Sex and the Religious-Left

[Alexis Jacobi]

Promethean offers a demonstration, or an ethical tour, of his defense of his own involvements. It has to be explained and defended as either something neutral or as something positive.

His position -- the stance he takes -- is one taken by a man in a specific *position*. By that I mean a man likely unmarried, not in a relationship, not interested in one, and perhaps not capable of one. But it is also possible (I am speculating) that maybe he would forge a relationship with a woman similar in orientation to himself? But since he also says that bringing children into this world is almost an *evil* (I paraphrase) I think his existential position is made plain.

My own position is to ask questions about that orientation, within a wider cultural, social and also civilizational perspective.

I could only recommend -- if one were interested -- reading the accounts of men who have, in this recent example, been porn addicts and have had their marriages destroyed. There very definitely is a sound case and argument against pornography. A case could also be made for more sex-positive attitudes within mature relationships. My own views have more to do with notions of the *contamination of the imagination* but, again, I pay heed to ideas that are metaphysical and can only be expressed by resort to a language through which such ideas and values are expressed.

For most who participate on this forum that is defined as *waffle*.

[Harbal]

100% of homosexual sex is recreational, it has to be admitted, whereas probably only about 98% of heterosexual sex is not performed in the pursuit of reproduction, but I rather like the idea of recreational sex, so I see no problem, or issue. What, may I ask, is the issue for you?

Over a number of years now, I could explain some of the reasons why, I have had to review and think more deeply about both my upbringing, my parent's choices, the choices made in that epoch, and a great deal else. It would be a mistake to say I reject all of that, or regard it as *bad* or *evil*, but at the same time I cannot either see it all as absolutely good or, perhaps the better word is beneficial.

Since it became clear to me that homosexuals and homosexuality exist, has existed and will continue to exist, it was never a possibility for me to imagine it as something that could be ended through some sort of social activism. So it is something that can only be accepted. And of course we live in liberal societies where our laws indicate that people can live as they choose.

And perhaps as a sort of compromise between two opposed views -- absolute liberation in contrast with a philosophy or world-view absolutely restrictive -- I defined a position just as I have stated it: Homosexuality and other sexual deviancies should be generally suppressed or repressed insofar as it pertains to their presentation. For example in pride parades. But more importantly as *state positions* (as for example lighting up the White House in rainbow colors). The issue does go much further however when it comes to our educational system. You may be aware that many parents are highly concerned that sexuality is presented to the young in state institutions so as to appear to *teach* it or to condone lots of things that they do not want their children exposed to (or regard as bad).

I agree, and the more homosexuality is treated as a none issue, the less reason there will be to have such displays, or special educational considerations. Despite any impression I might have given by continuing to refer to the matter of homosexuality, I neither find the phenomenon interesting nor attractive; it is purely a matter of human rights, as far as I am concerned.

I am aware that even within more strict Evangelicalism in America there is a sort of *liberation movement* to confront the sorts of repressions of sexual desire that result in unhealthy suppression. Yet they still try to liberate sexual expression within the marriage-bond and not outside of it.

But that's not much help to those who are not married, is it? Do these people never wonder why God didn't design us so that our sexual urges didn't kick in until after we are married?

To define sexuality and the abuse of it as 'demonic' (Flash's recent contribution) is not an idea that is unintelligible to me. I could refer to many people who have had to confront sexual addiction to pornography (and pornography is a dangerous and destructive influence on a world-scale). Some, who perhaps have a Christian background, refer to their addiction as having taken over their lives, ruined their relationships, and caused them misery, pain and loss. They assign that influence or outcome to the work of Satan. I've read numerous accounts of a man's porn addiction ruining his marriage.

It strikes me that anyone addicted to pornography has to have some underlying psychological condition that would still manifest in some other way if pornography were unavailable. I strongly suspect pornography would be a symptom, rather than a cause.

I am aware that what is understood to be divine is opposed by what is demonic -- this is a foundational metaphysics to our societies -- but just as I am not so clear as to how I would myself define *the divine* or God, similarly I do not know how to define whatever is meant by the term demoniac. I admit to not having a clear understanding of what is meant any longer.

Terms like "divine" and "demonic" don't really resonate with me.

I do see problems and issues, and very may of them! and I must point out again that in our cultures and at this time there are idea-wars and value-wars on-going that revolve around these issues. Yes, you can say *I have no issues* and propose ethics such as you do, but that does not mean that you can defend all the ramifications and consequences of the nonchalant position you hold in a wide set of areas.

If the current sexual climate is contributing towards unhappiness, emotional problems, or even financial problems, etc, then I suppose I should roll back a bit on my nonchalance, but I'm not too concerned about metaphysical problems.

[Harbal]

I'm not really interested in exchanging ideas about values; what concerns me is the question of why you cannot hold your values -- which I in no way begrudge you -- without trying to demolish mine?

Here I think you are getting to the core of the issue. I will offer a scenario for you to examine. Perhaps the illustration will make sense.

Today, in America in any case, there is a great deal of parental concern about the public education system offering materials to children on topic that these parents consider morally wrong. They might be of the opinion that out there, in society, people can do what they wish, but they adamantly and stridently object to teachers, educators or anyone at all with a position of influence to be able to (in their view) contaminate their children's minds.

Let us suppose, for the sake of this argument, that you Harbal hold to the value that all sexual expression is licit. That there is nothing wrong, and also notable *good*, in allowing children to be exposed by state education systems to, say, pornography, bestiality, homosexuality, gender fluidity, cross-dressing, transvestitism and gender re-assignment.

Now, another parent comes along and says *I absolutely forbid you to present these things as normalized possibilities to my child*.

