ElrondHubbard Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I think he had a funny point, and at least he wasn't harsh on gays like you'd think, he just lumped everyone who didn't only procreate as "Masturbators" I kind of love this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Donna Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I think Lunaticheathen is right about linking sex and women to uncleanliness. Sex HAS to be dirty from the abrahamic perspective because heterosexual sex (god-endorsed sex) is performed with a woman. If you start saying that sex is actually good, and pure, you would need to stop vilifying women as lesser than men, (ie, woman is made from adam's rib and is therefore 'from man', women are ritually unclean during their menstrual periods, women lead men to sin by being provocative) because women are involved in the heterosexual sex act. Women would become equal to men, and that wouldn't fly in a society based on the rules given by the god of the bible. I think this has a lot to do with why christians vilify homosexuals so much. Two homosexual men having sex would mean that a dirty, unclean woman isn't involved. Sure, it won't result in procreation, but don't you get the feeling that maybe it's forbidden because men are 'better' than women from the misogyinistic perspective, and by one being a proxy 'female' (no disrespect intended by my choice of words, I mean female only in the sense that one is being the receiver of the genitalia of the other, just like the term male and female is used to describe different kinds of pottery moulds. Female is the receiver, male is the giver, so to speak. Or more crudely, one has a hole, the other has something to put IN the hole.) during homosexual coitus, they are becoming 'unclean' because of the role they are taking on. Guilt by association. And don't you get the feeling that maybe the misogynistic culture of christianity is a little ticked off that they AREN'T ALLOWED to engage in homosexual sex, and relegate womankind to the role of breadmaker and babymaker? If christianity permitted male homosexuality, women wouldn't even be used for the sexual pleasure of men. They would be even more marginalised. "Time to make more bread and squeeze out more offspring. No orgasms for you, you unclean woman!" It also might indicate why there is little said in the bible about female homosexuals. Two women, who are ritually unclean simply by BEING women, are getting it on? Big deal, say the misogynists. They are not contaminating the 'purer' menfolk. Sure, it might be something to do on a boring afternoon in the Stone Aged Middle East to stone them to death for their 'sins'. Remember, this is a culture that precedes football and video games. But it's not going to be the end of the world if they don't. Female homosexuality is the ultimate feminism, because it totally rejects the male. Likewise, male homosexuality totally rejects the female. Christianity is annoyed it cannot hijack this for it's own ends, so it is forced to make homosexuality a no-no. To summarise, christianity makes things 'unclean' and 'dirty' because they can't have them. Christianity is so caught up in it's concepts of good and evil that it can't recognise people as just people. People love each other, regardless of gender. Love trancends gender. I'm a heterosexual woman, but if the person who is my partner happened to be born female, we'd still be getting married. Gender doesn't come into it. You fall in love with the person, not their genitalia. The world will be a better place when people everywhere can have same sex marriages and have equal reproductive rights regardless of sexual orientation. The sooner religion stops interfering with people's human rights, the better. That's just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrel Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I think this has a lot to do with why christians vilify homosexuals so much. Two homosexual men having sex would mean that a dirty, unclean woman isn't involved. Sure, it won't result in procreation, but don't you get the feeling that maybe it's forbidden because men are 'better' than women from the misogyinistic perspective, and by one being a proxy 'female' (no disrespect intended by my choice of words, I mean female only in the sense that one is being the receiver of the genitalia of the other, just like the term male and female is used to describe different kinds of pottery moulds. Female is the receiver, male is the giver, so to speak. Or more crudely, one has a hole, the other has something to put IN the hole.) during homosexual coitus, they are becoming 'unclean' because of the role they are taking on. Guilt by association. This. I think this is the basis for a lot of homophobia. For a lot of people men are still seen as higher status than women, so if two guys have sex the one receiving is taking a "female" role, which means he's willingly giving up his superior status. And clearly if someone's doing that there must be something mentally wrong with him! Probably also why women are less likely to be homophobic than men. Some think that men are higher status still, but others reject that or are happy with their situation, so they're more indifferent to a man giving up his "male" status. This probably also contributes (besides just complete inexperience or never having considered it) to the fact that a lot of guys would have anal sex with their girlfriend but would bolt if she puts on a strap-on. The general perception is that anal sex is not that kinky, but if it's a girl with a strap-on that's downright pervy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Ummm... STDs? 1 in 4 women in America currently have herpes according to the CDC. That's 25% percent. Condoms are not as effective as is commonly thought against herpes. Condom use reduces the risk of Herpes by 30%, which means you have a 70% chance of getting herpes with a condom! I don't like those odds. See http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/STDFact-herpes.htm See http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/sexual-health/consistent-condom-use-can-reduce-risk-herpes-30-percent-3455.html Get tested before ever having sex with your partner. Then there isn't even a 70% risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Sure, it might be something to do on a boring afternoon in the Stone Aged Middle East to stone them to death for their 'sins'. In defence of the stone age and bronze age middle east, I have to correct you. They were not against gays, lesbians, sex (not even premarital), prostitution, androgyne, transgendered or anything like that. They weren't until the christian and islamic eras outdside ancient Canaan (Israel and Judah though), and Muhammad's Arabia. Actually, religion and sexuality went hand in hand. Look, they had religious texts of sex (the closest religious text to these in the Bible is the Song of Solomon): http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.08.16&charenc=j#http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.08.16&charenc=j# (yeah, they mostly use euphemisms, but still, remember, this is a hymn, a religious one) http://books.google.com/books?id=WKoWblE4pd0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=sex+and+eroticism&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false A whole book on it. Even the big hero was bisexual. Enkidu wasn't just Gilgamesh's sidekick, he was a little more than that. The Bible, if conservative by stone age standards, was prestone age at best, or just a bunch of old men who never got to have sex who were angry and wanted to supress others from having it. Then, when you read some parts of the Bible, you have to wonder if its really against homosexuality and sex: David and Jonathan Song of Solomon And others.