Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

[dizzydoll]

At what stage in society’s existence did sexual words and religious terms become commonly used to insult or offend others? And why? I’ve often wondered this, after all they are only words anyway, so why are these words most often chosen in swearing? Don’t get me wrong, I have no time for profanity, I’m just wondering about these connections.

It seems to me that many religious groups and other belief systems have sexual hang-ups, the evidence is in their teachings. I mean we were all born as a result of procreation, so why is it that some blurt out offensive sexual or religious terms [sometimes together] to be hostile to one another? What is the deeper psychology behind this?

Please keep comments clean.

:smile5:

[Lote-Tree]

At what stage in society’s existence did sexual words and religious terms become commonly used to insult or offend others?


Only Abrahamic religion suffers from this. They have very unhealthy obsession with Sex and women.

I think because men couldn't have babies they felt bit left out. So they invented a Male God so that they can feel bit superior than women ;-)

[The Atheist]

The use and foulness of them has come and gone over the centuries as well.

Blasphemy used to be the ultimate spoken sin, and at that stage, what we now see as foul language was fine. Nowadays, blasphemy is everywhere, but you still can't say the eff word on [US] TV.

Lote's largely right about religion being the cause of sexual terminology being obscene now. Almost all religions hate sex - it's hard to think about god when you're calling out his name in ecstasy.

:D

[JuniperWoolf]

Maybe it's just because that's what seems to be the most shocking. If you get "SEX IS BAD" shoved down your throat since birth, your friend telling you that they just boinked your mom is probably going to have some kind of emotional effect.

As for why modern religions are so anti-sex, all I can say is that's not how things used to be. In pre-Christian Rome, they used to celebrate almost everything with an orgy (Saturnalia). I don't know why they decided to change things once they adopted Christianity, or why Christianity was so prudish in the first place. The whole sex=damnation thing is a relitively new idea.

[dizzydoll]

Its really quite strange, and perhaps I think so because my parents never spoke to me about sex or religion, for that matter. I learned all that from my friends. Even more strange, on more than one occasion male friends have told me about women who began reading the bible straight after lovemaking. This was upsetting for my friends as they cared deeply for some of those women. Once would be bad enough to hear of this guilt but as I stated before it happened more than once, and who knows how many times it occurred back then.

[The Atheist]

Even more strange, on more than one occasion male friends have told me about women who began reading the bible straight after lovemaking.

I would honestly have fallen out of bed laughing had that ever happened to me.

[dizzydoll]

I would honestly have fallen out of bed laughing had that ever happened to me.

Hello my friend. Not if you care for the women, surely you wouldnt do that. You would try to understand what makes her tick and help her get over it. There are other issues surrounding sex that women have hang-ups about, like shyness. I am shy sexually. Men dont seem to share these problems, altho I have been told of a few but its usually fear of performance in their case. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me to find its all connected to religion in some way.

[blazeofglory]

This is really a great issue and of course most of us were taught to be repulsed by sex. My parents were strict on sex and we were not even allowed to move with girls in my teens. Once a young girl proposed me and I could not make advances. For, we were taught that sex is a dangerous thing and indulging in acts of sex will lead to the fall of man morally and religiously. I tried to distance myself from girls, and talks about sex. But now I am no longer living with parents and enjoy independence both economically and intellectually. Now I will not feel guilty about. It is a natural thing. Yet having an outside matrimonial relationship is a matter that calls for great concerns. Sex, religions and vulgarity are totally mutually exclusive things. There is no link at all. Sex is a biological and emotional need, religion is a faith only and vulgarity is our attitude. Of course we must learn to enjoy sex guiltlessly and no need to read the Bible after lovemaking at all out of guilt. If you read the bible just out of any other impulses it is OK but when you do it out of guilt you need some tips on it, maybe some liberal minded scholars.

[The Atheist]

Hello my friend. Not if you care for the women, surely you wouldnt do that. You would try to understand what makes her tick and help her get over it.

Nah, I'd be ROFLing.

True!

I could never have a serious relationshipn with someone who reads the bible anyway. They'd be sick the first time I held a Black Mass.


There are other issues surrounding sex that women have hang-ups about, like shyness. I am shy sexually. Men dont seem to share these problems, altho I have been told of a few but its usually fear of performance in their case. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me to find its all connected to religion in some way.

Yes, performance anxiety is a big issue for some men, but I'm quite sure it has nothing to do with religion.

[dizzydoll]

{edit}


This is really a great issue and of course most of us were taught to be repulsed by sex. My parents were strict on sex and we were not even allowed to move with girls in my teens.

I have some idea how people from the East were raised. I am sure they consider people in the West to be very loose indeed. I would simply say the West broke away from 'old norms' and still many people from the East aspire to be like those in the West today. And vise verse. I give up.

I would say we came into this world the same way we came out. From the beginning our soul [which existed before birth] was connected to this single act of pleasure, but we have difficulties with it. I figure it has to be some kind a throwback conditioning to previous lives we will never know unless regressed to find out. From my point of view I am horrified by the open sexuality displayed by many of our youth today. Judgment aside, its clear I must change to accept, not them as they are our future.

And even on this site, I feel people read but are afraid or appalled by the topic to add their views. :frown2:

[Katy North]

Don't forget the poop words!! :D

Errrmmm... my hypothesis for the reason why the religious types are so uptight about sex is that sex is a pretty powerful thing. We all have a drive to reproduce to propagate the species, etc etc, plus it just feels really good and is great entertainment, especially if there are no books or TVs to be found. By controlling sex, the church (note I said church, not god) found a way to control the universal means of procreation and entertainment among it's followers. What's more powerful than that?

A religion that's been around for two thousand years?? Hmmmm... :aureola:

[blazeofglory]

{edit}



I have some idea how people from the East were raised. I am sure they consider people in the West to be very loose indeed. I would simply say the West broke away from 'old norms' and still many people from the East aspire to be like those in the West today. And vise verse. I give up.

I would say we came into this world the same way we came out. From the beginning our soul [which existed before birth] was connected to this single act of pleasure, but we have difficulties with it. I figure it has to be some kind a throwback conditioning to previous lives we will never know unless regressed to find out. From my point of view I am horrified by the open sexuality displayed by many of our youth today. Judgment aside, its clear I must change to accept, not them as they are our future.

And even on this site, I feel people read but are afraid or appalled by the topic to add their views. :frown2:

I agree and of course in the east we have this feeling, in fact most think in our society that people in the east are too loose and have multiple relations. My own friends say that it is hard to get virginity in the west whereas it is something all the newly weds want in their spouses. However I differ. In fact a desire for mating is natural and in the east people are too much religiously bound whereas in the east they are open. But gradually the rift between both is disappearing. The reason is people are flocking westward in large masses from the east and they will assimilate or acculturate themselves. I am really happy to discuss this issue at great length here and of course some of the confusions with me will be clear

[dizzydoll]

This might seem a real stupid question Blaze but I would sooner trust you than some website. If a woman in your country chose to not bear children how would the community feel about that?

[Paulclem]

It's easy from our modern perspective to question the ethics of bygone times, but sexual prohibitions weren't just about repression. They were also about protection - particularly for women. Sex can mean pregnancy of course, and in the past that had great consequences for the girl - sometimes death.

Nowadays we have the luxury of contraception, and better medical care, we can be more easy going in our attitudes about sex and it's relationship to language in swear words and religion.

[Virgil]

It's easy from our modern perspective to question the ethics of bygone times, but sexual prohibitions weren't just about repression. They were also about protection - particularly for women. Sex can mean pregnancy of course, and in the past that had great consequences for the girl - sometimes death.

Nowadays we have the luxury of contraception, and better medical care, we can be more easy going in our attitudes about sex and it's relationship to language in swear words and religion.

I was going to say something along those lines. Absolutely. Sex = children, and that causes social problems if the mating pair is not of age and capable of supporting them.

[OrphanPip]

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

[BienvenuJDC]

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

You show how very little that you really know about true Christianity...

[OrphanPip]

You show how very little that you really know about true Christianity...

How can anybody know the true Christianity with the 1001 varieties of it out there.

The other two parts weren't directed at Christianity specifically, but at religion in general.

[BienvenuJDC]

1) I agree that there are many contradictory doctrines based on Christianity...the Roman Catholic Church in middle of it all, however, I can know true Christianity by the Scriptures where it is defined.

2) If you generalize the many different religions into one, then your statement is rather useless.

[OrphanPip]

2) If you generalize the many different religions into one, then your statement is rather useless.

Well how else should I address generalized trends that cross between religions. Clearly it isn't a stretch to imply that multiple religions prescribe against certain behavior because there is a tendency in most humans, that transcends culture, to limit certain behavior. e.g. most religions have prohibitions against certain kinds of murder.

[BienvenuJDC]

But a general statement concerning multiple religions may virtually include only a very small percentage of religions as a whole........therefore it would be a useless statement for the generalization of religions as a whole. Unless you were to include what religions actually believe such things and the weight of those religions in comparison to those who believe otherwise, your statement is nothing more than an idea floating around in your head.

Is Christianity in opposition to masturbation? Or is it just certain varieties? Does the Bible even mention it?

I imagine that you are also in a very biased position (as I am also since I am devoted to a particular religion) in respects to any religion that is in opposition to your lifestyle choices. Do you speak with a biased chip on your shoulder.....or do you offer accurate critique of religious doctrine?

[OrphanPip]

The marriage as a means to assure paternity is a widely accepted theory in anthropology and evolutionary psychology. It is supported by the fact that matrilineal societies have no marriage structures, and have communal child-rearing. There seems to be something about male dominance of a society that pushes for the creation of social structures that ensure the official right of a male for exclusive sexual access to a woman. It is hardly my own invention.

This isn't to say that marriage today is the same as it was in primitive societies, but this origin of marriage is evident even in the language. After all the word husband itself implies control of the wife.

As to the masturbation idea, the notion that semen embodied some sort of mystical life-creating male energy that shouldn't be wasted was prevalent all through the ancient Greeks well into the European Enlightenment. This is why you get expressions like le petit mort in French to describe ejaculation.

I'm also not any more fond of religions that have nothing against homosexuality. I haven't run off to join the United Church of Canada despite their support of homosexuality, including performing marriages. I don't find the ancient Greeks any less ridiculous because of the permissiveness of homosexual acts in their society. I'm not going to get into the lifestyle "choice" issue.

[BienvenuJDC]

Before you continue to generalize Christianity...you ought to learn what the Bible actually says about things. Psychology and anthropology has nothing to do with the "development" of Christianity...and (according to true Christianity) marriage did not originate from men, but from God...

[JuniperWoolf]

I agree with Pip on every point. Way to bring anthropology in there.

And Bienvenu, anthropology is actually the study of marriage AND religion (which haven't/aren't always a part of the same thing, in some cultures marriage has nothing to do with religion). You can find anthropological evidence of marriage in every single culture way before you can find evidence for religion. It's a very old concept (older than god(s)) and it arose for exactly the same reasons that Pip has already explained.


I was going to say something along those lines. Absolutely. Sex = children, and that causes social problems if the mating pair is not of age and capable of supporting them.

We have a better understanding of the reproductive system now. We also have contraception, and protection from STDs. So why does the stigma remain?

[Wilde woman]

Language has never been "just words". Since ancient times, there have been words that do things (performative language, as John Austin would say). Most rituals have a linguistic element that must be adhered to to evoke the desired result. For example: magic spells. Say the wrong words and the spell doesn't work.

From there, I think it's a short step to blaspheming or sinning through speech.

Gosh, this sounds exactly like a paper I wrote on Dante several years ago.

[blazeofglory]

Language has never been "just words". Since ancient times, there have been words that do things (performative language, as John Austin would say). Most rituals have a linguistic element that must be adhered to to evoke the desired result. For example: magic spells. Say the wrong words and the spell doesn't work.

From there, I think it's a short step to blaspheming or sinning through speech.

Gosh, this sounds exactly like a paper I wrote on Dante several years ago.

Of course words implicate something really important under different circumstances. In Hinduism words are not sheer words; they are great symbols and have therefore great implications, meanings. There is the Sabda Brahma, that connotes the word is God and there was an word, the first word is Om and it is a sacred syllable and if man keeps on pronouncing this continually he will be liberated

[jikan myshkin]

Hello my friend. Not if you care for the women, surely you wouldnt do that. You would try to understand what makes her tick and help her get over it. There are other issues surrounding sex that women have hang-ups about, like shyness. I am shy sexually. Men dont seem to share these problems, altho I have been told of a few but its usually fear of performance in their case. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me to find its all connected to religion in some way.

i had an islamic work collegue who if he heard jokes about masterbation or sex would run off to the staff room to read his holy texts. he was a 40 something year old virgin who got drunk for the first time and failed to turn up for work for 3 days due to the hang over! of course there was the funny side but at the same time it was quite tragic that he could be affected so deeply by innane idle chatter. i thinkl sex is a natural element of being. i am shy sexualy and feel nauseous by the hollow eyed magazine staring deep into my soul and how excited and repulsed it makes me feel

[dizzydoll]

i had an islamic work collegue who if he heard jokes about masterbation or sex would run off to the staff room to read his holy texts. he was a 40 something year old virgin who got drunk for the first time and failed to turn up for work for 3 days due to the hang over!

Thats amazing, so it shows me this happens in other parts of the world too. Proves my point, there is some deep grained connection between sex and religion. Its quite bizarre actually. All this chit has been carried down for many many generations.


Before you continue to generalize Christianity...you ought to learn what the Bible actually says about things. Psychology and anthropology has nothing to do with the "development" of Christianity...and (according to true Christianity) marriage did not originate from men, but from God...

From what I believe, everyone we have slept with is considered to be our marriage partner according to the bible, is that true?

..

Also in certain cultures, I believe, they will abort the girl child. Today we have designer babies where we can choose the sex of the child in advance. That might put an end to some abortions but I am not sure I feel comfortable with this type of genetic engineering. It still amazes me at how society, in this day and age, still values a boy than girl child. After all the girl will reproduce children, the boy can only seed the offspring and he is not even needed anymore due to semen-banks these days.

..

[Paulclem]

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

I think that's too simplistic Orphan. It's very complex, but what will a Father's primary attitude to his children be? I would suggest protection - from unsuitable males, from social exclusion diue to taboo breaking, from economic insecurity, from a too early pregnancy - and then add in all the cultural stuff and the Father's own attitudes. Definately complex, but primarily an attitude of protection. The majority of Fathers want their kids to be happy.

I've never heard of a primitive vain idolatry of semen - the nearest thing I can think of is the Hindu Lingam - which represents the creative force of the universe.

[dizzydoll]

And you are a good dad Paul, I just sense it. :D

[OrphanPip]

I think that's too simplistic Orphan. It's very complex, but what will a Father's primary attitude to his children be? I would suggest protection - from unsuitable males, from social exclusion diue to taboo breaking, from economic insecurity, from a too early pregnancy - and then add in all the cultural stuff and the Father's own attitudes. Definately complex, but primarily an attitude of protection. The majority of Fathers want their kids to be happy.


I don't disagree that fathers feel protective of their children, it is evolutionarily sensible to do so. However, I still think marriage arises more out of male anxiety over paternity. Marriage age in early periods had always been pretty much immediately after puberty. Today, marriage may function socially to protect girls from too early pregnancies, maybe even more so in the late 19th century, but I doubt this was a concern 3000 years ago. As to the social taboo this is itself created by the existence of the marriage norm to begin with. Economic insecurity arises out of the existence of economic systems, which in turn are part of the notion of ownership which lends itself to patriarchal marriage models. I could agree that marriage has two primary functions in early societies, controlling one's wife and controlling one's daughters. Control need not mean evil intentions on the part of males, but it is undeniable that women have long been viewed as property and marriage has been vital part of that system.

