Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

[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.

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/...ectid=10637654



Gentlemen prefer blondes.

[dizzydoll]

Thank you for that link my friend.. if only you knew. 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 . 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 . 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

[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

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.