henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl isochronal Henning) (03/20/91)
Tim ARNOLD writes: >Jeff Fields writes: >>I personally know non-promiscous monogamous couples who would die for each >>other their love is so strong. They make sexual love, but are not married. >>I see no sin in this. >Who cares whether you see sin in it or not? The crucial question is does God? Am I the only person on the net to read Tim's response as a self-righteous snub? Tim, I take it you know no such couples, or that if you do you criticize them with as little delicacy as this your response evinces? Well, this is certainly a lesson in love ... Although it is up to Mr Fields to account for his own phrasing, I interpreted it as a tactful way of expressing an opinion, of acceding that there is room for discussion. Tact is something of which I would not accuse Mr Arnold in his response; and there hardly seems room for discussion in Mr Arnold's world. >>We should not hasten in our pronouncements of sin based solely on outward >>social appearances. >Unless of course the Bible is quite clear on the matter ... The bible is "quite clear" on relatively little; and there are few truly "objective tests" regarding the reception of texts of the bible popular among practicing xians (IMHO). >... We should be reluctant to play God but never-the-less >there are some objective tests which require our attention and rebuke >of those who profess to be following Christ but deny his commands. "A controversial group of biblical scholars has concluded six years of voting by ruling that about 80 percent of the words attributed in the Gospels to Jesus were probably made up by later authors." One ought to be particularly reluctant to play god, when there is such question as to what may realistically be attributed to jesus, as this extract from a news article indicates. Certainly, different people interpret the bible differently, and perhaps with no less justification. I grant that the above news item does not mean that the matter is sealed, and it does say "controversial"; but it is at least possible that "a group of biblical scholars" is more in a position to judge, than the average layman. >... as a Christian I can boldly say that sexual activity outside of >marriage will lead to more suffering than if it is avoided because >God gave us his laws for a reason and I trust God's judgment better >than I trust my own. But then, you are not speaking from experience, I take it? As someone who observes life as it surrounds me, rather than choose to read it in a book and then try to squeeze the life around me into that dubious mold, I can boldly say: MARRIAGE (or any close relationship) will lead to more "suffering" than if it is avoided. When one maintains any long-term relationship, differences of opinion will inevitably arise, and some of these inevitable disagreements will likely prove painful. So what? It happens to everybody, and the alternative is isolation and loneliness -- no, /realistically/ the alternative is social ineptitude, which entails its own particular "suffering". When somebody bangs his shin, we hope he hasn't broken anything (or send him to a doctor if we think he has), and know the pain will pass; we don't coddle him. Why do people suppose that interpersonal "pains" are any more "precious", and need to be spoilt? You may put off learning how to ride a bicycle, if you're afraid of getting scuffed up; it won't make it any easier to learn how, if/when you finally decide to brave the ordeal. You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex, until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right; but the "growing pains" involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle. Until one drags in the matter of conscience, of course. But it is a very different question, whether one has offended a fellow human, or offended a god. Of course, if you adopt certain opinions for yourself, and feel that these reflect "god's will" -- if that gives you more confidence in this educative experience, good for you. kph -- "The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject, both determine and act upon it drunk; by which means a world of cold and tedious speculation is dispensed with." -- Washington Irving
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/22/91)
Jeff Fields writes: >I personally know non-promiscous monogamous couples who would die for each >other their love is so strong. They make sexual love, but are not married. >I see no sin in this. The only possible sin I can see in this is their unwillingness to publicly (and perhaps privately) proclaim and acknowledge a marriage that is surely blessed by God. Tim ARNOLD writes: >Who cares whether you see sin in it or not? The crucial question is does God? We know that all love comes from God, and that he blesses many unofficial marriages with that gift. Karl isochronal Henning writes: >MARRIAGE (or any close relationship) will lead to more "suffering" than >if it is avoided. When one maintains any long-term relationship, >differences of opinion will inevitably arise, and some of these inevitable >disagreements will likely prove painful. So what? It happens to everybody, >and the alternative is isolation and loneliness -- no, /realistically/ >the alternative is social ineptitude, which entails its own particular >"suffering". Whilst I cannot disagree with the text of this passage in isolation I feel that in the context