I don't think marriage is inherently bad or that it is still what it was in early societies. The growing education and liberation of women has forever changed what marriage means in our society. A fair argument can be made today for marriage as a social system that promotes security. Of course, it also has significant symbolic meaning to a great many people.




Also in certain cultures, I believe, they will abort the girl child. Today we have designer babies where we can choose the sex of the child in advance. That might put an end to some abortions but I am not sure I feel comfortable with this type of genetic engineering. It still amazes me at how society, in this day and age, still values a boy than girl child. After all the girl will reproduce children, the boy can only seed the offspring and he is not even needed anymore due to semen-banks these days.


This is technically social engineering not genetic. The sperm sorting doesn't involve any actual genetic manipulation. I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of abortion, which has had me butt heads with others I mostly agree with because of my slightly more "conservative" views on the subject. Although, in the case of American institutions where sperm sorting is done to choose the sex of a child parents seem to split about 50/50 on the choice of gender. Usually, the gender of the child is chosen on the basis of the gender of their other children when they have them. I think the importance of male children in places like China will decrease with increasing industrialization. Where I live, in Quebec, women don't take the name of their husband and they have the choice of hybrid names or either parent's name for the child.

[dizzydoll]

Thanks for filling me in Pip. I bet marriage will become extinct in time and we can always be sure who the mother of the child is, not so about the father. Does this mean children will one day carry the mothers surname instead of the fathers? A British passport is allocated on maternity today.

[The Atheist]

However, I still think marriage arises more out of male anxiety over paternity.

Bingo!

A clever control mechanism.

[Virgil]

We have a better understanding of the reproductive system now. We also have contraception, and protection from STDs. So why does the stigma remain?

I think the stigma has been greatly reduced. I don't think it's what it once was. People have sex regularly without being married and no one, unless it's aldultery, blinks. I don't think the stigma remains at all.


I think that's too simplistic Orphan. It's very complex, but what will a Father's primary attitude to his children be? I would suggest protection - from unsuitable males, from social exclusion diue to taboo breaking, from economic insecurity, from a too early pregnancy - and then add in all the cultural stuff and the Father's own attitudes. Definately complex, but primarily an attitude of protection. The majority of Fathers want their kids to be happy.

I've never heard of a primitive vain idolatry of semen - the nearest thing I can think of is the Hindu Lingam - which represents the creative force of the universe.

It's more that that Paul. It's the concept of a family. A man is not just a swinging dick.

[Paulclem]

I think the stigma has been greatly reduced. I don't think it's what it once was. People have sex regularly without being married and no one, unless it's aldultery, blinks. I don't think the stigma remains at all.



It's more that that Paul. It's the concept of a family. A man is not just a swinging dick.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just talking about the Father's attitude to females in the protective sense and not really referring to other aspects. I was just adding this facet into the mix.

[JuniperWoolf]

It's more that that Paul. It's the concept of a family. A man is not just a swinging dick.

Haha, well you're definately keeping the theme of "vulgarity" in this thread.

I don't think you're understanding Pip though. He's talking about the tendancy to enforce monogamy (especially on women) from a very long-term evolutionary anthropology point of view. He's not saying that men consciously think "hmm, if I force women to wait until marriage, I'll be able to control the paternity of her children!" Men want to produce children on a genetic level. If the female is mating with more than one partner, the likelihood that the offspring is his is decreased. He feels anxiety, and this anxiety leads him to enforce rules on the female (which he is able to do because he is bigger and stronger than her, and therefore controls resources such as food) so that he can control the paternity of the child. It's just a species trend (one that's not even confined to only our species). It's not "evil" on the part of the male, it's not even "clever." It just is.

However, this trend is happily dying in our species because of things like rational thought (the biggest, strongest male is no longer the only one with control over the resources) and women's liberation.

[Paulclem]

Control need not mean evil intentions on the part of males, but it is undeniable that women have long been viewed as property and marriage has been vital part of that system.
- Orphan

Yes I can go with that. Ownership - protection - paternity - cultural norms.
Complex.

[Paulclem]

Haha, well you're definately keeping the theme of "vulgarity" in this thread.

I don't think you're understanding Pip though. He's talking about the tendancy to enforce monogamy (especially on women) from a very long-term evolutionary anthropology point of view. He's not saying that men consciously think "hmm, if I force women to wait until marriage, I'll be able to control the paternity of her children!" Men want to produce children on a genetic level. If the female is mating with more than one partner, the likelihood that the offspring is his is decreased. He feels anxiety, and this anxiety leads him to enforce rules on the female (which he is able to do because he is bigger and stronger than her, and therefore controls resources such as food) so that he can control the paternity of the child. It's just a species trend (one that's not even confined to only our species). It's not "evil" on the part of the male, it's not even "clever." It just is.

However, this trend is happily dying in our species because of things like rational thought (the biggest, strongest male is no longer the only one with control over the resources) and women's liberation.

That's just speculation inferred from how cultures have ended up with male dominance. It could well have been that females found it safer to stick with one partner in a social grouping rather than risk the violence that comes with jealousy.

I also think you may be optimistic about the equality aspect. In India - with a population approaching 1 billion people -the vast majority will have arranged marriages. It's no longer about bigger stronger males, but an entrenched cultural system that is also supported by the females.

[JuniperWoolf]

That's just speculation inferred from how cultures have ended up with male dominance. It could well have been that females found it safer to stick with one partner in a social grouping rather than risk the violence that comes with jealousy.

Like I said, humans aren't the only species who's females are restricted to one reproductive partner. We can better understand why our species has the reproductive trends that it does by observing other species, ones who's motives are a bit more transparent to us. Just as an example, I'll use the deer in my local area. The males fight it out, and the winner is allowed to mate with the female. They mate away, then that male heads off to the next battle at a chance to mate again. He can mate as many times as he can win the fight, but the female is restricted to that one male. This has nothing to do with her security, and everything to do with the male's need to ensure that the offspring belong to him. This pattern occurs everywhere in nature, there are A LOT of polygynous species. Maybe it might be better for the female to mate with a number of different mates so that each male in the population treated her and her offspring with care (on the chance that the offspring might be his) but that's not the case; the male must make sure that the young is his, because the need to do so is written in his genetic code. It's so that strong babies are born, it has nothing to do with the needs of the females. Like I said, now that physical strength isn't that important anymore and males are losing their monopoly on the resources that we need to survive, I think we'll move more towards a polygynandrous society (because in nature, that's just what happens when both sexes have an equal role in terms of obtaining resources and caring for young).


I also think you may be optimistic about the equality aspect. In India - with a population approaching 1 billion people -the vast majority will have arranged marriages. It's no longer about bigger stronger males, but an entrenched cultural system that is also supported by the females.

As technology becomes more advanced (thereby improving global communication) and the role of women in society becomes more important, I believe that women will have more of a say in who they will sleep with. Arranged marriage is like a business contract; it's all about convenience and survival. I don't see why that should have anything to do with sex. Breeding? Maybe. But sex? There's no emotional bond there (at least not initially), so why should either partner feel any loyalty to one another? Historically, the male in such relationships have been unfaithful. As women obtain more power, I could see them starting to choose their sexual partners based on... well... fun, and their emotions. Why not?

[Virgil]

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just talking about the Father's attitude to females in the protective sense and not really referring to other aspects. I was just adding this facet into the mix.
Oh, ok. If it's part of a complex mix, sure I understand.


Haha, well you're definately keeping the theme of "vulgarity" in this thread.

I don't think you're understanding Pip though. He's talking about the tendancy to enforce monogamy (especially on women) from a very long-term evolutionary anthropology point of view. He's not saying that men consciously think "hmm, if I force women to wait until marriage, I'll be able to control the paternity of her children!" Men want to produce children on a genetic level. If the female is mating with more than one partner, the likelihood that the offspring is his is decreased. He feels anxiety, and this anxiety leads him to enforce rules on the female (which he is able to do because he is bigger and stronger than her, and therefore controls resources such as food) so that he can control the paternity of the child. It's just a species trend (one that's not even confined to only our species). It's not "evil" on the part of the male, it's not even "clever." It just is.


I understood and I didn't agree. Or at least not completely. Your description and I assume Orphan's, characterizes male "enforced monogamy" as biological pheneomena. That's the way you're describing it. I've never seen any biological (scientific) study that shows it's a biological fact that men insist on women being monogomous. This is silly feminist dogma. If you go through history you will find many examples of societies where women change husbands, including our own medivel times. If this were a cause and effect scientific principle then divorce and remarriage shouldn't happen and adoptions shouldn't happen.

It's ridiculous to simplify human dynamics to causes and effects. There is a huge complexity to human relationship phenomena that cannot be put into any single equation.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've never seen any biological (scientific) study that shows it's a biological fact that men insist on women being monogomous. This is silly feminist dogma.

-_- Actually, it's a very well known anthropological concept. I literally learned it in Anthro 101 (seriously). If you aren't aware of this trend, then don't blame your limited knowledge on us. Look it up for yourself. Pick up a textbook.

[BienvenuJDC]

-_- Actually, it's a very well known anthropological concept. I literally learned it in Anthro 101 (seriously). If you aren't aware of this trend, then don't blame your limited knowledge on us. Look it up for yourself. Pick up a textbook.

I'll agree with Virgil. It seems that feminism has effected and biased the field of Anthropology then.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'll agree with Virgil. It seems that feminism has effected and biased the field of Anthropology then.

Haha, yeah you're right... the collective group that values equality for men and women has infultrated the entire field of anthropology. We were in cahoots with the Jews and the Freemasons. Together, our three organizations now control the entire world!

[BienvenuJDC]

Haha, yeah you're right... the collective group that values equality for men and women has infultrated the entire field of anthropology. We were in cahoots with the Jews and the Freemasons. Together, our four organizations now control the entire world!

No, I didn't say that it infiltrated it. I said that it effected it. It very possibly could have been the presentation of the text, or maybe it was a particular professor that chose that textbook for those particular reasons. Many years of study and learning will broaden your horizons.

Don't believe everything that you read in a book. I'm sure that you are skeptical of those books that oppose your current views.

[OrphanPip]

Actually, I think the biggest supporter of the idea was Levi-Strauss, who isn't exactly popular with the feminists. They didn't like that he argued that the trade and use of women as objects was used to promote social cohesion in male dominated societies. Today it is, as far as I know, nearly universally accepted by anthropologist.

As to their being exceptions to the rule Virgil, there are very few things that have a direct 1:1 relationship with genes. Our culture has an effect on the expression of our nature, and our nature in turn effects the culture. The desire to control the paternity of your child is most likely genetic, but that doesn't mean in all situations that a culture that reacts to this will arise. However, obligatory female monogamy (male polygamy often found alongside this) is widely found in male dominated societies. The few female dominated societies we know of had no marriage structures.

Cultures evolve though, and today's conceptions of marriage are not going to be the same as those of primitive societies.

[Jozanny]

A man is not just a swinging dick.


Mmm. I think mostly he is, and while I cannot assert this with an entirely straight face, it is usually the feminine social cohesion that tames males, from elephants to apes like us--overly aggressive males usually aren't that successful, unless their dominance is moderated by the female acceptance.

Pip, I rather like Levi-Strauss, and should have figured out you'd be familiar with his early ground-breaking work; may I ask if you are male or female? I only ask in order not to assume.

I am not a very good feminist, however, as I am not sure what gender revisionism means, at the end of the day.

[JuniperWoolf]

I am not a very good feminist, however, as I am not sure what gender revisionism means, at the end of the day.

I don't think that there's a universally accepted direction and proposed outcome for feminism, the whole thing is just a reaction to the way that women have been treated throughout history. It's not so much a matter of logical organization as it is a sort of collective unconscious feeling of indignity. You'll find that in any group that's been oppressed. The civil rights movement for example was (at least in my opinion with what I’ve read so far) more the grand scale result of a visceral feeling and continuous need. Collectively, groups are irrational. You take a big group of people who have been oppressed and are reacting against the same source, that’s how change really seems to come about (look at the French revolution, the civil rights movement, the American revolution, pre-Nazi Germany, really the majority of fast, grand-scale changes; these weren‘t logical, well thought out events. They were just reactions to oppression and/or extreme need).

I could be wrong though; that’s just what I’ve been thinking about lately.

[Jozanny]

Nice point Woolf. I have done some slightly heavy reading in feminist theory, as when I was still working I took a shot at my doctorate under Nina Auerbach at U of Penn--but I do not think we can just flatten differences with a steam roller and then sing Hosanna. Gender divides are nearly universal in the evolution of life, and since I should have been in bed at least 3 hours back I'll edit myself later :lol:

(I will eventually shut up for a few days. I am under stress and posting is like my way of not wanting to deal with red tape. I should use my writing for that, but I need to relax here and there.)

[blazeofglory]

Gender divides is a universal thing and of course there is a matter of degree only. In some countries women are simply taken as commodities and they are told to remain rooted within their family peripherals. They simply yieldingly succumb to the circumstances their husbands want or their parents want. The foundation of their systems or customs is their religion and in one religious text I have come upon a passage in which woman is a species that needs to be under a strict restraint all the time all else they are vulnerable. When she is a baby it is her parents who must kind of have her within their reach and after that she is the being that must get married to a man even against her will. Then she must always stay under the vigilance of her husband and if the husband dies she must be under her son' control or else she is likely to be led astray

[Paulclem]

Like I said, humans aren't the only species who's females are restricted to one reproductive partner. We can better understand why our species has the reproductive trends that it does by observing other species, ones who's motives are a bit more transparent to us. Just as an example, I'll use the deer in my local area. The males fight it out, and the winner is allowed to mate with the female. They mate away, then that male heads off to the next battle at a chance to mate again. He can mate as many times as he can win the fight, but the female is restricted to that one male. This has nothing to do with her security, and everything to do with the male's need to ensure that the offspring belong to him. This pattern occurs everywhere in nature, there are A LOT of polygynous species. Maybe it might be better for the female to mate with a number of different mates so that each male in the population treated her and her offspring with care (on the chance that the offspring might be his) but that's not the case; the male must make sure that the young is his, because the need to do so is written in his genetic code. It's so that strong babies are born, it has nothing to do with the needs of the females. Like I said, now that physical strength isn't that important anymore and males are losing their monopoly on the resources that we need to survive, I think we'll move more towards a polygynandrous society (because in nature, that's just what happens when both sexes have an equal role in terms of obtaining resources and caring for young).



As technology becomes more advanced (thereby improving global communication) and the role of women in society becomes more important, I believe that women will have more of a say in who they will sleep with. Arranged marriage is like a business contract; it's all about convenience and survival. I don't see why that should have anything to do with sex. Breeding? Maybe. But sex? There's no emotional bond there (at least not initially), so why should either partner feel any loyalty to one another? Historically, the male in such relationships have been unfaithful. As women obtain more power, I could see them starting to choose their sexual partners based on... well... fun, and their emotions. Why not?

Hi juniper - just to be clear - I am all for the liberation of women. It just makes fair sense.

I agree that sex/ marriage is no longer about the strongest male dominating, and i don't think it's been that way for millennia. It's more about culture now, so I don't give much credence to the animal - human corollary as a result of that. If we were suddenly thrust back into some pre-historical situation, I think new societies would form rather than an animalistic model. I think it simplifies any meaning for our human cultural situation out.

We are lucky in the West that we have wealth and technology, and we are able to move on fronts like equality for women etc. The third world still has a long way to go.

Arranged marriage is like a business contract; it's all about convenience and survival. I don't see why that should have anything to do with sex. Breeding? Maybe. But sex?

Arranged marriage is not a business contract. It's not about conveniance and survival either. It is the Asian alternative to our "love" marriages. Both have their strong points. If it was just as you say then western asian women would not opt for this, but living in a multicultural city - I know that most asians do go for the arranged marriages. I'm not saying it will survive in the long term in western societies, but it is a fact in the asian subcontinent.

