taught that sex was a wonderful, precious >thing. God made it enjoyable, not Satan. We are simply taught that sex is >wrong only outside of marriage, because it was meant to 1) bond a man and a >woman together in body as the marriage binds them in spirit and 2) to bring >itty-bitty bipeds into the world that God put here for us. In the Old >Testament, God said "Go forth and multiply"; in the New Testament, God (the >Son) says that in marriage, a man will cleave unto his wife (and vice versa), >and they become ONE (He doesn't mean only spiritually, but PHYSICALLY, too; God >is saying, OK guys, party time...). As a matter of fact, the Church believes >that inside a marriage having sex FOR IT'S PLEASURES' SAKE is ok, wonderful, >fine. It's just that the door must be left open to procreation: children are >supposed to be a blessing, not a curse. That's right, every siongle time, the door must be left open to procreation. Sex for its own sake is evil. I recall recent papal proclamations that sex for pleasure is evil; and of course we all know that we are supposed to imitate Jesus, and that Jesus was celibate. The professional mimics are all celibate in your church. John, I too was raised in a liberal catholic family. I have been distressed in recent years, speaking to members of conservative Catholic churches and people who went to conservative Catholic schools, that this does not at all represent the Catholic hierarchy in general. I was taught tolerance; many other Catholics have been taught intolerance. You were taught (by your family only, I note) that sex was good; most of the rest of us were taught that it is evil except as a way of making more Catholics. I sugest you ask a conservative priest about the pleasure of sex in marriage, and about the Holy Father's attitude toward it. I find it hard to imagine that you are unaware of the Christian opposition to every manifestation of sexual freedom: erotic literaure, birth control, abortion, equal rights for gays, feminism. Do you deny these things? If you are unaware of the historical Christian attitude toward sex, I would recommend the book "The History of Sex" by Reay Tannahill. >Now where in the New Testament does Jesus say one must castrate oneself? >Could you at least give me a few chapters and verses to work with? Try Matthew, 19:12. I have said this already, and still a number of people have said "He was just speaking in parables", so let me repeat: Castration was a common religious practice at the time, particularly in the popular cult of Cybele. If the statement was meant to be metaphorical, Christ would have said so, becuase it was bound to be interpreted literally. In the same vein as this quotation, we have St. Paul's "It is better to marry than to burn". Sex is seen as at best the lesser of two evils. >And as for the watching of naked bodies and the like, Jesus Himself said that >nothing that goes into a man from the outside can make him unclean; only that >which is in his heart can do so. Hmm? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. -- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/30/86)
In article <2208@garfield.UUCP> johnf@garfield.UUCP (John Field) writes: >Now where in the New Testament does Jesus say one must castrate oneself? Could >you at least give me a few chapters and verses to work with? A while back (4-6 month) there was a discussion about this in the old net.religion and chapters and verses were referenced. I can't recall the exact places, but most quotes came from the writings of Paul and Revelations. Paul was the one who advocated castration (Aren't metaphores FUN?!) and preached celibacy. Just look at the system of monasteries and convents Catholics have raised in their time, at the sects like The Shakers in US, Scoptzi in Russia, Albigensians in France (before they got wiped out), etc. The ideas of life-long celibacy and castration are not aat all foreign to Xtianity, as the numerous examples show. If you REALLY want the references and are not willing to go through archives, ask for them in e-mail and I will try to find and mail (or post) them. Oleg Kiselev HASA, "A" Division. >And as for the watching of naked bodies and the like, Jesus Himself said that >nothing that goes into a man from the outside can make him unclean; only that >which is in his heart can do so. (Sorry I can't give chapter and verse right >now, but I don't usually tote a Bible with me wherever I go, pious as I am >0|-). > >I'd leave an e-mail address (if I knew what it was). Is it the same as ean or >not? > > Qvid, me anxiovs svm? > John. >Waiver : These views are personal and in no way reflect the > views of this university.