of the overall discussion (and especially the next paragraph) the implication here is that close relationship should be understood to mean close sexual relationship, whence the whole thing becomes a bit unsettling. There are many people who do not partake of sexual relationships who are anything but socially inept and remain very capable of entering into very close, ;ong-lasting and rewarding personal relationships. >You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to >your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact >socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex, >until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right; but the "growing pains" >involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more >intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle. I would just point out that some would see the relationship as the point of the exercise rather than the "awakening" of one's sexual awareness. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl syllogistic Henning) (03/25/91)
Brendan Mahony writes: >Karl isochronal Henning writes: >> [paragraph ofriction in long-term close relationships] >Whilst I cannot disagree with the text of this passage in isolation I >feel that in the context of the overall discussion (and especially the >next paragraph) the implication here is that close relationship should be >understood to mean close sexual relationship, whence the whole thing becomes >a bit unsettling. I was discussing relationships broadly, inclusive of but not restricted to sexual relationships. >> [paragraph on "Applied and Theoretical sex"] >There are many people who do not partake of sexual relationships who >are anything but socially inept and remain very capable of entering >into very close, ;ong-lasting and rewarding personal relationships. Certainly. I do not advocate sexual activity as a prerequisite for full personhood. >I would just point out that some would see the relationship as the point >of the exercise rather than the "awakening" of one's sexual awareness. While I [think I] understand you to use "point of the exercise" half-wrily, I veiw relationships simply as a sort of protocol between people (as opposed to an exercise, or the object of an exercise; and as opposed to an indepen- dent "thing"); that is, what matters is, not a relationship per se, but the people involved. This is not an objection, just a [possibly merely semantic] refocusing. Sexual activity is not ideally [IMHO, although both prostitution and numerous marriages provide curiously persistent counterexamples] the raison d'etre of any relationship; the relationship should be the occasion for the sexual activity (although I don't suppose /all/ relationships should :-). In the traditional view of xianity, the only proper occasion for sexual activity, is in relationships of a single, indissoluble heterosexual pair who undertake the socially (and often religiously) sanctioned contract of marriage. IMHO this "external contract" is usually of less concern than mutual commitment between two people; it is up to those two people to agree on their "contract" (or lack thereof). kph -- Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless. Life is meaningless. We're meaningless. (/Deadly pause/) I have a sudden and overpowering urge to get laid. -- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (03/27/91)
In article <Mar.21.22.54.57.1991.16070@athos.rutgers.edu>, brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: > Jeff Fields writes: > >You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to > >your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact > >socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex, > >until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right; but the "growing pains" > >involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more > >intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle. > > I would just point out that some would see the relationship as the point > of the exercise rather than the "awakening" of one's sexual awareness. I'd like to point out something else. There is no need to *perform* sex in order to learn how to *discuss* sex. Some of you may remember my postings last year "may a Christian visit a brothel". The background to that was that my engagement had broken up over the issue of whether it was right to have sex with someone you didn't love in order to "explore your sexuality". My intended said that it would be "ingratitude to God" not to do so, and she expected me to admire her for having put this idea into practice. The funny thing is that she _acted_ as if she knew nothing about sex, and regarded my talking about it as showing that I had a "dirty mind". I was trying to find anyone who would explain her views to me, which no-one posting in this group did. Well, as of the 17th of this month, I'm engaged again, this time to a Church of Christ woman who has the same view of sex outside marriage as I have and has lived it. When I quote the Song of Songs to Jeanene, she thinks it's romantic, not "dirty minded", and she quotes back. We're able to be more explicit than that, too. I'm _almost_ glad that we'll be in separate countries until the wedding. The moral of the story is that "Applied Sex" is neither necessary in all cases nor sufficient in all cases to prepare someone for a relationship. -- Seen from an MVS perspective, UNIX and MS-DOS are hard to tell apart.