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Ummm... STDs? 1 in 4 women in America currently have herpes according to the CDC. That's 25% percent. Condoms are not as effective as is commonly thought against herpes. Condom use reduces the risk of Herpes by 30%, which means you have a 70% chance of getting herpes with a condom! I don't like those odds. See http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/STDFact-herpes.htm See http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/sexual-health/consistent-condom-use-can-reduce-risk-herpes-30-percent-3455.html Get tested before ever having sex with your partner. Then there isn't even a 70% risk. Part of it is because herpes is also passed along through kissing or doing oral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColorMixer Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I tell you this, I think one of the biggest things is jealousy. As an xian, my aversion/hatred for sexual type stuff really was due to this overwhelming jealousy for people enjoying it. Deep down I was like "damn wish I could do that" especially considering you know... human sexuality and the suppressed xian. When masturbation is even wrong... then you're really screwed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 This. I think this is the basis for a lot of homosexuality. For a lot of people men are still seen as higher status than women, so if two guys have sex the one receiving is taking a "female" role, which means he's willingly giving up his superior status. And clearly if someone's doing that there must be something mentally wrong with him! We often hear that homosexuality was A-Okay in Greco-Roman Antiquity. But that's only part of the story. Master buttfucks his slave = good. Slave buttfucks his master = bad. Adult citizen buttfucks pubescent boy = good. Pubescent boy buttfucks adult citizen = bad. Class, domination, status hierarchy, had everything to do with it. We know that women fucked each other, but very little has been passed down. The annals of history are by-and-large androcentric. We do know that Spartan and Roman soldiers were encouraged to fuck each other. Spartans believed it fostered comradeship and a willingness to die for your fellow. Romans knew what happened when men were deprived of pussy for long stretches. But nothing is known of how the dominant hierarchy typical of civilian same-sex male relations would have come into play. Just before late medieval times it was considered "manly" for an aristocrat to take advantage of the stable boy or some other servant. Asserting your masculine dominance over a lessor. The crackdown really hit in late medieval times, and in early modernity, homosexuality was considered characteristic of the decadent aristocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 In my World Civilizations I class, we studied about how the poet Sappho was executed by the Romans because she was a lesbian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Donna Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Sure, it might be something to do on a boring afternoon in the Stone Aged Middle East to stone them to death for their 'sins'. In defence of the stone age and bronze age middle east, I have to correct you. They were not against gays, lesbians, sex (not even premarital), prostitution, androgyne, transgendered or anything like that. They weren't until the christian and islamic eras outdside ancient Canaan (Israel and Judah though), and Muhammad's Arabia. Actually, religion and sexuality went hand in hand. Look, they had religious texts of sex (the closest religious text to these in the Bible is the Song of Solomon): http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.08.16&charenc=j#http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.08.16&charenc=j# (yeah, they mostly use euphemisms, but still, remember, this is a hymn, a religious one) http://books.google.com/books?id=WKoWblE4pd0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=sex+and+eroticism&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false A whole book on it. Even the big hero was bisexual. Enkidu wasn't just Gilgamesh's sidekick, he was a little more than that. The Bible, if conservative by stone age standards, was prestone age at best, or just a bunch of old men who never got to have sex who were angry and wanted to supress others from having it. Then, when you read some parts of the Bible, you have to wonder if its really against homosexuality and sex: David and Jonathan Song of Solomon And others.... Cheers dude. I never mind being corrected by someone who knows their stuff Yeah, when you mentioned Gilgamesh and Enkidu, that got me thinking about Agamemnon and Achilles. Way too many of these friendships crop up in classical and older literature for there to be 'nuthin suss' going on. Not that that's a bad thing. I had a lecturer during my Uni days tell me once that the only reason the Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs) made the final cut for the bible was because the wife of someone who was compiling the bible had a tantrum and insisted it had to be included. Man, society might be a lot more advanced now, based on those pre-christian cultures, if we hadn't wasted a few millenia on the god of abraham and his entourage. *Shakes fist* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Cheers dude. I never mind being corrected by someone who knows their stuff Yeah, when you mentioned Gilgamesh and Enkidu, that got me thinking about Agamemnon and Achilles. Way too many of these friendships crop up in classical and older literature for there to be 'nuthin suss' going on. Not that that's a bad thing. I had a lecturer during my Uni days tell me once that the only reason the Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs) made the final cut for the bible was because the wife of someone who was compiling the bible had a tantrum and insisted it had to be included. Man, society might be a lot more advanced now, based on those pre-christian cultures, if we hadn't wasted a few millenia on the god of abraham and his entourage. *Shakes fist* I hear ya, we'd have been so far along. We were already into the age of reason when the christian cultures showed up. The march toward atheism (people like Epicurus were the start), and the Industrial Revolutions beginnings (no seriously, the classical alexandrians discoverd steam power, but that slave labor was so much cheaper and more efficient). I can only imagine where we would be without the march back to the early iron age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts