VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:06:22 05/15/02 Wed
Author: Icon
Subject: Reply to clarifications
In reply to: Perceptor II 's message, "Clarifications and other comments" on 16:27:59 05/15/02 Wed

>>As are women, and indeed, all other humans...
>Agreed. However, these devotions are specifically written
>to address adult (presumably Christian) men.

>>>As long as men and boys fail to be protective, they will
>>>fall prey to the typical male sexual fantasy that sells
>>>[pornographic] magazines and films...
>>That can be interpreted in a very condescending fashion
>>(Though I'm sure that's not how you meant it).

>First of all, I didn't write the above quote.

Ah, that wasn't made clear.

>I simply reprinted it here and asked what others thought.

My opinion still stands, regardless of the source.

>Secondly, you need to consider the context. The
>immediately preceding sentence says, "We [men] are
>mandated to protect widows, orphans, the alien and all
>those who lack sustaining relationships." So the author is
>talking about men "failing" to be protective of widows,
>orphans, aliens and all those who lack sustaining
>relationships, not women.

I was considering that, my opinion still stands, based on my opinion such comments should not be directed at either gender.

>>Sexuality is a natural component of humanity as an animal.
>I would argue that we humans are "higher" than animals,

Or like to think we are. Man is the only creature we know of capable of true abstract thought. However, we also use that skill to justify actions which no animal could ever consider, like genocide, murder and the like.

>but I agree that sexuality is a natural, healthy, >necessary part of our existence. I would also argue that
>sexuality extends far beyond the act of intercourse, that
>physical activity is only one component of human sexuality.

True, but as the text makes an issue of pornogrpahy I was thinking in that vein.

>I have to go a bit farther there. I condemn the abuse or
>degradation of others for the purpose of sexual
>gratification.

Agreed.

>>As an example, if a woman wishes to display her body to a
>>photographer as the most efficient and profitable way she
>>has to earn money to feed her children, who are we to
>>judge?

>This is one reason why people (not just men) need to reach
>out and help those in need.

True, but if she turns down the help, prefering to make her own way in the world, what then?

>>Pronographic fantasies are not by definition wrong. They
>>can be abused, but then, so can toy collecting.

>Pornographic fantasies are wrong by definition.

Not as long as they remain fantasies. I don't let my fantasies, pornographic or otherwise, interfere with my real world interactions.

>Pornographic fantasies are lust, which involves the desire
>to possess another person for sexual gratification. It's
>not the sexual gratification that is wrong, it's the
>desire to possess.

If that is not acted on, but overcome through strength of will, is that wrong. Complete denial of the sexual side of things is not a healthy situation.

>>Limiting the gender definition to males is disingenuous
>>and demeaning to women. God is to be found in all of us,
>>regardless of whether we're male or female.

>I would agree, but I fail to see how that was done here,
>given the context.

I find the whole context unfortunate in it's gender specific direction, as if men have more to atone for, or have a different set of moral priorities to women.

>When a patriarchal society, and especially those who claim
>to represent Christ, puts differing expectations upon the
>two genders that are totally wrong, it has to be combatted
>head on.

Our society is not automatically patriarchal. Our political power structure is, as are, ironically, the majority of Christian worship groups, such as the Catholic Church.

>This involves taking the set of myths about each gender's
>supposedly "proper" behavior. You've got to tell men
>that "real men" do not dominate over their wives and
>children and women that "real women" are not weak and
>submissive servants and trophies to their husbands. When
>each gender has its own myths that need to be torn down,
>yes, you have to address each gender separately from time
>to time.

Perhaps, but it's not the approach I would favour.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.