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl Malaysia Henning) (04/01/91)
Richard A. O'Keefe writes: >[karl henning writes]: >> You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to >> your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact >> socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex, >> until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right; but the "growing pains" >> involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more >> intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle. >I'd like to point out something else. There is no need to *perform* sex >in order to learn how to *discuss* sex. In a certain sense, I suppose you are right. But you must concede that a person who discusses sex, without ever having experienced sex, /may/ be talking out the back of his neck. And indeed, no person who has not experienced sex can be considered to speak definitively about it. He can discuss the second-hand reports with which he is familiar, but cannot avouch for any of it from his own direct experience. Two parallel illustrations: Of the two opposing viewpoints regarding the sphericity of the earth, who was more likely to be correct: the clerics who insisted on the "biblical" flatness of the earth, and who had never seen a drop of seawater, and who had never seen headlands emerge gradually taller on the horizon; or the navigators and sailors whose practical experience and reason gave them to postulate a spherical earth [okay, maybe this is an unfair example, as we know by hindsight whose opinion was more correct] Who understands Troy better, historically: a classics scholar who has read the Iliad and the Aeneid in the original languages, or von Schliemann, who excavated there? The former understands a "literary Troy"; the latter, an "applied Troy". I will provide also an odious counter-example (which I do not, by the way, propose as being applicable to Mr O'Keefe's case). There is sometimes a tendency among some of the noisier xians, not only to cultivate an ignorance of something, but to claim such ignorance proudly, as some sort of virtue or asset. One such example is, Jerry Falwell's boneheaded retort, when asked how he could criticize /The Last Temptation of Christ/ sight unseen: "You don't need to take the lid off a sewer to know that it stinks." This says volumes about Falwell's ignorance, and prejudicial attitude, and says nothing whatsoever about either Kazantsakis' book or Scorsese's film. >... as of the 17th of this month, I'm engaged again, this time to a >Church of Christ woman who has the same view of sex outside marriage as >I have and has lived it. It seems to me that the experiences you recount concerning your two fiancees, is more directly illustrative of the question of two people in such a relationship needing to agree substantially on questions of sexuality, than of the question of firsthand experiential authority. >The moral of the story is that "Applied Sex" is neither necessary in >all cases nor sufficient in all cases to prepare someone for a relationship. Since most such relationships function on levels other than sexuality, it is mistaken to assert that sexual experience is "sufficient" preparation for a relationship. Of course, relationships are not homework assignments -- one doesn't "prepare" for them, one learns by doing. "necessary in all cases" ... of what? I think I have created some confusion in my original posting [above] by conflating two distinct issues (as I see them): First: that someone (anyone?) who has "tested" and adapted his theoretical knowledge of sexuality "in the field", as it were, in a relationship which functions more than merely sexually, will make observations about sexuality which should be accorded more respect and authoritative weight, than speculations offered by someone with no such experience, specifically someone who claims to understand sexuality in the late 20th century according to bits and pieces gleaned from a disparate collection of moralizing texts no more recent than the first century of the Common Era (i.e., the bible). Second: that by making sexuality into a moral issue disembodied from the broader (and, IMHO, merely sociological) context of relationships, xianity calls into play the Conditioned Guilt- reflex. Simply stated, my objection to this is, that in this moralizing environment, boys and girls are brought up to suspect the stirrings of sexuality as impure manifestations of bestial sinfulness, instead of as being par for the biological course. This does not contribute to understanding one's sexuality, but creates destructive conflicts between natural impulses, and a repressive framework of behavioral interpretation. And it can corrupt one's development in terms of learning about relationships, as one is forbidden to explore sexuality, save from within the sanctioned contract of matrimony; there is no lack of examples of marriage between young people inexperienced in the niceties of interpersonal relationships, whose motivation in getting married may largely have proven (and not necessarily dishonorably) sexual. "Society will not permit me to have sex unless I'm married; now, whom can I marry?" -- this may seem a cynical and blunt phrasing, but I have known a number of couples (whose marriages are successful in different degrees) who seem to have been at least partly motivated on some level by this reasoning. This atmosphere does not contribute to frank and unpressured dialogue about sexuality. It fosters "cognitive dissonance", and therefore repression and avoidance of sexuality as a human issue. Society cannot destroy behavioral (and, in this case, partly biological) impulses merely by imposing awful taboos; and nascent sexuality during adolescence is of such striking novelty and wonder, that there is something intrinsically awesome about it. Quashing it, and saying "it's WRONG WRONG WRONG except in this highly specialized and divinely sanctioned environment", is at the heart of a great many sexual problems -- when one's exploration of sexuality is restricted to such a furtive level, there is no cando ...s and at the least contributes to a view of members of the opposite sex at least partially as "sex objects" rather than as partners in a species of communication. And if the "partners" cannot talk between themselves about sex, certainly neither is going to volunteer to discuss this issue in an educative manner with their children. kph -- Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless. Life is meaningless. We're meaningless. (/Deadly pause/) I have a sudden and overpowering urge to get laid. -- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"