Historically, the male in such relationships have been unfaithful.

I don't think you can make this asserion about the whole of the asian subcontinent. We see and hear the bad stories only.

I think we'll move more towards a polygynandrous society (because in nature, that's just what happens when both sexes have an equal role in terms of obtaining resources and caring for young).

Maybe - I think serial monogamy is more likely and is normal now. Polygamy brings problems. Or did you mean polyandry? The only place I know of that has this system is Tibet. this was instilled in order to keep land and property together for economic reasons. A woman would be married to a man and his brothers in the full sense of the word.

As women obtain more power, I could see them starting to choose their sexual partners based on... well... fun, and their emotions. Why not?

Don't they do that already in the West? Yay to that too. There's plenty of time to be serious.

Interestingly, in China, due to the restrictions on births imposed by the government and the cultural preference for a male child - I read that there will be millions of chinese men who will not be able to find a female partner. This puts the women in a very powerful position, but whether it will produce significant differences in attitudes to women remains to be seen. (I hope it does by the way. )

Fascinating discussion. :D

[Taliesin]

I don't think that there's a universally accepted direction and proposed outcome for feminism, the whole thing is just a reaction to the way that women have been treated throughout history. It's not so much a matter of logical organization as it is a sort of collective unconscious feeling of indignity. You'll find that in any group that's been oppressed. The civil rights movement for example was (at least in my opinion with what I’ve read so far) more the grand scale result of a visceral feeling and continuous need. Collectively, groups are irrational. You take a big group of people who have been oppressed and are reacting against the same source, that’s how change really seems to come about (look at the French revolution, the civil rights movement, the American revolution, pre-Nazi Germany, really the majority of fast, grand-scale changes; these weren‘t logical, well thought out events. They were just reactions to oppression and/or extreme need).

I could be wrong though; that’s just what I’ve been thinking about lately.


As an offtopic comment, the idea that groups are always irrational is sort of debatable since there are situations where crowds as a collective might make better judgements than the individuals. There are some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds) hypothesi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_agent_theory) that on certain conditions( diversity of opinion, independence,decentralisation and aggregation) the crowd may be smarter than all of its members.



As for an ontopic comment, the idea of "ownership - protection - paternity - cultural norms" seems believable. I mean, surely there are other influential reasons for why the cultural norms are what they are but this as one of the reasons seems quite plausible.

[caddy_caddy]

Allow me to ask a question here : What is the unit of a strong and well organized society ?

Religion . Isalm for instance , aimed at creating societies by organizing the relationships among human beings . Thus , the family , not the individual, becomes the unit of the society . In this light you can understand the relation between sex and religion .

Sex is " Organized not suppressed " within the instituation of marriage . The legistlation aimed at protecting the "Family " as a notion and a fundamental unit of its society . It is not looked at its nature only but at " its Effects " and Results , too.
Look for instance at the difference between the time of Solayman and Mohammad ( P.B U.T) . Although they are both prohets Solayman had many women . hundreds . We would ask how a prophet
would be allowed to do sex freely and have relations with that number of women . But at that time religion was in its basic form .With Mohammad the last of prohets , Religion becomes fully developped , it aimed at constructing a strong society with legistlations that organized every detail in your life .Sex is now looked at from different perspectives . It is not only to satisfy your needs which is very natural and not vulgar at all but also contributing in creating your own society as a Muslim . The number becomes limited and Mohammad married diffrent women from different tribes to make a social bond
between them .
Moreover ,a Muslim is taught how to control his desires and basic intincts , using his own free will :What transcends human beings above animals .
Animals cannot say " No" to their instincts , but a human being should say it when necessary .

Religion is not only God and prayer , it is a system of life . For sure a religious couldn't look at sex from one side as others do .

[dizzydoll]

I would never allow any religion or belief system to dictate to me sexually or otherwise. As far as I am concerned all religions were created by men for insecure men, and for most of womens' existance she had no rights, thats until the 60's [or perhaps a little earlier] when women finally said no more. I thank God for this. Today she writes her own cheques/checks and SHE decides whether she will or will not get married and if/not she will have kids at all. Its took a long time to get here, we finally made it.

[The Atheist]

Hi juniper - just to be clear - I am all for the liberation of women.

You'll be a long time living that one down in't cloob!


If we were suddenly thrust back into some pre-historical situation, I think new societies would form rather than an animalistic model.

Hmm, I'm not so sure.

They don't call us "alpha males" for nothing.

In a case of survival of the fittest, the fittest will also make the damn rules!

Understand?


Arranged marriage is not a business contract. It's not about conveniance and survival either. It is the Asian alternative to our "love" marriages.

I wouldn't go along with that - I think arranged marriages are more about bigotry than anything else. Parents can ensure a "suitable" match for their children to ensure no undesirable genes are introduced.

I had a great case rceently where an Indian I know went back to India to meet and marry his spouse, who was completely unknown to him.

When I met with her on their return, I could only guess that his first thought on meeting her was "Thanks, Dad!"

She was bloody gorgeous!

Whether arranged marriages "work" in their own country, I have no idea, but of the many I know here, they "work" insofar as the woman does not complain about her husband having affairs or using prostitutes.


I don't think you can make this asserion about the whole of the asian subcontinent. We see and hear the bad stories only.

Of the 20 or so arranged marriages I know enough about to say for sure, I am confident every one of them has an unfaithful husband.


Allow me to ask a question here : What is the unit of a strong and well organized society ?

Depends which society you mean and what that society uses as its cultural norm.


Religion . Isalm for instance , aimed at creating societies by organizing the relationships among human beings .

I see that as extremely dangerous. Why would anyone let a religion rule the [arguably] most important aspect of their entire life?


With Mohammad the last of prohets , Religion becomes fully developped , it aimed at constructing a strong society with legistlations that organized every detail in your life .

Does this mean marrying nine year olds is ok? If Muhammad was the last prophet, then he must have been quite right.


Moreover ,a Muslim is taught how to control his desires and basic intincts , using his own free will :What transcends human beings above animals .
Animals cannot say " No" to their instincts , but a human being should say it when necessary .

What makes it necessary? How is it proof of free will if it is nothing more than a theological imperative? Surely, free will would require a conscious reasoning not to follow the instinct other than; "the quran says so"?

[Virgil]

-_- Actually, it's a very well known anthropological concept. I literally learned it in Anthro 101 (seriously). If you aren't aware of this trend, then don't blame your limited knowledge on us. Look it up for yourself. Pick up a textbook.

Yeah, I've heard it too, but that's anthropology, not science. You know often they change opinions in the social sciences? Every ten years. If it were up to social scientists (and they are not scientists) Freud would still be an acceptable means of trewating mental illness. And you yourself said Freud doesn't hold up to empiracal test. And neither will this.

[Virgil]

As to their being exceptions to the rule Virgil, there are very few things that have a direct 1:1 relationship with genes. Our culture has an effect on the expression of our nature, and our nature in turn effects the culture.
I'm in agreement with that. I said it's a complex relationship.



The desire to control the paternity of your child is most likely genetic, but that doesn't mean in all situations that a culture that reacts to this will arise. However, obligatory female monogamy (male polygamy often found alongside this) is widely found in male dominated societies. The few female dominated societies we know of had no marriage structures.
That I do not believe. You yourself imply that some cultures do it and some don't. That means it's not biological. It is not a cause and effect phenomena.

[Niamh]

Virgil Anthropology is a Science. It might come up in arts degrees as Archaeology does but its classed as a science because it originated in science and some of the most famous British Scientists of the 19th century were involved in the Royal Anthropological Society. Its foundation is in science.

[Virgil]

Virgil Anthropology is a Science. It might come up in arts degrees as Archaeology does but its classed as a science because it originated in science and some of the most famous British Scientists of the 19th century were involved in the Royal Anthropological Society. Its foundation is in science.

No it's not a science. They don't take science courses, math courses, they don't take calculus, they don't take biology. They may take some simplified course material, but it has no rigor of scinece and scientific experimentation or mathematical underpinnings. My brother has his PhD in Anthropology and is a professor of anthropology. It's not science.

[Niamh]

I'm talking from a historical perspective Virgil. And i still disagree. There are Anthropological courses that do focus on Science, Maths and biology, maybe not in the states but certainly over here. Its ethnography. I've been considering doing one myself as part of my degree and just did an anthropological section in my current course that delt a lot with biology and i've done some in the past also.

Juniper i understand where you are coming from regarding the monogamy. When it comes to procreation, men like to know that their line is being continued. They cant be certain if this is the case if the woman they are with is has more than one sexual partner. Any of the men could be the paternal father. Monogamy for a woman generally garuntees that the children are his and that his lineage is continued.

[Paulclem]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;876009]You'll be a long time living that one down in't cloob!

They don't call us "alpha males" for nothing.

In a case of survival of the fittest, the fittest will also make the damn rules!

Understand?

I wouldn't go along with that - I think arranged marriages are more about bigotry than anything else. Parents can ensure a "suitable" match for their children to ensure no undesirable genes are introduced.

I had a great case rceently where an Indian I know went back to India to meet and marry his spouse, who was completely unknown to him.

When I met with her on their return, I could only guess that his first thought on meeting her was "Thanks, Dad!"

She was bloody gorgeous!

Whether arranged marriages "work" in their own country, I have no idea, but of the many I know here, they "work" insofar as the woman does not complain about her husband having affairs or using prostitutes.

Of the 20 or so arranged marriages I know enough about to say for sure, I am confident every one of them has an unfaithful husband.

Hi Atheist - well cloob's got to have someone to take the piss out of!

As for survival of the fittest - isn't that meaning survival of the one who best fits the situation rather than than the biggest/ strongest? A group has a better chance of survival than an individual. Ok so the group might be Big Baz and his mates - but they still have to co-operate as a group with inter group rules too.

As for the arranged marriages - well there is the "infrastructure of affairs" in the westernised - developed world that you don't get in the other countries so much. I really can't imagine that the half a billion nearly males on the Indian Subcontinent can do this, even if they wanted to. Most are in poverty too - 800 million?

Who knows though - it might be right. A bit of an indictment if it is true.

[The Atheist]

As for survival of the fittest - isn't that meaning survival of the one who best fits the situation rather than than the biggest/ strongest? A group has a better chance of survival than an individual. Ok so the group might be Big Baz and his mates - but they still have to co-operate as a group with inter group rules too.

I guess it depends on how many survivors there are, but someone's going to want to be boss, and I'm seeing hairy knuckles being more likely to run the group than the guy with the bright ideas.

In the long term, a cooperative group maximising its resources is definitely the likeliest to survive nature, but the problem is, I wonder whether they'd get the chance to do so because the hairy knuckles will just kill and eat the nerd group. Taken away from our current evolved status, I suspect we might just become extinct quite quickly.

[JuniperWoolf]

As an offtopic comment, the idea that groups are always irrational is sort of debatable since there are situations where crowds as a collective might make better judgements than the individuals. There are some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds) hypothesi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_agent_theory) that on certain conditions( diversity of opinion, independence,decentralisation and aggregation) the crowd may be smarter than all of its members.

Yeah, the whole "wisdom of crowds" debate... that could be a whole other thread unto itself. For my part, I've gone into it a lot and I doubt it's validity. There are other scientists with a better background in psychology than me who would argue that it's plausable, and still other specialists who would say that it's a crappy parlour trick. Here's a youtube video that you might like about a "psychologist" who attempts to prove the theory and just winds up lying to everyone and looking like a jackass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DODGRfzdfNU&playnext_from=TL&videos=GcUIPbaDSes

Go to part 5 for Captian Dis's debunk.

Crowd behavior is a pretty interesting subject, there are people who dedicate their entire lives to it (sociologists).




Arranged marriage is not a business contract. It's not about conveniance and survival either. It is the Asian alternative to our "love" marriages.

Well alright, then what is marriage (and I'm talking about both arranged and the newfangled "love" marriages that we have in the west)? You pool your resources with another person, you create offspring and you take different roles in caring for them. That's the purpose of marriage, right? It's a partnership, a business contract. The business is the creation an upbringing of babies so that the species survives. Love doesn't even have to enter into the equation.



Maybe - I think serial monogamy is more likely and is normal now. Polygamy brings problems. Or did you mean polyandry? The only place I know of that has this system is Tibet. this was instilled in order to keep land and property together for economic reasons. A woman would be married to a man and his brothers in the full sense of the word.

Nah, I meant polygynandry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygynandry).

Poly = many
gyn = female
andre = male

It's like a tribe where the members mate with basically whoever. A fantastic example is the bonobos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo). They're these cool little type of chimp (which means that they're our first cousins). Basically every female in the tribe mates with every male, breeding is a group thing. Because the males can't be sure which of the offspring are theirs, they take care of ALL of the offspring equally. Bonobos are the most peaceful out of all primates (including ourselves). Serial monogomy might be a possability, too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


Interestingly, in China, due to the restrictions on births imposed by the government and the cultural preference for a male child - I read that there will be millions of chinese men who will not be able to find a female partner. This puts the women in a very powerful position, but whether it will produce significant differences in attitudes to women remains to be seen. (I hope it does by the way. )


Yeah, I've been looking forward to seeing how that situation turns out. Serves them right for literally sending their daughters "up the river."


No it's not a science. They don't take science courses, math courses, they don't take calculus, they don't take biology. They may take some simplified course material, but it has no rigor of scinece and scientific experimentation or mathematical underpinnings. My brother has his PhD in Anthropology and is a professor of anthropology. It's not science.

Anthropology follows the emperical method of inquiry. If I wanted to do an experiment right now to see how salt effects the growth of one's lawn, and I built the experiment properly and with a good control, my results would still be valid despite the fact that I don't have any advanced calculus degrees. A piece of paper doesn't mean squat if the methodology is correct, my degree wouldn't effect the results at all.

[OrphanPip]

There's amazing research done on bonobos. I've seen video of them playing Pac-Man, lighting fires with cigarette lighters, and learning sign language. They're amazingly smart, I can't help but wonder how people disbelieve humans evolved from apes when you see the bonobo.

The use of sex in bonobo social structures is really interesting too. Although, they fondle their offspring to calm them when stressed, so I wouldn't be too quick to model our society after theirs lol. Mutual masturbation is also a common greeting amongst bonobo, males will often present erections to human keepers.

Unfortunately, they're endangered and happen to be located in one of the most dangerous countries in Africa.

Edit:

@Jozanny

Male, there's extensive information about me on my blog if you're really curious haha. (and two very bad poems)

[Virgil]

Sorry I still disagree as to Anthropology. They do not take regular science or math classes nor do they even take statistics. Anthropology is part of the Liberal Arts departments not the Science, and so they have different pre-requisites and curriculumn. They are not scientists.

There is a world of difference between what social scientists consider knowledge and what scientists consider fact. Let me put it to you this way: there is a world of difference between Darwin (scientist) and Freud (social science crap).

[Jozanny]

Sorry I still disagree as to Anthropology. They do not take regular science or math classes nor do they even take statistics. Anthropology is part of the Liberal Arts departments not the Science, and so they have different pre-requisites and curriculumn. They are not scientists.

There is a world of difference between what social scientists consider knowledge and what scientists consider fact. Let me put it to you this way: there is a world of difference between Darwin (scientist) and Freud (social science crap).

Do you have less limiting diction when it comes to disparaging what isn't godspel in your worldview? Anthropology isn't astro-physics, but as the study of humanity it is a science, within certain parameters; it intersects with biology, forensics, and a number of other disciplines, and doesn't fall under mild epithets for feces. It is certainly more valuable than Catholicism's history of torture and child abuse and then covering all this up for the sake of protecting the divine sanction of the so called Church.

[JuniperWoolf]

Also, the things that we've discussed so far are also supported by similar findings in biology and science psychology which is actually where I initially learned this stuff (unless you're now proposing that biology and science psychology aren't sciences either).

And furthermore (at least in my school), anthropology students are required to take two years of statistics. Their knowledge in mathematics is further expanded once they get to grad school. They're not idiots, Virgil. They know their own field.

[blazeofglory]

There's amazing research done on bonobos. I've seen video of them playing Pac-Man, lighting fires with cigarette lighters, and learning sign language. They're amazingly smart, I can't help but wonder how people disbelieve humans evolved from apes when you see the bonobo.

The use of sex in bonobo social structures is really interesting too. Although, they fondle their offspring to calm them when stressed, so I wouldn't be too quick to model our society after theirs lol. Mutual masturbation is also a common greeting amongst bonobo, males will often present erections to human keepers.

Unfortunately, they're endangered and happen to be located in one of the most dangerous countries in Africa.

Edit:



@Jozanny

Male, there's extensive information about me on my blog if you're really curious haha. (and two very bad poems)

They, bonobos, may be the real and only representatives of what man is, unconditioned, before religions tabooed sex, before nudity is considered obscene. Religions, cultures, ethics have crippled humans, and now why there is too much homosexuality and rape in society. The main and only reason is suppression, the free and natural transactions between genders. Once the lid of the religion and ethics is lifted again we will back to the bonobos system. However I am also not advocating that we must model our cultures into theirs and this will create havocs

[MarkBastable]

Religions, cultures, ethics have crippled humans, and now why there is too much homosexuality and rape in society.

Would you like to expand on this view a little?

[blazeofglory]

Would you like to expand on this view a little?

In fact this is in response to Orphampip's beautiful idea and I simply infused mine. I believe in nature. I take nature as a role mode. I feel that the farther we go from our natural state where instincts play a pivotal role not the manmade, man become more stress –driven. That said I cannot say we will take on a reverse course abruptly.

[The Atheist]

There's amazing research done on bonobos.

Yeah, it's fascinating and I commend anyone to take a look at it.


...there is too much homosexuality and rape in society...

I trust you're not suggesting homosexuality is any way analogous to rape.

What is wrong with or unnatural about homosexuality?

[JuniperWoolf]

Everyone loves a good bonobo.

I once saw video footage of an experiment done where they threw a bunch of bananas into the middle of a group of bonobos who hadn't had any dinner yet. With chimps they would have started shoving each other and fighting over the food. The bonobos just sort of got all stressed out, then all of them just immediately started humping each other. They finished up, and then leisurely ate the bananas. Now THAT'S good problem solving.

[MarkBastable]

Religions, cultures, ethics have crippled humans, and now why there is too much homosexuality and rape in society.

If there's too much, though, what would be the right amount of each?

[blazeofglory]

Yeah, it's fascinating and I commend anyone to take a look at it.



I trust you're not suggesting homosexuality is any way analogous to rape.

What is wrong with or unnatural about homosexuality?

I do not try finding unnatural elements with homosexuality but still heterosexuals are more natural. It is more operational. And in some society homosexuals have yet to have acceptance. Yet I do not profess acceptance and non-acceptance has anything to do with the idea of right or wrong in point of fact. In some society homosexuals are as horrified rapists, but yet in rape there is incursion.

I do not want argue here for or against homosexuality. All I want to point out is I support the idea of natural behavior in sexual matters and want to raise certain objections against our taboos, rules laden social systems

[JuniperWoolf]

I used to work for a Lebonese family. They seriously do view homosexuality in the same light as we do, say, raping babies. Talk about effed up priorities...

[blazeofglory]

If there's too much, though, what would be the right amount of each?

This is not a question of 'right amount' and "wrong amount' of each of them. It is about human values, beliefs and human attitudes towards the use and abuse of these behaviors in a certain social setup

[MarkBastable]

This is not a question of 'right amount' and "wrong amount' of each of them. It is about human values, beliefs and human attitudes towards the use and abuse of these behaviors in a certain social setup

But you said there was 'too much rape and homosexuality'. 'Too much' means 'the wrong amount'. And as you said 'too much', as opposed to 'too little', you apparently think there should be less rape and homosexuality. So there must be a smaller amount of rape and homosexuality that you think is not 'too much'.

[blazeofglory]

But you said there was 'too much rape and homosexuality'. 'Too much' means 'the wrong amount'. And as you said 'too much', as opposed to 'too little', you apparently think there should be less rape and homosexuality. So there must be a smaller amount of rape and homosexuality that you think is not 'too much'.

May be you are right and what I wanted to say and what really got written could not be synchronized. For I am poor at English after all

[MarkBastable]

All I want to point out is I support the idea of natural behavior in sexual matters and want to raise certain objections against our taboos, rules laden social systems

This raises another interesting point, actually. How do we know what is 'natural' and what is 'cultural' in human behaviour? You suggest that rape is the result of tensions created by the oppressive effects of culture and religion - and that without those influences no one would force themselves sexually on another person.

But one could also argue that it's only the influence of culture and religion that discourages humans from forcing themselves sexually on anyone else. In other words, the conventions of civilisation are designed to prevent rape, and generally speaking that's what they do.

Unfortunately, we don't have a human test group for this - as all humans live, one way or another, in groups that have rules of culture and morality.

My conclusion would be that the very fact that there are no humans who live without these things means that these things are natural to humans. Humans cannot live without culture and a moral structure (which tends to codify itself into religion), any more than koalas can live without eucalyptus trees. That is our natural state.

[Niamh]

Sorry I still disagree as to Anthropology. They do not take regular science or math classes nor do they even take statistics. Anthropology is part of the Liberal Arts departments not the Science, and so they have different pre-requisites and curriculumn. They are not scientists.

There is a world of difference between what social scientists consider knowledge and what scientists consider fact. Let me put it to you this way: there is a world of difference between Darwin (scientist) and Freud (social science crap).

As i said, its obviously different in the states. For Anthropology over here, and Archaeology for that matter, you study biology and do some basic matamatics. I've opted to do an Archoeology course this summer and i have to do maths, and it's catagorised as a science course along with Anthropology. If i dropped one of my lit courses and opted for an Anthropology Course, i'd be working towards a Science Degree and not an Arts Degree. Yes they are found in Arts departments, but so is Geology. However they are also found in Science departments as well.

For full Anthropology degree you'd study some genetics and even some aspects of medicine. With Biology, they would fall under the ethnography side of Anthropology, and would involve the study of Darwins Origins of the Species, and Robert Knox's Race of Men. Herbert Spencers Principles of Biology was very important to early Anthropological studies and most of the names above were involved in The Royal Anthropological Society.

Even when i worked as an Archaeologist, i used maths and, depending on the type of site, biology on a daily bases.

But as i said, its obviously different in the states. We dont Have "liberal Arts".

Anyway this is Off topic.

[Paulclem]

I guess it depends on how many survivors there are, but someone's going to want to be boss, and I'm seeing hairy knuckles being more likely to run the group than the guy with the bright ideas.

In the long term, a cooperative group maximising its resources is definitely the likeliest to survive nature, but the problem is, I wonder whether they'd get the chance to do so because the hairy knuckles will just kill and eat the nerd group. Taken away from our current evolved status, I suspect we might just become extinct quite quickly.

:lol:

Get the nerds to gang up on hairy knuckles - or poison one of themselves in order to kill him off.

I think our specialisation would be a problem. We'd need particular specialists. You fishing - Prend for animal rearing - me for teach... oh no - I'd be the sacrificial one...


Yeah, the whole "wisdom of crowds" debate... that could be a whole other thread unto itself. For my part, I've gone into it a lot and I doubt it's validity. There are other scientists with a better background in psychology than me who would argue that it's plausable, and still other specialists who would say that it's a crappy parlour trick. Here's a youtube video that you might like about a "psychologist" who attempts to prove the theory and just winds up lying to everyone and looking like a jackass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DODGRfzdfNU&playnext_from=TL&videos=GcUIPbaDSes

Go to part 5 for Captian Dis's debunk.

Crowd behavior is a pretty interesting subject, there are people who dedicate their entire lives to it (sociologists).


Well alright, then what is marriage (and I'm talking about both arranged and the newfangled "love" marriages that we have in the west)? You pool your resources with another person, you create offspring and you take different roles in caring for them. That's the purpose of marriage, right? It's a partnership, a business contract. The business is the creation an upbringing of babies so that the species survives. Love doesn't even have to enter into the equation.




Nah, I meant polygynandry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygynandry).

Poly = many
gyn = female
andre = male

It's like a tribe where the members mate with basically whoever. A fantastic example is the bonobos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo). They're these cool little type of chimp (which means that they're our first cousins). Basically every female in the tribe mates with every male, breeding is a group thing. Because the males can't be sure which of the offspring are theirs, they take care of ALL of the offspring equally. Bonobos are the most peaceful out of all primates (including ourselves). Serial monogomy might be a possability, too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.



Yeah, I've been looking forward to seeing how that situation turns out. Serves them right for literally sending their daughters "up the river."



Anthropology follows the emperical method of inquiry. If I wanted to do an experiment right now to see how salt effects the growth of one's lawn, and I built the experiment properly and with a good control, my results would still be valid despite the fact that I don't have any advanced calculus degrees. A piece of paper doesn't mean squat if the methodology is correct, my degree wouldn't effect the results at all.

Thanks Juniper - polygnandry - every day is an education.

I don't concur with the animal Bonobo analogy to humans. I think we're far too complex.

I can understand your view of marriages, but i don't see that your analysis is valid. Relationships are'nt about one thing and they change over time too.

[caddy_caddy]

[QUOTE]I would never allow any religion or belief system to dictate to me sexually or otherwise.

You're completely free to follow or not to .


As far as I am concerned all religions were created by men for insecure men,

The religion I've talked about is not created by men !!
It's the words of God delivered to human beings through revelations to prophets . I wish things are clear to u now .
I don't allow a human being to dictate to me my system of life, but I do allow myself to follow the " Words of God " !!

[caddy_caddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Allow me to ask a question here : What is the unit of a strong and well organized society ?

Depends which society you mean and what that society uses as its cultural norm.
The modern societies tend to make the individual as its unit not the family ,that's what creates a basic difference between the attitude of the religious societies and others .



Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Religion . Isalm for instance , aimed at creating societies by organizing the relationships among human beings .

I see that as extremely dangerous. Why would anyone let a religion rule the [arguably] most important aspect of their entire life?

I noticed that everyone here speaks of religion as the invention
of men and they forgot the basic thing about religion :what rules in religion is the " words of God " not the words of some human beings .
You are an athesit ; how can you understand how do those
people think if u don't agree with them on the basic issue ?!!




Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
With Mohammad the last of prohets , Religion becomes fully developped , it aimed at constructing a strong society with legistlations that organized every detail in your life .

Does this mean marrying nine year olds is ok?

the average age of sexual maturity varies according to time and geographical location .
But the general rule no marriage before sexual maturation.

If Muhammad was the last prophet, then he must have been quite right.

No . There is no relation . It's a matter of belief . We do believe that the Quran is right and everything is mentioned in it concerning Mohammad or others and everyting is right .



Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Moreover ,a Muslim is taught how to control his desires and basic intincts , using his own free will :What transcends human beings above animals .
Animals cannot say " No" to their instincts , but a human being should say it when necessary .

What makes it necessary?
Violating the religious codes that are made for the goodness of human beings.

How is it proof of free will if it is nothing more than a theological imperative? Surely, free will would require a conscious reasoning not to follow the instinct other than; "the quran says so"?

It 's a practice of your free will not to violate the moral and religious codes . What it is natural is to follow an order and to achieve a purpose for everyting we do . And sex is no exception . Everything in the universe follows an order and there is a purpose for its existence . We are part of this universe . We are above animals and the best among creatures that what God said .
We cannot degrade ourselves to the level of animals self- abusing our reason and free will .

[blazeofglory]

This raises another interesting point, actually. How do we know what is 'natural' and what is 'cultural' in human behaviour? You suggest that rape is the result of tensions created by the oppressive effects of culture and religion - and that without those influences no one would force themselves sexually on another person.

But one could also argue that it's only the influence of culture and religion that discourages humans from forcing themselves sexually on anyone else. In other words, the conventions of civilisation are designed to prevent rape, and generally speaking that's what they do.

Unfortunately, we don't have a human test group for this - as all humans live, one way or another, in groups that have rules of culture and morality.

My conclusion would be that the very fact that there are no humans who live without these things means that these things are natural to humans. Humans cannot live without culture and a moral structure (which tends to codify itself into religion), any more than koalas can live without eucalyptus trees. That is our natural state.

Our culture is never our natural state. At times cultures, rituals,systems, taboos and the like disable humans. I know at times simple defenseless men are indoctrinated into certain patterns of thinking and will stray into foolhardiness.

I am not always against cultures, but there are certain aspects of cultures that are harmful to the human race. In Hinduism women are treated subserviently as if they are subhumans or beings who are less humans and more animals. One of the great mystics of the east said women must be always beaten tamed or else they become uncontrollable. They must be domesticated. This idea has been codified into a religious belief and later on assimilated into a popular culture.

I can give tens of thousands of such examples in all cultures. That is why I I feel cultures at time cripple humans.

[Paulclem]

Our culture is never our natural state. At times cultures, rituals,systems, taboos and the like disable humans. I know at times simple defenseless men are indoctrinated into certain patterns of thinking and will stray into foolhardiness.

I am not always against cultures, but there are certain aspects of cultures that are harmful to the human race. In Hinduism women are treated subserviently as if they are subhumans or beings who are less humans and more animals. One of the great mystics of the east said women must be always beaten tamed or else they become uncontrollable. They must be domesticated. This idea has been codified into a religious belief and later on assimilated into a popular culture.

I can give tens of thousands of such examples in all cultures. That is why I I feel cultures at time cripple humans.


But what is a human natural state? To compound Mark's point how far away fom this natual state are we? 500,000 years? 1 million years? It's a myth, and to think that we could all go back to this natural state is preposterous. The nearest experiments are communal living which hve invariably ended in tears.

Despite sometimes professing the alternative, humans thrive in order. It is protective - physically and emotionally. It is the evolving of social order that now allows the liberation of women, and has strengthened the position of gay rights.

It's also why I don't give much credence to Bonobo studies and comparisons to other animal groups. They may be fascinating, and closest to humans sexually, but we are removed by a huge amount of time in evolutionary terms.

[MarkBastable]

Our culture is never our natural state. .

What is, then?

[blazeofglory]

What is, then?

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

[Paulclem]

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

But isn't culture designed to curtail those very damaging instincts - especially as expressed by groups of young men?

Are you advocating anarchy? You may be a perfectly resectable person Blaze, and so are most people, but there are those who you wouldn't want to allow to follow their instincts.

[blazeofglory]

But isn't culture designed to curtail those very damaging instincts - especially as expressed by groups of young men?

Are you advocating anarchy? You may be a perfectly resectable person Blaze, and so are most people, but there are those who you wouldn't want to allow to follow their instincts.

I seem to advocate anarchy. But our monarchical, democratic or dictatorial regimes have not made our world a better place to live in.

we know dictatorial Hitler or Stalin, both were engaged in genocidal wars. They were of course great idealists, statesmen, formulators political ideologues. Of course in the so called American democratic system George Bush was the Hitler or Stalin Incarnate. Take the example of what he did in Iraq. You may support his idea out of nationalistic spirit. What we call nationalism is a love and hate game.

Of course I support anarchism that does not allow another holocaust or genocide of Hitler.

[Paulclem]

I seem to advocate anarchy. But our monarchical, democratic or dictatorial regimes have not made our world a better place to live in.

we know dictatorial Hitler or Stalin, both were engaged in genocidal wars. They were of course great idealists, statesmen, formulators political ideologues. Of course in the so called American democratic system George Bush was the Hitler or Stalin Incarnate. Take the example of what he did in Iraq. You may support his idea out of nationalistic spirit. What we call nationalism is a love and hate game.

Of course I support anarchism that does not allow another holocaust or genocide of Hitler.

You are talking of national and nationalistic systems, which is different to the discussion in hand. We could discuss that the main difference between Bush and Hitler and Stalin is that one could be, and has been got rid of, whilst the other two - aside from being responsible for mass murderer, as was Mao to an even greater extent - could not easily be displaced. Whatever you think of Bush, he was not responsible for anything like the numbers of the other three.

But are'nt we talking about a more individual level - the effects of anarchy upon individuals? individuals become vulnerable - let alone all the already vulnerable people in society.

[MarkBastable]

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

But human beings have never lived without a shroud of culture. Never. So what makes you think it's natural?

[Virgil]

Do you have less limiting diction when it comes to disparaging what isn't godspel in your worldview? Anthropology isn't astro-physics, but as the study of humanity it is a science, within certain parameters; it intersects with biology, forensics, and a number of other disciplines, and doesn't fall under mild epithets for feces.

Whatever my world view is, it's science based. As someone who has a degree from a science discipline and a degree from a liberal arts discipline, I can tell you there is a world of difference between the curriculium and approaches. Sorry, there just is.


It is certainly more valuable than Catholicism's history of torture and child abuse and then covering all this up for the sake of protecting the divine sanction of the so called Church.
What the hell is that all about? Sounds like you're off mixing subjects. Second, my worldview is science based (first and foremost I am a mechaincal engineer), and it is in no way incompatable with my R.C.

[Shalot]

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

why do people in general think there is something abnormal about homosexuality? it's common. Some people are gay and some aren't. So homosexuality is normal. Did people start feeling guilty about their sexual orientation because they were afraid they'd get their butts kicked or killed or where exactly do people pick up this sex-related shame (and the last part of that applies to all orientations) and where do these ideas about what's "normal" come from? That last sentence up there seems to say that homosexuality is abnormal and that's why there arose the need to persecute. But maybe the reality is that homosexuality is normal, and someone decided that it wasn't? But then you go back to the shame guilt thing - I guess I'm just asking, which came first?

[OrphanPip]

I was using normal in the sense of near the average. I don't accept naturalistic tautologies that suggest moral behavior can be extrapolated from "natural" behavior. Besides, all human behavior must be natural by definition, as we are part of nature and so is our culture, the nature/culture binary is an artificial invention.

I obviously don't have anything against homosexuality lol.

I'm not familiar with the dominant theories for why it is persecuted, but I imagine it's tied in with cultural ideas of sex being merely for reproduction and the valuing of sexual constraint. From what I know there are pretty much 4 forms of homosexual societal views that have existed. One is ceremonial, the second is pederastic, the third is heteronormative, and the last is repressive. I would say homosexuality in the west falls into the heteronormative range, where homosexual relations mimic the culture heterosexual norms in large part and exclusive sexuality is more often practiced. Many tribal cultures have been observed to use ceremonial homosexual acts as forms of rites of passage. The prominent example being the rituals of Papua New Guinean tribes that inseminate pubescent boys as a way of passing on masculinity to the younger man. Pederastic relationships seem to be structured on power relations between a male in a more dominant position with one in a submissive position, the Ancient Greeks and warrior culture in Feudal Japan are good examples of this. Then you have the traditional Abrahamic situation where homosexual behavior is viewed negatively and repressed.

This gets complicated in cultures that have non-binary gender conceptions, and I'm sure there have been cultures that view homosexuality in different ways than the broad categories above.

[Jozanny]

why do people in general think there is something abnormal about homosexuality? it's common. Some people are gay and some aren't. So homosexuality is normal.

Homosexuality is as prevalent in other high end species as it is within human animal populations, but with this assertion stipulated, I don't like the use of the terms normal and abnormal. There isn't much that is *normal* about mating or intimacy.

And having said that as well, I have issues with gay culture and norms that I have not discussed in this forum, partly because it's personal and partly because even in my writer's head ticking off an opinion piece with the intent to be controversial, I haven't sorted this out in my own mind, since I am not sympathetic to religious views on the issue, and I try really hard not to run rough shod over rational stances with reactionary sentiment.

And you also see in the above paragraph the lengths to which I'll contort myself to avoid getting moderated:D.

[OrphanPip]

Joz, I'd be more than willing to get into a discussion of homosexual cultural norms in the West. I have more than my fair share of issues with it, and I don't think any culture or behavior should be beyond criticism. I especially take issue with the essential American Post-Stonewall cultural norms that seem to have pervaded Western queer culture as a whole, it's a strange phenomenon.

[Jozanny]

Joz, I'd be more than willing to get into a discussion of homosexual cultural norms in the West. I have more than my fair share of issues with it, and I don't think any culture or behavior should be beyond criticism. I especially take issue with the essential American Post-Stonewall cultural norms that seem to have pervaded Western queer culture as a whole, it's a strange phenomenon.

Pip, we may have had an uneasy introduction, but I have come to genuinely respect your views and level of education.

However much I would enjoy getting down and dirty, however, I think Sche would be thrilled if we found another way to air out what could be considered to be dirty laundry issues ;).

[The Atheist]

I do not try finding unnatural elements with homosexuality but still heterosexuals are more natural.

:lol:

George Orwell would have loved you!


I used to work for a Lebonese family. They seriously do view homosexuality in the same light as we do, say, raping babies. Talk about effed up priorities...

Never mind Lebanese, Fred Phelps is a good enough example of how people see it.


I noticed that everyone here speaks of religion as the invention
of men and they forgot the basic thing about religion :what rules in religion is the " words of God " not the words of some human beings .
You are an athesit ; how can you understand how do those
people think if u don't agree with them on the basic issue ?!!

Oh, I can understand the position, I just find it fascinating that the god speaks with so many different tongues.


Does this mean marrying nine year olds is ok?

the average age of sexual maturity varies according to time and geographical location .
But the general rule no marriage before sexual maturation.

This is the part i have a major problem with, especially in the light of 50 million child brides in the world at present, and almost all of them under islamic law.

Whether or not a child is sexually mature at 6, 8 or 10, it is most emphatically not ready to indulge in sexual intercourse or be a mother.

Some of us in the world find that idea quite repulsive - that a child should be forced into a position where an adult male may legally exploit, sexually abuse and control her.


No . There is no relation . It's a matter of belief . We do believe that the Quran is right and everything is mentioned in it concerning Mohammad or others and everyting is right .

I know.

However, as with the christian bible, there is vast divergence between what you think Muhammad said, what another muslim thinks Muhammad said and what the Taliban tell their followers Muhammad said.

Again, as with christianity, you will never get consensus on what the quran actually means and sects will continue to use it to justify their individual beliefs.


Our culture is never our natural state.

Surely, under any meaning of "natural" our culture is our natural state?

[dizzydoll]

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
I noticed that everyone here speaks of religion as the invention
of men and they forgot the basic thing about religion :what rules in religion is the " words of God "

Trouble is God never wrote any words. Man wrote words and he ascribed them to God. The christian bible was not written by God either, it was definitely written by insecure men. I am horrified by the many disgusting verses, in the bible, in reference to woman.... and I am not going there.

I am free right now as a women... it took a long time for females to get here.

[Paulclem]

Nevertheless we have a lot to thank religion for - charity, anti-slavery movements and laws, civil rights support, protection of rights, holidays etc.

How religions have been utilised has depended upon the practitioners - both for good and bad - politically, socially and interpersonally. That's why religions often have such a bad name because of the way it has been used and abused by powermongers.

What you also get though are many many good people who really embody the good qualities of their religion. They may not be the leaders and policy makers, but they can be the stranger who helps you.

In Pakistan their ambulances are run by a charity - the Edhi foundation. There is no other organised ambulance services available in Pakistan.

Here I am impressed by the salvtion Army. Our local hostel has rooms for 100 males who would otherwise be sleepng rough. They are not easy blokes to deal with either. All run by ordinary christians.

I can undertand the opposition to religion for all the bad effects we have seen over time and in the news, but despite all this it has a positive effect on many people.

It just seems too easy to dismiss everything religions have to say on aspects of human life.

[Jozanny]

Paul, I hear you, but my problem, say, with institutional religious power structures, is that they basically come to no good end. Virgil disparages institutional academics all of the time, in this thread and others, and that is fine. Universities are human institutions like any other, but long after I left the Roman Catholic Church, I defended it, particularly against well educated Protestants who otherwise held the most outrageous theories about what Catholic catechism was, and I think I need to break this habit from the disclosures coming out right up into the modern era. Scholars say the Inquisition was unfortunate but the good fathers were worried about the purity of the soul, and okay, life was cheap under the Spanish monarchy and the late Roman Empire before that, but the abuse of the children has been going on a long time, in secret, for most of the 20th century, in Europe and America and goodness knows where else. It breaks my heart, and I think it deserves a stronger response from me than to dismissively deem it *crap*, not that I think Commonweal would let me aim some choice words at the Vatican.

It isn't that institutional abuses don't occur elsewhere, but I am entitled to anger at a way of life in which I was raised.

[dizzydoll]

I obviously don't have anything against homosexuality lol.

Me too, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I am going to strike out here now and probably be hammered for it. So here's the 1st question, what % of the population is gay? I could be wrong but I figured it must be around 10%, and if this is the case why should we bother discussing it? I mean, what % of the population is disabled? How often do we give them a compassionate break? They are certainly most deserving.

I have worked and played with gays and I find them often very narcissistic. Why must we constantly talk about their issues and thousands of $$$ are spent on appeasing them when they are only 10% of the population? I am blonde, so my issue is that I find blonde jokes offensive and so I take issue with people who tell them. Do you get my gist? Gay issues fit into the same category, imo. And why do gays always want to talk about societies acceptance of them, or is it possible they want all of us to become like them? Just asking.

I think gays would do better to pick up the banner for a group in need, like disabled people, and by doing that it might help them get over themselves. If they did this my respect for them would certainly improve. In the meantime I see no purpose discussing blondes who take issue with dumb jokes or narcissistic gays who take issue with society's views of them either.

Right, let me have it. :confused5:

[borty]

Sex and religion are emotionally charged for many people because they involve intimacy. If people choose to attack one another what better way to insult than to use their sex and religion against them.

Many wars have been fought over such issues.

Homosexuals have been discriminated against throughout history and it isn't surprizing that a back lash from them occurs in todays more open society. We still have a long way to go before most societies accept homosexuality.

Homosexuality occurs in many species, not just humans.

Several religions believe homosexuality is a sin and many gay people are excluded from worship and some even claim they are demon possessed.

I believe sex is one of many expressions of love. In our present society it has become to many people a commondity to be bought and sold like ice cream.

Sort of drains the sacredness out of it ...don't you think?

[MarkBastable]

Me too, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I am going to strike out here now and probably be hammered for it. So here's the 1st question, what % of the population is gay? I could be wrong but I figured it must be around 10%, and if this is the case why should we bother discussing it? I mean, what % of the population is disabled? How often do we give them a compassionate break? They are certainly most deserving.

Well, I don't know about South Africa, but in the UK the answer is 'all the time' - and quite right too.


I have worked and played with gays and I find them often very narcissistic.

This is a version of the 'hair-piece error' - where people say 'I can always tell when a guy is wearing a wig'. You can't ever know that that's true because if someone were wearing a wig and you didn't know, you wouldn't know you didn't know. Similarly, you have no idea how many gays you have worked with, because if you didn't know they were gay, you wouldn't know you didn't know. So you can't tell whether a high proportion of them are narcissistic.


Why must we constantly talk about their issues and thousands of $$$ are spent on appeasing them when they are only 10% of the population? I am blonde, so my issue is that I find blonde jokes offensive and so I take issue with people who tell them. Do you get my gist? The way I see it, gay issues fit into the same category.


When they start witholding civil rights from blondes, refuse certain jobs to blondes, and splash all over the papers the revelation that some politician or pop star is blonde, as if it were a shameful scandal, then, yes, you can put blondes in the same category. I'm with you on the jokes though. I don't think jokes should be dscouraged.


And why do gays always want to talk about societies acceptance of them. Or is it possible they want all of us to become like them? Just asking.

You are not the first to ask. For some reason many straight people have this suspicion that gay people are like the aliens from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, wanting the whole of humanity to join the Pink Swarm. I have no idea why so many people think that. It's something to do with fear, but I haven't yet worked out what. So my question would be - why does it even occur to you to ask that question? Just asking.


I think gays would do better to pick up the banner for a group in need, like disabled people, and by doing that it might help them get over themselves. If they did this my respect for them would certainly improve. In the meantime I see no purpose discussing blondes who take issue with dumb jokes or narcissistic gay issues either.

Right, let me have it. :confused5:


You see, this is where your problem lies. You have lumped all gays together as narcissistic and self-serving, and as a result of that you have little respect for them - though you very generously let them know how they can improve themselves in your eyes, which I'm sure is something that they'll act on. But that tendency - to ascribe the same characteristics to an entire group of disparate people identified by only one shared attribute - that is prejudice.

Then again, I have worked and played with many South Africans and I find them often very arrogant and insensitive. In fact, my company no longer employs South Africans because of that - they're all like it. They should get over themselves.

[dizzydoll]

Similarly, you have no idea how many gays you have worked with, because if you didn't know they were gay, you wouldn't know you didn't know. So you can't tell whether a high proportion of them are narcissistic.

I do know how many, they have opened up with me extensively as far as their sexuality is concerned. I speak from direct experience as many gay guys seek answers from women.


When they start witholding civil rights from blondes, refuse certain jobs to blondes

Blondes are often exploited sexually from a very young age.. as far as I am concerned that IS a civil rights issue.


You see, this is where your problem lies. You have lumped all gays together as narcissistic and self-serving

From direct experience I find this to be true.


Then again, I have worked and played with many South Africans and I find them often very arrogant and insensitive. In fact, my company no longer employs South Africans because of that - they're all like it. They should get over themselves.

We have lived with this attitude all our lives... in fact when the apartheid regime lost the vote the whole world expected and I dare say 'hoped for' for a blood bath. It didnt happen, have you ever wondered why? Your attitude or that of those around you is not new to us and so doesnt faze us. Until you come to this country and meet its people you are just shooting hot air.

I have a lot more knowledge of gay people than you realise so please dont assume anything otherwise you make an *** out of U and ME.

My message stays the same, gays must get over themselves and pick up the banner for a higher cause.. I am not the only one with this view and its NOT only restricted to South Africa either. And by the way, I was not born here but I do chose to live here for good reason, in fact I even have a S.A passport now which I am proud of.

My 1st question stays the same. What % is the gay populace in society?

[blazeofglory]

In fact I feel that homosexuality is despised when we are too much obsessed with cultural attributes. Homosexuality in itself is not a vice. The problem is with us and with our conditioned mind. Even hetero-sex is deemed contemptible in our part of the world. Man is expected to have sex only after marriage and of course he or she has to be wedlock to enjoy this. Even after marriage one lovemaking must be confined to procreation. Acts of sex for pleasure is considered profane. But now gradually the new generation is breaking the rule and have an affair before marriage and at times outside the matrimonial tie. Homosexuality is unthinkable here and people simply cannot think about homosexuality.

What I feel is if we do not feel guilty and nothing wrong with homosexuality.
In my country people choose to go to the temple after sex or worship or pray after the act of lovemaking. Because they feel sex is an unholy act.

A great Indian mystic, named Osho wrote a book called from sex to supreme consciousness and the book raised great uproars throughout the country but the same book popularized or recognized him globally.

The same is true of homosexuality. I do not consider it bad despite the fact given the choice I am in for heterosexuality.

Maybe it is hard for me indulge in homosexuality for I was brought up in a very orthodox society. Homosexuality is often secretly a case under certain circumstances especially in boy or girl hostels wherein they share the same bed or room or heterosexuals are not available there.

I have, speaking principally, have no objection to acts of homosexuality or even asexuality

[The Atheist]

Nevertheless we have a lot to thank religion for - charity, anti-slavery movements and laws, civil rights support, protection of rights, holidays etc.

Since religion caused most of the issues facing mankind, including the ones you list, I don't know whether we should thank it, but I do admit that religion, particularly the more moderate kinds, are of net benefit to mankind.

When they become fundamental and used as a blueprint for all life, then I think they move into negative territory and aren't worth preservation.

Not that they'll be going anywhere soon.


How religions have been utilised has depended upon the practitioners - both for good and bad - politically, socially and interpersonally. That's why religions often have such a bad name because of the way it has been used and abused by powermongers.

Bingo!

And by the same token, should we not credit those who have used the power in better ways instead of the religion?


In Pakistan their ambulances are run by a charity - the Edhi foundation. There is no other organised ambulance services available in Pakistan.

Same in New Zealand - ours are run by St John.


Here I am impressed by the salvtion Army. Our local hostel has rooms for 100 males who would otherwise be sleepng rough. They are not easy blokes to deal with either. All run by ordinary christians.

I admit the Sallies do some good work, but for me, they lose all their points by being so fervently anti-gay.

I'd rather have no altruists than bigoted ones.


It just seems too easy to dismiss everything religions have to say on aspects of human life.

It is easy, when their desire and attempts to have that say are based on thousands of years old manuscripts of dubious value and authenticity.


Me too, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I am going to strike out here now and probably be hammered for it. So here's the 1st question, what % of the population is gay? I could be wrong but I figured it must be around 10%, and if this is the case why should we bother discussing it?

That's the number I always see touted by LGBT rights groups, but I don't buy a bar of it.

I'd say the real number is somewhere less than 5%.

That said, I don't think the rate is relevant - it's perfectly human behaviour and lot more user-friendly than spitting on the footpath, which seems to be quite natural behaviour, but one which I find disgusting.

Gayness, on the other hand is natural, harmless and not at all disgusting.


I have worked and played with gays and I find them often very narcissistic. Why must we constantly talk about their issues and thousands of $$$ are spent on appeasing them when they are only 10% of the population?

God, I wish we'd taken that attitude when we gave you sheilas the vote!

"There's your vote, don't come crying to us about equality of pay, opportunities and freedom from discrimination!"

Emmeline Pankhurst, eat my shorts!

Gays have been discriminated against for longer than almost all other groups, and are still discriminated against in lots of countries, to the extent of death penalty in some.

I think they have a right to be a touch homocentric about the issues.


I am blonde, so my issue is that I find blonde jokes offensive and so I take issue with people who tell them. Do you get my gist?

:lol:

You wouldn't like me, then!

My wife's a blonde. She forwarded me a joke on the seven levels of blondeness yesterday, so let me know if you want 'em.


Gay issues fit into the same category, imo. And why do gays always want to talk about societies acceptance of them, or is it possible they want all of us to become like them? Just asking.

Dunno about you, but I have lots of gay mates and none of them want me.

I feel so left out, dammit!


I think gays would do better to pick up the banner for a group in need, like disabled people, and by doing that it might help them get over themselves.

That's twice you analogise gayness and disability in the same sentence.



Sex and religion are emotionally charged for many people because they involve intimacy. If people choose to attack one another what better way to insult than to use their sex and religion against them.

Many wars have been fought over such issues.

Homosexuals have been discriminated against throughout history and it isn't surprizing that a back lash from them occurs in todays more open society. We still have a long way to go before most societies accept homosexuality.

Homosexuality occurs in many species, not just humans.

Several religions believe homosexuality is a sin and many gay people are excluded from worship and some even claim they are demon possessed.

I believe sex is one of many expressions of love. In our present society it has become to many people a commondity to be bought and sold like ice cream.

Sort of drains the sacredness out of it ...don't you think?

Well put!

[dizzydoll]

A great Indian mystic, named Osho wrote a book called from sex to supreme consciousness and the book raised great uproars throughout the country but the same book popularized or recognized him globally.

I agree with you. He was a rebel and it must have been very difficult to refuse to conform to what society saw as normal, especially as he decided to go against his upbringing by not marrying or having kids... in those days that was quite a radical stance.

I also agree he was a great teacher but he did hang around with bad company at certain stages of his life, understandably so.. a rebel will always attract rebels.


You wouldn't like me, then!

My wife's a blonde. She forwarded me a joke on the seven levels of blondeness yesterday, so let me know if you want 'em.

You missed my point... and yes I want them. :D



Several religions believe homosexuality is a sin and many gay people are excluded from worship and some even claim they are demon possessed.

I believe sex is one of many expressions of love. In our present society it has become to many people a commondity to be bought and sold like ice cream.

Sort of drains the sacredness out of it ...don't you think?

I agree with you 100% Bort being gay is not a sin and as stated earlier I have no problem with gays per-say, I just dont understand why so much time and money should be spent on them instead of focusing on much more pressing causes to make others' lives easier. Surely you can see my point as you provide an excellent service for hospice. Dont you think gay people will feel better about themselves when they find a higher cause to focus on other than themselves?

And then my mind keeps going back to its only 10% [or 5%] of the population, isnt it narcissistic arrogance to expect so much attention of their issues?

[caddy_caddy]

Oh, I can understand the position, I just find it fascinating that the god speaks with so many different tongues
God speaks with one tongue only and his words are the same to all nations throughout history . His words are distributed among different prophets and in different periods of time . All prophets said the same basic things and they complement each other .It's one religion that begun with Adam and ended with Mohammad (p.B.U. H). The differences are because the followers of the religion deviates from the right path . It happened with Mohammad too when he died. Some followers loved him to the extent that they wouldn't believe he could die like any other human being . They converted from Islam when their prophet died . So one of his disciples delivered a very famous speech in the history of Islam ; he said :If you WORSHIP Mohammad , Mohammad died . IF you worship God , God is alive and can never die .
The followers of Jesus loved him to the extent that they made him the son of God . They worshipped him, distorted his words . And here the problem begins ............



This is the part i have a major problem with, especially in the light of 50 million child brides in the world at present, and almost all of them under islamic law.

Being a Muslim doesn't mean you know everything about Islam and you apply everything .
THIS HAS TO DO WITH TRADITIONS NOT WITH RELIGION . TRIBES HAVE TRADITIONS THAT OVERPOWER RELIGION .




Whether or not a child is sexually mature at 6, 8 or 10, it is most emphatically not ready to indulge in sexual intercourse or be a mother.

This is a social ,cultural and economic issue and it is decreasing with time . You said 50 millions child bribes . It was much more in the past and it will be less in the future.

Some of us in the world find that idea quite repulsive - that a child should be forced into a position where an adult male may legally exploit, sexually abuse and control her.

[dizzydoll]

The followers of Jesus loved him to the extent that they made him the son of God . They worshipped him, distorted his words . And here the problem begins .............

Right on, you are absolutely correct on this one. I cannot speak for Islam cos I know very little about it and I am am pleased for the diverse cultures on this thread to enlighten all of us. Talking and learning about others faiths never killed anyone. Its all good even tho I might not share the same views.

[MarkBastable]

I do know how many, they have opened up with me extensively as far as their sexuality is concerned. I speak from direct experience as many gay guys seek answers from women.

So you are fully conversant with the sexuality of every person you've ever worked with. Wow. How special.




Blondes are often exploited sexually from a very young age.. as far as I am concerned that IS a civil rights issue.

So are brunettes. What's your point?




From direct experience I find this <that gays are narcissitic and self-serving> to be true.

If I were to say that from direct experience I find that blondes are slutty dimwits, would you consider that admissible evidence?




We have lived with this attitude all our lives... in fact when the apartheid regime lost the vote the whole world expected and I dare say 'hoped for' for a blood bath. It didnt happen, have you ever wondered why? Your attitude or that of those around you is not new to us and so doesnt faze us. Until you come to this country and meet its people you are just shooting hot air.

And that's exactly my point. You quite rightly get defensive when I make outrageous generalisations about South Africans derived from my own experience, and yet you expect us to accept your outrageous generalisations about gays, derived from your experience.

[dizzydoll]

Your argument has fallen flat. You are going to have to come back with something better than that, or offer your services to a higher cause.

[blazeofglory]

I agree with you. He was a rebel and it must have been very difficult to refuse to conform to what society saw as normal, especially as he decided to go against his upbringing by not marrying or having kids... in those days that was quite a radical stance.

I also agree he was a great teacher but he did hang around with bad company at certain stages of his life, understandably so.. a rebel will always attract rebels.

Yes dizzydoll,

He was really a rebel and always rebelled against the established social and ethical systems and values. His first book, from sex to supreme consciousness has raised a storm.

He was a liberal and never looked at things through others' perspectives. He had always his say and his voice no matter what difficulties he had to face

[dizzydoll]

Its so encouraging to see Osho has inspired men like you Blaze. Forgive me I have to bring this out.

I read from your posts that you are a strong man of principal and morals. Just remember life is not a problem, its a solution to a problem. If you focus only on problems you will weaken and that is no good. Solutions bring progress as nothing else can.. we rack our brains and then *poof* we find them.

Look at it this way, the past is gone.. buried, nothing we can do about that, but we can do a tremendous amount in the present for future generations of girls. It might be difficult to do but you should stand up alongside like-minded men for womens rights in your country. Motto: One step at a time, there is no looking back.

I believe God sends people like Osho to enlighten all of us, so dont be too hard on yourself or your plan of action, lets be grateful that at last its all coming together.. women today are much better off than we were in the past.. I am sure this is the case even in your country. So the first step is always, be grateful.. and more will follow. Promise.

Lets celebrate to the success already achieved.

If we are able to break the sound barrier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d9A2oq1N38) , surely we are able to do this.

:gnorsi:

[Scheherazade]

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you find yourself unable to show respect and understanding towards those who do not share your views -especially on religious and moral issues-, please refrain from posting in these threads.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be deleted without any further notice.

~

[Paulclem]

Since religion caused most of the issues facing mankind, including the ones you list, I don't know whether we should thank it, but I do admit that religion, particularly the more moderate kinds, are of net benefit to mankind.

When they become fundamental and used as a blueprint for all life, then I think they move into negative territory and aren't worth preservation.

Not that they'll be going anywhere soon.

I agree with this.

And by the same token, should we not credit those who have used the power in better ways instead of the religion?

Yes

It is easy, when their desire and attempts to have that say are based on thousands of years old manuscripts of dubious value and authenticity.

I agree.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think when religions start trying to affect the lives of people and inflicting their beliefs, then it is often negative. We are moving away from the organised infuence in some parts of the west - the UK and Europe. Here in the UK religious leaders make their comments and squabble about Gay admission to the church whilst the rest of society has enshrined their rights in law and moved on. The legal system has thankfully taken over much of the church's province in this respect.

As a set of standards for an individual to lead their life, religions do provide a good role model. I suppose this is what I am getting at.

Religion - powerful organisation - attempting to affect policy, laws, individual conduct - bad

Religion - set of standards to lead your life by, promoting good/ charitable works/ vocations/ setting a good example to others, not interfering in other business - generally good.

I wasn't aware that the Sally A was anti-Gay. That goes against them, but I still can't deny the positive effect they have. :D

[OrphanPip]

That's the number I always see touted by LGBT rights groups, but I don't buy a bar of it.

I'd say the real number is somewhere less than 5%.

That said, I don't think the rate is relevant - it's perfectly human behaviour and lot more user-friendly than spitting on the footpath, which seems to be quite natural behaviour, but one which I find disgusting.

Gayness, on the other hand is natural, harmless and not at all disgusting.



The most accurate statistics are 4-6% for self-identifying homosexuals, and then if you include self-identifying bisexuals you get another 3%. So, 7-9% for the entire LGBT community is fairly accurate. However, in major urban centers you get the gay migration phenomenon so the numbers get inflated a few percentage points. The gay population in New York is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the USA. That's why Kinsey got the inflated numbers because he was using strictly urban samples. I'm not exactly sure that the population should matter when it comes to civil rights. Natives, and Africans make up less of that population in Canada, should we then be ignoring their civil rights?

@dizzy

I'm mildly insulted that you think blondes are equally discriminated against as homosexuals. Also, what money is the government spending on gays exactly? Last I checked gays aren't even considered a visible minority so we don't get affirmative action. The only people spending money on gay issues, are gay and anti-gay lobbying groups.

Let's look at the comparative history of blondes (which some gays happen to be too, besides the point) and gays.

Figures from the government of Canada:

Violent hate crimes committed against blacks in 2006: 90
Violent hate crimes committed against Jews in 2006: 32
Violent hate crimes committed against homosexuals in 2006: 44

Those are the 3 most discriminated against (in terms of actual violence) in Canada. Making homosexuals the second most discriminated against. Unfortunately, the government of Canada doesn't keep figures on how many people cite blondness as a reason for assault, because nobody does.

How about historically.

Last time someone was sent to jail for being homosexual (and declared by a psychiatrist unlikely to stop having sex with men) in Canada was 1967. Last time someone was jailed simply for being blonde... gee can't find that stat.

Also, Mark's argument doesn't fall flat because he is absolutely right about your jump to baseless generalizations. If you think the disabled deserve more attention than gays from the government (still not sure what attention gays actually get from the government) then blame the masses of straight people who are more obsessed with gays than the disabled.

[dizzydoll]

Hello Pip, firstly the fact that I mentioned disabled people was merely as an example. Serving any higher cause is better than serving ourselves be you gay or not. That was the point I was striving for which I have no doubt you understood anyway.

Secondly you express your views, and I express mine. You seem to have little time for blondes I see. I wonder what % of little girls [I believe blondes are in high demand] are exploited through porn etc. These days the younger the better. For me those are real life civil rights issues against all children with dire long term repercussions. Yet somehow the law cannot stop online porn or there is just too much money earned to care, after all someone gets tax from google, yahoo etc.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. You, like me, are happy with your opinions. So I say it again if a blonde finds blonde jokes offensive she must get over herself. If gays have a problem with public opinion of them, they must get over themselves.. both should find a higher cause to get their teeth into and stop being so narcissistic. For me the blonde analogy with gays works perfectly. Clearly you and I agree to disagree so there is no more to discuss.

Cost of money -- the cops cost the state money every time there are public demonstrations by gays, plus I am sure there are more costs but I really couldnt care less about their issues.

[OrphanPip]

Hello Pip, firstly the fact that I mentioned disabled people was merely as an example. Serving any higher cause is better than serving ourselves be you gay or not. That was the point I was striving for which I have no doubt you understood anyway.

Secondly you express your views, and I expressed mine. I wonder what % of little girls [I believe blondes are in high demand] are exploited through porn etc. These days the younger the better. For me those are real life civil rights issues against all children with dire long term repercussions. Yet somehow the law cannot stop online porn or there is just too much money to care, after all someone gets tax from google, yahoo etc.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. You, like me, are happy with your opinions. So I say it again if a blonde finds blonde jokes offensive she must get over herself. If gays have a problem with public opinion of them, they must get over themselves.. both should find a higher cause to get their teeth into and stop being so narcissistic. For me the blonde analogy with gays works perfectly. Clearly you and I agree to disagree so there is no more to discuss.

Cost of money -- the cops cost money every time there are public demonstrations by gays, plus I am sure there are more but I really couldnt care less about their issues.

Oh please, so you think gays should stop exercising democratic rights and just roll over and take the abuse. I'd rather be dead than just smile and nod at every affront. I'm not talking about jokes here, I'm talking about physical harm and equity.

If you care so much about how blondes are treated do something about it instead of blaming other groups for not caring enough about it. If gays don't fight for gay rights, nobody else is going to do it. Society doesn't hand people rights and equity on silver platters, it's always an uphill battle. The battle isn't over, and it's not going to stop until equity is achieved, and even then it has to continue to prevent regression.

Edit: As if porn has anything to do with this at all, as if gays are diverting attention against the imagined plight of porn starlets.

[dizzydoll]

I rest my case.

[OrphanPip]

I rest my case.

Fine if you think it's good to be a sheep and walked over by others, so be it. Good luck in the world with that attitude.

[MarkBastable]

I rest my case.

I don't think you can rest it. It died of exhaustion several posts ago.

[The Atheist]

God speaks with one tongue only and his words are the same to all nations throughout history .

This is demonstrably incorrect.

Hindus, christians and muslims and judaism all have widely divergent beliefs, however, I do note that each and every one has the "one true word of god" in its book.

There are even wider differences between sects within each group and while you may not be aware of the difference between the Anglican and Pentecostal churches, I'm very surprised that you're not aware of the schism of Shia and Shi'ite islam.


I guess what I'm getting at is that I think when religions start trying to affect the lives of people and inflicting their beliefs, then it is often negative. We are moving away from the organised infuence in some parts of the west - the UK and Europe. Here in the UK religious leaders make their comments and squabble about Gay admission to the church whilst the rest of society has enshrined their rights in law and moved on. The legal system has thankfully taken over much of the church's province in this respect.

I just wish it wasn't taking quite so long for the rest of the world to catch up!

Fortunately, religion's not much of an issue here, although it has grown in rceent years in both voice and influence. Secular humanists and the like point to a decline in census believers overall, but the profile of the believer in census terms has changed from someone who was told as a kid that a god exists and never questioned it, to someone who has Jesus as a best friend and who must tell everyone about it all the time.

I confess to being deeply disturbed at the fact that while "moderate" christianity - Rowan Williams' mob, for example - has been in steep decline, the barking mad, young-earth-creationists who swear that all science is a conspiracy of Satan are the ones which are growing very quickly.


As a set of standards for an individual to lead their life, religions do provide a good role model. I suppose this is what I am getting at.

Religion - powerful organisation - attempting to affect policy, laws, individual conduct - bad

Religion - set of standards to lead your life by, promoting good/ charitable works/ vocations/ setting a good example to others, not interfering in other business - generally good.

That looks entirely sensile on the face of it, but which morality and which church gives the appropriate role model?

The RCC, with its paedophilia revelations of the actual pope having been involved in cover-ups? (I won't even go into gayness and the RCC)

Penetecostal/Southern Baptist, where virginity is so special that dads and daughters sign contracts where daughter agrees not to have her hymen broken until marriage? (I find that so sick I do actually feel sick thinking about it.)

Maybe Methodist? No, we tried in that in USA during Prohibition - I think it diodn't go down too well.

Islam? Islam could work.

As long as you use it as a way of saying, "Let's base our morality on the exact opposite of that prescribed in the quran". That'd probably work out ok!

Actually, talmudic judaism would work as well, but I just don't see it catching on. Amazing how the Jews created the perfect religion, based on love and respect and still manage to use it for evil.

I really suspect our current morality laws and culture has been achieved in spite of religion rather than because of it.


I wasn't aware that the Sally A was anti-Gay. That goes against them, but I still can't deny the positive effect they have. :D

Sure. There's many a derelict would be in the gutter tonight were it not for the Sallies.


, and I express mine. You seem to have little time for blondes I see. I wonder what % of little girls [I believe blondes are in high demand] are exploited through porn etc. These days the younger the better. For me those are real life civil rights issues against all children with dire long term repercussions.

That's not civil rights - it's a simple legal matter. Child porn is illegal everywhere, as is any coercion of women.

That some countries do not enforce, or are unable to enforce, the law, does not make it a human rights issue.

Child marriage, under islamic laws in countries where it's allowed is a civil rights issue. Kidnapping kids or using them for child porn is not.


Yet somehow the law cannot stop online porn or there is just too much money earned to care, after all someone gets tax from google, yahoo etc.

This is unfair and incorrect.

Google and Yahoo! are not making any money at all from child porn - they are both highly involved in combatting child porn. Paedophiles don't find material in search engines, they exchange graphic image through file-sharing sites.


, Cost of money -- the cops cost the state money every time there are public demonstrations by gays, plus I am sure there are more costs but I really couldnt care less about their issues.

You make a telling point without realising it here.

Why are there cops? Do they suddenly expect busloads of gay men to start rioting to loot fashion and interior design stores?

Or, is it more likely the cops are there because some people are so warped as to do them physical violence, simply for being gay?

[Paulclem]

Yes, the growth of extremist groups East and weat is disturbing, as are the cover ups and attitudes to gays etc etc.

I don't follow the religions you mention, and I feel sorry for the sincere ones that have to carry the stigma cast by the hierarchies and self indulgent individuals.

I really suspect our current morality laws and culture has been achieved in spite of religion rather than because of it.

I agree. Good old bad old Henry VIII. He did us a big favour seperating the UK from the Roman church, though many suffered because of it, (I think many would have suffered under this bloated monarch whatever course he took). It was easier to then displace the church from power and get on with the morality laws and culture you mentioned.

I think the modern democracies have a good record on human rghts and fair civil laws.

[Satan]

Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

Cue: Marquis de Sade

[The Atheist]

And just for the blondes:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10637654

:D

Gentlemen prefer blondes.

[dizzydoll]

Thank you for that link my friend.. if only you knew. :crazy: Not to take from the mystery, you will have to return as a blonde to find out, perhaps as Marilyn Monroe.. wouldnt that just tickle your fancy. After all being a dumb blonde she had no clue how much power she actually held did she?

Coming back to the OP. So we all know those vulgar sexual phrases and the blasphemy used in producing a heated argument? So I guess the real question lies in why does it offend so many so much? What is it that makes our blood boil when we hear some youngster/adult use obscenities publicly? Why does it freak so many of us out personally if it is not already part of us? What I mean is, we always reflect what is already within us.. but what if cursing is not in us, what is it that we are reflecting then?

Is it only our past conditioning that makes us uncomfortable or is there a deeper reason behind all this? Isnt it easier to just ignore it, but how is that done while tempers flare? After all some cultures swear more than others and are judged accordingly, so why not just let it be and put it aside as simply not part of ourselves? Beats me, but I am one who would grab the earplugs to eliminate all of it.

[kiki1982]

As you say, some cultures swear more than others. I'll elaborate on that from my own perspective as foreign English speaker.

In fact, the division of swearing versa not swearing should not so much be sought in English and other languages but even in English itself, or more to the point the English/Anglophone class system.

It is a well-known sociological phenomenon that morals and values are more rigid in the middle classes. Why? Because they are neither part of the upper class of society nor of the working classes. They need to distinguish temselves from the plebs somehow. Not by having money, because that is what the upper classes also have. Not by working, because that is what the working classes do as well. So, their playing field is morals and values and has been since the middle classes came into existence as a feature in society with the industrial age if not before.

From the middle classes comes the rigid Victorian morals and values we know so well from literature. The morals in the working classes and upper classes were not so rigid as some controversial material proves (among which Byron for example as a very early version of it). Other than that, we all know that menhad mistresses an that women had lovers because they were married out of interest; we all know that illegitimate were born amongst the working classes. The ideal of virginity, chaperonnes, the life-long marriage for love without mistresses, was a middle class invention. Mostly it had disastrous consequences for partners who didn't suit, but we still have it rooted in our minds.

So, the swearing. I was astonished to find that the late princess Margret of the UK used to swear with the f-word quite regularly. I was equally surprised when I saw in a documentary with John Prescot (a senior UK politician) an upper class gentleman with accent and all swear five times with the f-word in five minutes. The working classes don't seem to care about swearing either. It has come so far that I know with my in-laws with whom I can swear and with whom not. All of the people I cannot do it with, are incidentally, middle class.
It is only the English middle classes who continue to take offense at words like sh*t, f*ck and worse. Even 'crap' one cannot say anymore. The queston is what is wrong with that. I wonder when we are going to put outside the 'r*bb*sh' or 'tr*sh'. They do not want to see those words on TV at all, not even when a working class person or swearng American is being portrayed.

Point is, I have ceased to care about swearing. They should learn that swearing is an expression of sheer frustration and that frustration should be expressed in something more than 'oh dear' or 'oh no' or 'oh my God'. And frankly, I do not see what is offensive about faeces. They exist, you see them when you have to change your baby. I might just use the word 'faeces' next :D. Or maybe I can do it in French, though, or in German, they wouldn't understand. Altough 'scheisse' they might still work out. 'Merde' would be a lot more difficut for them.

I find the whole thing about swearing hypocritical and against human nature. Which is not to say, of course, that one should swear in every sentence. That is just an utterance of inability to express one's feelings properly. Prime example: Gordon Ramsey.

[caddy_caddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
God speaks with one tongue only and his words are the same to all nations throughout history .


This is demonstrably incorrect.

Hindus, christians and muslims and judaism all have widely divergent beliefs, however, I do note that each and every one has the "one true word of god" in its book.

There are even wider differences between sects within each group and while you may not be aware of the difference between the Anglican and Pentecostal churches, I'm very surprised that you're not aware of the schism of Shia and Shi'ite islam.

The Atheist let us be clear although I said this before . When I say religion I mean the heavenly messages of God in" holly books " . OK ?????
Others are the invention of men . So plz don't mix others with it .
I know It would appear as offensive but it is my duty to mention what is written in the holly Qur'an . Otherwise I would be a hypocrite who says one thing and does believe within himself in another thing .
For instance , God's said in the Qur'an : Distort the speech .... and twist their tongues so you would think this is from the book but this is not from the book and they say this is from God but this is not from God and they write the book by their own hands ...."(Alnesa', 64 )

Again and Again the differences are because they distorted , changed God's words which are the same to all nations . Moreover the different deeds , sects , churchs are because : Authority Corrupts Religion . Each wants to garantee the power for him under the name of God , so they distorted, interprate God's words so that each party could support his case .
Religion unite human beings and human beings divide themselves .

[blazeofglory]

All I feel when it comes to religion, sex and vulgarity in the spirit of dizzydoll's original post. In fact there is nothing guilt in it, in sex and or relating some of our religious or cultural or ethical issues to religions or vulgarity. Religions at times confine us or totally reduce us to ethereal existences. That means religion has planted in us an appalling idea in us about sex. Most or all books of religions are full of dos and don'ts, and that cripple human impulses. I was told in my childhood that having an affair with an opposite sex is a sinful thing and one should live the life of austerity. I have some friends who run to a temple or to a holy shrine after making love or a woman must draw on penance after an intercourse. These guilt conscious humans are miserable and they are psychologically depressed beings. Of course today in most countries, if not in all sex education is in vogue, yet in some countries the word sex is an offensive term and it is indelicate to intone this word in society.

This topic interests me for I have already gone thru such circumstances and instances and I want to analogize it under different situations. Of course the ideas shared here by different people representing different social, religious, cultural backgrounds fascinate me very much.

[caddy_caddy]

Some consider the feeling of guilt as tragic and sympathetic , why ??!
Those people feel so because they know that the real tragedy which is really sympathethic is there not here.
Here there is just some lines .

[dizzydoll]

Gee Caddy, I dont understand your post at all. Please can you rephrase it.

I think I understand your first sentence tho and here is a snippet of what wiki says about guilt,


Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realises or believes—accurately or not—that they have violated a moral standard, and bear sole responsibility for that violation.[1] It is closely related to the concept of remorse

look at the link to read the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt

[Paulclem]

As you say, some cultures swear more than others. I'll elaborate on that from my own perspective as foreign English speaker.

In fact, the division of swearing versa not swearing should not so much be sought in English and other languages but even in English itself, or more to the point the English/Anglophone class system.

It is a well-known sociological phenomenon that morals and values are more rigid in the middle classes. Why? Because they are neither part of the upper class of society nor of the working classes. They need to distinguish temselves from the plebs somehow. Not by having money, because that is what the upper classes also have. Not by working, because that is what the working classes do as well. So, their playing field is morals and values and has been since the middle classes came into existence as a feature in society with the industrial age if not before.

From the middle classes comes the rigid Victorian morals and values we know so well from literature. The morals in the working classes and upper classes were not so rigid as some controversial material proves (among which Byron for example as a very early version of it). Other than that, we all know that menhad mistresses an that women had lovers because they were married out of interest; we all know that illegitimate were born amongst the working classes. The ideal of virginity, chaperonnes, the life-long marriage for love without mistresses, was a middle class invention. Mostly it had disastrous consequences for partners who didn't suit, but we still have it rooted in our minds.

So, the swearing. I was astonished to find that the late princess Margret of the UK used to swear with the f-word quite regularly. I was equally surprised when I saw in a documentary with John Prescot (a senior UK politician) an upper class gentleman with accent and all swear five times with the f-word in five minutes. The working classes don't seem to care about swearing either. It has come so far that I know with my in-laws with whom I can swear and with whom not. All of the people I cannot do it with, are incidentally, middle class.
It is only the English middle classes who continue to take offense at words like sh*t, f*ck and worse. Even 'crap' one cannot say anymore. The queston is what is wrong with that. I wonder when we are going to put outside the 'r*bb*sh' or 'tr*sh'. They do not want to see those words on TV at all, not even when a working class person or swearng American is being portrayed.

Point is, I have ceased to care about swearing. They should learn that swearing is an expression of sheer frustration and that frustration should be expressed in something more than 'oh dear' or 'oh no' or 'oh my God'. And frankly, I do not see what is offensive about faeces. They exist, you see them when you have to change your baby. I might just use the word 'faeces' next :D. Or maybe I can do it in French, though, or in German, they wouldn't understand. Altough 'scheisse' they might still work out. 'Merde' would be a lot more difficut for them.

I find the whole thing about swearing hypocritical and against human nature. Which is not to say, of course, that one should swear in every sentence. That is just an utterance of inability to express one's feelings properly. Prime example: Gordon Ramsey.

Your analysis of the Middle class is somewhat outdated in my opinion. It's less about class/ money, and more about job type now. I'm from a working class background - but I qualify as middle class because of my job. The references to victorian values are less relevant too. Where have all the working class, industrial workers gone? More of them are in blue collar work due to the changing nature of the uk economy.

As for swearing, it has different purposes. Pain relief is one - when you stub your toe, or trap something etc

Another purpose is as a phatic phrase. Some people use eff in the spaces where their brain is catching up with what they are talking about. Prince Charles protracted Errrrrrrr is in place of some one swearing or saying "like", or y'know. Have you ever talked to someone who says "d'you know what I mean?" constantly. I advise answering their rhetorical question every time. It will confuse them.

The other, very important, function of swearing is to tell someone exactly what to do, or to express an opinion efficiently and strongly. The situation needs a certain gravity that the strength of the swearword provides.

Fascinating :D

[MarkBastable]

Your analysis of the Middle class is somewhat outdated in my opinion. It's less about class/ money, and more about job type now. I'm from a working class background - but I qualify as middle class because of my job. The references to victorian values are less relevant too. Where have all the working class, industrial workers gone? More of them are in blue collar work due to the changing nature of the uk economy.

As for swearing, it has different purposes. Pain relief is one - when you stub your toe, or trap something etc

Another purpose is as a phatic phrase. Some people use eff in the spaces where their brain is catching up with what they are talking about. Prince Charles protracted Errrrrrrr is in place of some one swearing or saying "like", or y'know. Have you ever talked to someone who says "d'you know what I mean?" constantly. I advise answering their rhetorical question every time. It will confuse them.

The other, very important, function of swearing is to tell someone exactly what to do, or to express an opinion efficiently and strongly. The situation needs a certain gravity that the strength of the swearword provides.

Fascinating :D

On top of which, swearing is grown-up and clever - like smoking and writing.

[OrphanPip]

Ha, ya I'm not so sure the class thing holds up completely.

My father comes from a solidly working class upbringing, he was born on a farm, worked as a miner, a railway man, and finally a plumber. He hardly ever swears, and when he does it's usually no more than damn or some other mild blasphemy.

My mother, on the other hand, is a university educated accountant and swears like a sailor.

Part of why and how someone swears is cultural, but I don't think there is such a solid cultural barrier between economic classes today.

[Paulclem]

I forgot to add that it can be very funny too. My mates of old and I would routinely abuse each other, in comically exrtreme terms. to general hilarity.

I know some people don't like it.

[kiki1982]

Oh, no, I did not at all mean that classes are defined in the same way as they were 100 years ago. You do not stay working class, upper class, middle class. It all depends on your job, but it is mostly not the guys in their manors who resent swearing, or not the people on the social estates, it is the people in their terraced houses who are shocked at every remotely possible swear word. Even 'crap' is forbidden now.

But the whole thing started with what I said. In the meantime people are more mobile in society, but still their attitudes change. The guy from the social estate who now works in the City will not want his children to say 'sh*t' although he might have said it in his childhood.

And that phenomenon not only is apparent in word use, but also accents (the vocalised R for example) and other moral values.

[Paulclem]

I think teaching context is important. As parents we didn't swear at all in front of my kids when they were young - although we all knew that it went on in the playground with their friends. Similarly, we didn't swear in front of their grandma, my wife's mother - and still don't. Neither did they.

Now they are a lot older, we are in different territory. I now don't mind them hearing that I swear for purpose - usually pain, but sometimes for humour in front of them. They in return swear for purpose too. None of us offensively to the other though.

It's been a kind of natural development.

[dizzydoll]

The Atheist let us be clear although I said this before . When I say religion I mean the heavenly messages of God in" holly books " . OK ?????
Others are the invention of men . So plz don't mix others with it .
I know It would appear as offensive but it is my duty to mention what is written in the holly Qur'an . Otherwise I would be a hypocrite who says one thing and does believe within himself in another thing .
For instance , God's said in the Qur'an : Distort the speech .... and twist their tongues so you would think this is from the book but this is not from the book and they say this is from God but this is not from God and they write the book by their own hands ...."(Alnesa', 64 ).

Hello caddy, I am pleased you signed up because its better that we learn freely from each other on a site like this. I learn from many different cultures and I disagree with some, its allowed. Human life must be like nature, it must be allowing.. surely. Anyway I would like you to watch and consider this message. Please watch:

OSHO: Anybody Who Gives You a Belief System is Your Enemy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBEIeRSLb8k&feature=related)

He was a man of vision. You dont have to agree, just consider his understanding.

[kiki1982]

I think teaching context is important. As parents we didn't swear at all in front of my kids when they were young - although we all knew that it went on in the playground with their friends. Similarly, we didn't swear in front of their grandma, my wife's mother - and still don't. Neither did they.

Now they are a lot older, we are in different territory. I now don't mind them hearing that I swear for purpose - usually pain, but sometimes for humour in front of them. They in return swear for purpose too. None of us offensively to the other though.

It's been a kind of natural development.

I agree with that, though sme tend not and tend to object to anyting swearing, whether for purpose or not. Even when the purpose is to show that swearing without a purpose is stupid.

[MarkBastable]

Even when the purpose is to show that swearing without a purpose is stupid.

Only in the sense that talking without a purpose is stupid. I tend to be much more offended by people talking crap politely than by any amount of swearing in an interesting or intelligent or entertaining conversation.

[caddy_caddy]

Hello caddy, I am pleased you signed up because its better that we learn freely from each other on a site like this. I learn from many different cultures and I disagree with some, its allowed. Human life must be like nature, it must be allowing.. surely. Anyway I would like you to watch and consider this message. Please watch:

OSHO: Anybody Who Gives You a Belief System is Your Enemy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBEIeRSLb8k&feature=related)

He was a man of vision. You dont have to agree, just consider his understanding.

Thx for the video Dizzy. I've watched it . What he is giving us is another belief system. Isn't it ?!!


[QUOTE]It all depends on your job,

TAXI DRIVERS :incazzato::incazzato:
oh God!!

[dizzydoll]

Thx for the video Dizzy. I've watched it . What he is giving us is another belief system. Isn't it ?!!

Its not another belief system caddy, its always been there. He was born into a Hindu background, and thats probably the oldest faith in the world, altho some would argue and the Tao te Ching [China] is the oldest, either way these two share many similarities. Being from the west myself, I love the diversity of it all. :biggrin5:

[caddy_caddy]

Old or new no problem . We can consider him as our enemy too since he is providing us with ideas , thoughts , whatever to believe in and follow as a system!!:biggrin5:

[MarkBastable]

Old or new no problem . We can consider him as our enemy too since he is providing us with ideas , thoughts , whatever to believe in and follow as a system!!:biggrin5:

Quite.


"Verily, Grasshopper - don't subscribe to ideas put to you by people who appear to know what they're talking about."

"Hey - that's a great idea! And you appear to know what you're talking about! I'll subscribe to that!"

[caddy_caddy]

I couldn't understand that fear of any system . Throughout history we have shown natural appeal or tendancy towards different types of system (s) . Anarchy is against human nature . We've developped towards more and more organization to our life . We are part of the solar system and everything around us follow a prescribed system . Giving us a belief system living according to it provides us with a sense of harmony with our universe and it's a proof that we belong to a universal system .
I've never felt that it is not inherent in my own nature . What's against my nature is the opposite .

[dizzydoll]

Old or new no problem . We can consider him as our enemy too since he is providing us with ideas , thoughts , whatever to believe in and follow as a system!!:biggrin5:

Why is someone our enemy if they have a different belief system to us? Everyone is allowed to follow their own belief system. No one is better than any other, as all belief systems were devised by man.

[Paulclem]

I couldn't understand that fear of any system . Throughout history we have shown natural appeal or tendancy towards different types of system (s) . Anarchy is against human nature . We've developped towards more and more organization to our life . We are part of the solar system and everything around us follow a prescribed system . Giving us a belief system living according to it provides us with a sense of harmony with our universe and it's a proof that we belong to a universal system .
I've never felt that it is not inherent in my own nature . What's against my nature is the opposite .

I think there is a fear of the imposition of a belief system. I am lucky in the UK to be able to believe and practice whatever system I like. There are countries where this is not possible, and the suspicion is that in the countries where it is possible, it is disliked by certain facets of society.

[caddy_caddy]

You misunderstood me Dizzy . I was commenting on OSHO words . Osho is against any belief system . Plz correct me if I misunderstood him . So he is contradicting himself cz his is also a belief system . Do u get my point now ?

[dizzydoll]

I didnt misunderstand you caddy, firstly Osho is no enemy and over and above that he has a very firm understanding of how God fits into our lives [he touches on it in this youtube clip]

OSHO: Anybody Who Gives You a Belief System is Your Enemy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBEIeRSLb8k&feature=related)

His point is that we should follow what feels right to us, rather than following what we are told to feel by others. Simple enough message and if more people followed his message there would be less friction between religion groups.

I am quite happy if everyone just respected and accepted everyone else's belief system. If this were the case there would be less conflict in the world.

[Paulclem]

I didnt misunderstand you caddy, firstly Osho is no enemy and over and above that he has a very firm understanding of how God fits into our lives [he touches on it in this youtube clip]

OSHO: Anybody Who Gives You a Belief System is Your Enemy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBEIeRSLb8k&feature=related)

His point is that we should follow what feels right to us, rather than following what we are told to feel by others. Simple enough message and if more people followed his message there would be less friction between religion groups.

I am quite happy if everyone just respected and accepted everyone else's belief system. If this were the case there would be less conflict in the world.

The problem with Feels what's right to us is that it might not feel right to others in a radical way. I'm sure the prosecutors of the Inquisition felt it was right, and that extremists feel it is right. A belief system does give you a measure of your own feelings and inclinations - if they are way out of kilter, then it needs some looking at.

[MarkBastable]

I'm with Paul. It's very rare that human beings do anything other than what feels right to them. Every dictator and tyrant in history did what felt right to him. I'm sure Pol Pot woke up every morning looking forward to another sunny day of doing what felt right to Pol Pot.

So people should absolutely not do what feels right to them, especially if it involves doing to other people something that the other people don't feel is right to them.

[The Atheist]

I am quite happy if everyone just respected and accepted everyone else's belief system. If this were the case there would be less conflict in the world.

I'd go along with that, apart from one tiny flaw: it is demonstrably the case that Abrahamic theists will try to force their belief and morality systems onto everyone else.

[Jozanny]

The term is more properly Semitic belief systems, and in an historical context, these systems cannot be ignored; they made important contributions to the advance of human civilization, and whether they are now fossils remains to be seen. The huminoid links in the chain go back roughly 2.5M, making religious systems developed by true humans relative infants, and while I do not like having a proscribed stairway to heaven, I do not quite dismiss the metaphysical issues involved in Semitic/Western triumphalism and Eastern stoicism. I use stoicism for lack of a better phrase to emcompass Hinduism/Bhuddism and Asian pragmaticism.

Materialism is accurate to such and such a degree, but, if the human animal is self aware of the fact that it is a machine, then maybe the machine isn't simply a biological marvel unto itself. That assertion might be used to defend divinity but I am not positing that--just that maybe being human essentially became the ability to move beyond certain forces inherent in evolutionary pressures.

I think we're more than our meat, and I actually think Mitchell believes that too, despite how often he shows how we grind our meat throughout history in his work, and that we eschew vulgarity may be an indicator of our own awareness of that.

[MarkBastable]

I think we're more than our meat, and I actually think Mitchell believes that too, despite how often he shows how we grind our meat throughout history in his work, and that we eschew vulgarity may be an indicator of our own awareness of that.

What about those of us who don't eschew vulgarity?

[Jozanny]

What about those of us who don't eschew vulgarity?

Well, we're all just more fun, likely to get banned, and in general have a better time--but there is a difference between having a nice scatological discourse and implied bigotry--although I have a secret disguise to hide the fact that I'm actually SPASTIC FASCIST, and truly believe that people with cerebral palsy are smarter, better, and will one day rule the world.:biggrin5:

[caddy_caddy]

Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'd go along with that, apart from one tiny flaw: it is demonstrably the case that Abrahamic theists will try to force their belief and morality systems onto everyone else.

"to force "is not an Accurate word .

look what God asked the believers to say to the disbelievers :
"Al-Kafiroon
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Say: O disbelievers! (1) I worship not that which ye worship; (2) Nor worship ye that which I worship. (3) And I shall not worship that which ye worship. (4) Nor will ye worship that which I worship. (5) Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. (6) "

Does this mean to you imposing by force on others ??!!!

Moreover look what God said to prophet Mohammad when he asked his uncle who was on his death bed to repent :


"Lo! thou (O Muhammad) guidest not whom thou lovest, but Allah guideth whom He will. And He is best aware of those who walk aright."( AL_KASAS,55)


No one could open the heart of anyone to the words of God and guide him to His path . Faith lies in hearts and God wants truthfull hearts . And this could not be by force .


I hope u won't consider my argument any kind of force , too !!

[The Atheist]

The term is more properly Semitic belief systems,...

No, because that would leave out christianity. The Abrahamic beliefs neatly cover all of the major religions which have the sky-daddy/Allan/God/G-d as their boss.


and in an historical context, these systems cannot be ignored;...

Quite right; they should be every bit a part of history in the way that Odin, Osiris, Baal, Vishnu and Zeus are.


they made important contributions to the advance of human civilization, and whether they are now fossils remains to be seen.

Oh, I don't expect them to go away any time soon, and there's no question they have contributed to human civilsation.

Whether for the general good or bad is hard to say.



"to force "is not an Accurate word .

Maybe you misunderstood my point - I'm not saying the god-thing forces people to do anything, because I don't believe there is any entity which is at all godlike.

I'm saying people. in the name of their religion, try to force others to believe the same thing, a fact which is just indisputable, as under:

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_laws) is a list of countries where written blasphemy is illegal.

Basically every single word I write on the subject of religion and god/s is considered blasphemy in those countries, although the degree to which the laws are pursued differ widely.

Do you honestly believe I would be able to write scathing comments about the "sky-daddy" if I lived in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or many other countries?

There are still eight states of USA (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm)which have laws prohibiting atheists from some offices and functions! (They're unenforceable constitutionally, but it shows the lengths people go to, to try to achieve their aims.)


I hope u won't consider my argument any kind of force , too !!

:D

Not at all!

I'm not accusing all believers of being that way, but it is a very repetitive fact of human history that churches will attempt to force their beliefs.

I said earlier that if people stuck to their worship, I don't have an issue with any kind of theism.

[Jozanny]

Atheist, while Christianity has basically morphed into sometimes unrecognizable denominations, it is still Semitic in origin, and some scholars who I have not read claim that we have Paul to thank for making it an international faith, and not Jesus, but both men were still ethnic Hebrews.

In a mild defense of Jewish believers, however, most do not practice missionary conversion in the evangelical style of those terribly frightening Protestants ;). It might surprise you to learn, however, that most Catholic theologians with power are atheists just like you--and I am a bit tired of taking it all too seriously.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think "terribly annoying" is more accurate than "terribly frightening."

[Jozanny]

Well, some of them scare me Juniper, not that I don't understand zealotry a little, since I can be obsessive--

[caddy_caddy]

The Atheist , thx for saying that .
People used to throw everything on God and do not asssume responsibilty .

Yes u're right since it's the greatest sin .

[The Atheist]

Atheist, while Christianity has basically morphed into sometimes unrecognizable denominations, it is still Semitic in origin, and some scholars who I have not read claim that we have Paul to thank for making it an international faith, and not Jesus, but both men were still ethnic Hebrews.

Have no fear, I'm extremely well-versed in the history.

My point was that using "semitic religions" will make readers think of judaism and islam, while "Abrahamic religions" covers christianity and sikkhism as well - plus anyone else that has the sky-daddy originally known as YHWH as its boss.


In a mild defense of Jewish believers, however, most do not practice missionary conversion in the evangelical style of those terribly frightening Protestants ;).

Yep. I quite frequently comment that moderate Talmudic judaism (how's that for a concept!) is probably the most benign form of religion available outside of Eastern religions.


It might surprise you to learn, however, that most Catholic theologians with power are atheists just like you--and I am a bit tired of taking it all too seriously.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. I often try to figure what percentage of Cardinals are actually pragmatic rather than devout. Some evangelicals, I know for a fact, are completely atheist and taking the money.


The Atheist , thx for saying that .
People used to throw everything on God and do not asssume responsibilty .

You won't find many atheists saying it!

:D

[dizzydoll]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. I often try to figure what percentage of Cardinals are actually pragmatic rather than devout. Some evangelicals, I know for a fact, are completely atheist and taking the money.

Too true, too true... and they are well supported.

[Revolte]

I think because men couldn't have babies they felt bit left out. So they invented a Male God so that they can feel bit superior than women ;-)

I'd prefer to have a goddess :ihih: .

I can tell you why I do it. Just for fun, honestly. I like the c word because it's a fun word to use. I'll say it in nice ways too.

But when using swear words in harsh ways... Most use them because they are so very dreaded that they are voodoo for most people.

The effect of a word will determine its use.

[The Atheist]

Just for fun, honestly. I like the c word because it's a fun word to use.

It is definitely the most interesting word in English.

Use of it in "inappropriate" situations can be highly enlightening and revealing.

[ThyUrbanMonk]

I agree with your words dizzydoll..too! same!

[cacian]

what?! all at once? how is that?:eek:

[Whosis]

I think we can thank a lot of recent comedians for those things. I only hear about religious biases from comedians, really.