I would love to join you in this little discussion SS but I've had it sooo many times before. The concepts of sin to me is nothing but a guilt trip. There is also the belief that you need religion is in some way to tell you how to act morally. Oops, I'm draggin myself into it again.
Saintly Sluttiness?
by patio34 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Satanus
Gsx
I know what you mean.
Rwc
I have found that promiscuous people were/are more socially capable than those who weren't/aren't. Was the social capability there before the promiscuity, a result of it, or augmented because of it? I'm not sure.
Due to where the pendulum of the nature of society is right now, and has been for thousands of years, much of this wouldn't work. Extended family situations seem to be a better idea, to me, than a nuclear family. I'm referring to the aunts, uncles, grandparents type of thing, and in some countries, some families get tobether w other families in large communal buildings. In these buildings, i understand that it's like a small community, while each family has its own private area. There are some communal areas.
Perhaps areas where many people are interrelated through blood could be used as an illustration of promiscuity theory. Are people in areas like this better off than people in areas where no one is related to anybody else?
Anyhow, the ideal seems to be, not the destruction of the family, but enlarging it. Wouldn't that be an improvement in the world?
SS
Edited by - saintsatan on 20 August 2002 16:41:55
-
RWC
SS- I am not sure what you mean by "socially capable", but I do not see how it could be argued that a person who is unfaithful to his family or who has multiple sexual partners can be claimed to have acted in a responsible manner. The pain and descruction caused by infidelity is without question. The idea that the embracing of this behavior as being socially acceptable cannot be good for society, nor can be good for the family.
I agree with you that extended families are important and that even living in a communal enviroment can be helpful. We have lost that in our modern society. However, just because extended families live together, doesn't mean they all need to be sleeping together. In fact I would argue that the idea that sexual intimacy can and should be divorced from emotional commitment will lead to a lack of respect for others and a lack of connection in a community. The whole notion of family and a commitment to each other is cheapened to the point that is not needed any longer.
Thought provoking post. Thanks God Bless
-
Satanus
RWC
I would argue that the idea that sexual intimacy can and should be divorced from emotional commitment will lead to a lack of respect for others and a lack of connection in a community.
I would agree. I think the point of this thread is that sexual intimacy naturally leads toward commitment, at least to some degree. By contrast, try to imagine the results of a sexless marriage. Preconditioned moral codes can add a lot of guilt and it's attendant woes to feelings that result from sex that the codes disaprove of. That would reduce positive feelings resulting from sex.
SS
-
Satanus
By socially capable, i mean more understanding, outgoing, able to converse, being better at the social arts.
SS
-
jgnat
By contrast, try to imagine the results of a sexless marriage.
I just gotta reply to this. I suggest that many lifetime partners eventually end up in a sexless marriage, for reasons of health, age, or performance. People cannot remain "up" all the time (pardon the pun). By adopting a promiscuous lifestyle, women absolve their partners from involvement in the raising of their children. Also, stepfathers are not as devoted to their children as the natural father. This is biological. By taking the lion's share of the parenting duties, the woman also hurts her long-term financial future. Remaining in a relationship "only while the sex is good" will leave the aged and infirm alone, without support. Taking some statistics gathered from women's rights groups,
- The average woman of the same age group still makes less than her male counterpart. Statiticians have speculated that this may be a result of women remaining at home for a period of time during her childbearing years, thereby interrupting her wage earning potential.
- The plight of widows in our country is even more alarming. Many are living below the poverty level. One reasons cited for this is that more women of our past generation remained at home, and were depending on their husband's pension in their declining years. With rising divorce rates, some of these women ended up with no pension of their own, nor very much from their ex-husbands, either.
Sex is a great start, but not the end to devotion that partners can display for each other. I know this is possible. I have met many lifetime couples, and I quiz them regularly on what makes their relationship "tick". Is it guilt? Nope. Is it sex? Nope. Misplaced attachment to social mores? Nope. I have noted a solid determination and an enduring friendship in these couples. They are well able to weather the storms of life together.
By socially capable, i mean more understanding, outgoing, able to converse, being better at the social arts
Are you suggesting that someone like me is less socially capable, less understanding, because I chose to live by the Judeo-Christian ethic? That does sound like an insult...have any data to back that up?Edited by - jgnat on 20 August 2002 20:3:1
-
patio34
Wow, what interesting posts that have developed.
Saint Satan, you make such convincing rationale. RWC is a capable debater. I can tell instantly that RWC is coming from the viewpoint of Biblical history. The article at the beginning was dealing with a larger scope--evolutionary history which encompasses maybe a couple of million years instead of the last 6 thousand. Also, the article is dealing with instincts that have been naturally selected for in animals and humans. The Bible is what humans have constructed in the way of their cultures, society, and laws. It's really apples and oranges. It doesn't seem to me that what is suggested in the article would work in the modern world.
Another point is that openly promiscuous women (men too) in our world are more apt to be the rebel type since it's not acceptable behavior. For the article's conclusion to work, it would have to be acceptable behavior and society constructed around the reality of what instincts may be.
Just because it's been naturally selected for maybe does not mean it's best. It's just what may have worked in the PREhistoric times. That's how evolution works: it just is because it worked. It doesn't necessarily mean it would work in all time periods. Our society has "evolved" too and may not work in accordance with every instinct.
Jared Diamond in his book, The Third Chimpanzee, explains that humans are most like some birds: they are mostly monogamous. And apparently have always been that way. As RWC capably points out, this works well for the family arrangement. And, as Saint Satan says, an extended family is even better. And some tribes that still may practice the promiscuous behavior as suggested by the article are in accord with this instinct and doing fine. A big split in opinion comes when one is arguing that the Bible is the only way to live.
But to try to determine humans' nature from the Bible alone independent of scientists' findings is, imo, too narrow of a scope. The Bible tells the history of one people from a particular time period. Of course, if one insists on divine authorship of it, that would effectively end the discussion (as Charles Darwin said).
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Pat
-
RWC
Pat- thank you for your kind words. You are correct that I am coming from a Biblical viewpoint. I would only add to what you said by saying that in my view, even though the Bible was written thousands of years ago, it contains universal truths which are applicable to moderan society. Such as honor for your parents, fidelity, respect for your neighbor, avoiding greed and sexual promiscuity. All of which can be a framework for your life today.
SS- I agree that a sexless marriage, unless that arrangement is agreed to by both parties or is the result of illness, can lead to alot of problems and is unfortunate. The idea of a Christian based marriage is far from a sexless one and unfortunately too many churches have mistakenly taught that doctrine. On the contrary, a marriage that is grounded in Christian principles can be very sexually satisfying. God made sex fun and enjoyable and as long as it is practiced within the confines of a marriage by belief is he strongly encourages it.
God Bless
-
Elsewhere
I have a hard time with the word "slut". It is such a harsh word with such negative connotations. A man can enjoy sexual pleasures and is viewed in a positive light, but when a woman does the same thing, she is a "slut"?
I don't see why a woman cannot enjoy the same pleasures and be viewed in a positive "sensual" light.
What I find even more amazing is that it is usually not a man who calls a woman a slut but another woman! Is this because the one using the word slut feels as though she cannot enjoy such pleasures, and therefore the other woman should not and is punished with the harsh title of slut?
-
back2dafront
No matter how you attempt to justify it, multiple sex partners outside of a marriage is not a heathly practice for the individual or society. And without a moral compass there is no way to determine what type of behavior is "responsible". The moral compass provided by Christianity establishes values that promote the sanctity of marriage, that values committment, that encourages family security, and protects children. These values will never be enhanced by a society that promotes promiscuity. Nor with they be replaced by science.
RMC, my question is this: What is morally wrong with a couple agreeing to have sex outside of their marraige simultaneously? (a.k.a. swinging) If they practice safe sex with another partner or partners in an effort to add more fire to their own sex life, is this wrong? A major factor to infidelity is one's desire to have a new sexual "conquest" sort to speak, and bringing another into the relationship for some helps thwart the desire to have sex with another outside the marital arrangement. I definitely agree that being committed to one in the sense of a life-time partner is indeed a very good, healthy arrangement, but I'm just not sure that sex *has* to be limited to that one person in order to maintain this healthy relationship. I've never met anyone that has had more than one sex partner say they wish they'd only had one partner - point being sex with multiple partners can be quite enjoyable if done in a healthy, responsible manner. Although I respect the reasoning behind only having sex w/ a mate, I also see disadvantages in waiting to have sex until marraige:
- Incompatibility. Anyone who has had an incompatible experience(s) with a person can relate to this. I can only imagine how rough it would be on a marraige upon finding out how incompatible you are w/ your partner after tying the knot. On one hand, most don't realize how incompatible they are until they experience a fresh relationship w/ someone else, at which point they realize what they've been missing. At any rate, being married to someone that doesn't fulfill your sexual needs cannot be healthy - no doubt it can lead to infidelity, which opens up a whole new can of worms.
- It stunts sexual maturity. Sex with the same person over and over and over again will, after awhile, loose it's passion, and then interest will die down and eventually fade away. Unless, of course, the couple is truly compatible and seeks ways to keep the flame alive, but this is probably a rare occasion, especially among Witnesses who think oral and anal sex should not be done. Sexual release is physically, mentally and psychologically healthy, and learning how to behave in a responsible way sexually is also a step to ones maturity. Just as a kid becomes an adult by taking on new responsibilities effectively, so too we progress into sexual maturity by having more sex - with more than one partner. (this point is probaly highly debatable, but it's how I feel nonetheless. :-) ) Also, it just seems plain instinctual almost - how many people have you been sexually attracted to in your life? Imagine if every instance of mutual attraction ended up in sex! My numbers would definitely be a LOT higher, that's for sure. It's only natural to be sexually attracted to those we find...sexy, yet there have been laws drilled into our minds that make this prospect seem absurd - animalistic almost. Just something to think about - I'm not suggesting this is the way it should be, it's just an interesting way to view the situation.
I just feel that sex can be had outside the marital arrangement in a responsible way without detrimental effects on an individual or society. I think it's bad karma to cheat on a mate - if you've committed yourself to an individual you've made a promise and that should not be broken. However if there is a mutual understanding as to sexual practices outside the relationship, whether it be together or seperately, and these practices are performed responsibly and carefully without having a guilty conscience, then the couple should have the freedom to do so.
Just my two cents worth - I've enjoyed this thread immensely....
cheers,
back2dafront