According to you, were that parent to do so and make it clear to you where they stand, and if they advocated for the imposition of their values, they would be *demolishing your values*. You assert that your value-structure is equal and the same as any other. And they respond -- much as I respond because I share their values and far less yours (insofar as I understand yours) -- by saying that no, your values are not on the same plane. That your values are (choose the wording) bad, wrong, destructive, unethical, immoral, and also sinful. They will naturally, as I do, try to flesh out for you in rational terms why they have this view, but you (I gather( will simply say "No, my values are equal to yours. You can make no case that yours are superior to mine".

I may well agree with these parents, but the fact is that I do not know what children are being taught in school. I do have some idea about what people like that moronic twat, Wizard, would like us to believe is happening in schools, of course. My comments have been directed towards societal attitudes in general.

To say "I'm not really interested in exchanging ideas about values" is to my ears absurd. Because the entire conversation revolves around the issue of values and how these are defined. The way to understand these issues is to understand them within a context of cultural war (the so-called Culture Wars).

I only said it in relation to this particular conversation. You see, I do have moral values, and I do try to live by them, but how successful I am does not depend on anyone else's moral values. You, on the other hand, seem to regard me and my moral attitude as some sort of obstruction to your moral fulfilment.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I may well agree with these parents, but the fact is that I do not know what children are being taught in school. I do have some idea about what people like that moronic twat, Wizard, would like us to believe is happening in schools, of course. My comments have been directed towards societal attitudes in general.

AJ wrote: To say "I'm not really interested in exchanging ideas about values" is to my ears absurd. Because the entire conversation revolves around the issue of values and how these are defined. The way to understand these issues is to understand them within a context of cultural war (the so-called Culture Wars).

Harbal: I only said it in relation to this particular conversation. You see, I do have moral values, and I do try to live by them, but how successful I am does not depend on anyone else's moral values. You, on the other hand, seem to regard me and my moral attitude as some sort of obstruction to your moral fulfillment.

You baffle me. If you do not have awareness of what kids are exposed to in schools (I know that you might not be aware of American education so that is understood) then you are not really capable of being in the conversation.

Education -- what is taught to children -- is the very basis of what is being talked about. I mean this in the widest sense, the most fundamental and relevant. Cultural paideia.

My assessment of you, as you well know, is that you do not have adequate preparation. If this offends you or seems unfair (or anything else) I can offer my most sincere sympathies. But my view is that the TOPICS we discuss, the categories of moral valuation, transcend our own persons and personal positions. I think this is a significant division between us. And as such it will always remain.

If you do agree with those parents, you have in that taken a stand. In order to do that there must be some principle that you are honoring. And that means that you are making moral assessments and also that you may be inclined to see them applied.

That was the point of that post.

My advice, in respect to Wizard, is to examine his statements and declarations from some distance -- to try to extract out of them the essence of the principle he is referring to.

You, on the other hand, seem to regard me and my moral attitude as some sort of obstruction to your moral fulfillment.

Wait, in my hypothetical I presented you (a hypothetical Harbal) as one completely in favor of presenting any and all information to children. And then I opposed *you* with a person with very different and opposing values.

If you are that person described hypothetically, you may indeed be an obstruction to the application of moral principles within the public sphere. And it might happen that my opposing hypothetical person understands you to be a social or ideological enemy.

My point? That within Liberalism, which is supposed to be a giant state-run umbrella under which all exist in toleration of the other, may not be capable of bridging the gaps that have opened in the Culture Wars. This happens in polities.

[Harbal]

I may well agree with these parents, but the fact is that I do not know what children are being taught in school. I do have some idea about what people like that moronic twat, Wizard, would like us to believe is happening in schools, of course. My comments have been directed towards societal attitudes in general.

AJ wrote: To say "I'm not really interested in exchanging ideas about values" is to my ears absurd. Because the entire conversation revolves around the issue of values and how these are defined. The way to understand these issues is to understand them within a context of cultural war (the so-called Culture Wars).

Harbal: I only said it in relation to this particular conversation. You see, I do have moral values, and I do try to live by them, but how successful I am does not depend on anyone else's moral values. You, on the other hand, seem to regard me and my moral attitude as some sort of obstruction to your moral fulfillment.

You baffle me.

I'm afraid the only way round that is to completely ignore me.

what is taught to children -- is the very basis of what is being talked about. I mean this in the widest sense, the most fundamental and relevant. Cultural paideia.

That's the problem; you talk about everything in the widest sense, so no one knows exactly what you are saying. Tell me a specific thing that is being taught to children, and I will give you my opinion on it.

My assessment of you, as you well know, is that you do not have adequate preparation. If this offends you or seems unfair (or anything else) I can offer my most sincere sympathies.

No, I'm not offended

But my view is that the TOPICS we discuss, the categories of moral valuation, transcend our own persons and personal positions. I think this is a significant division between us. And as such it will always remain.

What exactly do you mean by "transcend" our own persons and personal positions?

If you do agree with those parents, you have in that taken a stand. In order to do that there must be some principle that you are honoring. And that means that you are making moral assessments and also that you may be inclined to see them applied.

I don't know if I agree with them, because I don't know exactly what they are objecting to, and I don't know how much truth is behind whatever they are claiming.

My advice, in respect to Wizard, is to examine his statements and declarations from some distance

I would if I could envisage a distance great enough.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What exactly do you mean by "transcend" our own persons and personal positions?

It is a good point to clarify. I believe in ideas, values and meaning that transcend the individual. That exist and are real even if the individual does not.

A given person may feel something to be true, but feelings or some immediacy of perception is insufficient.

When values are at stake, or those things I define as “higher”, and if those values are understood to be transcendental to a given man, and even Man, then the individual should (can, does better if he) transcends his personal self.

All higher ideals and values involve a sacrifice of self in this sense. And most and perhaps all higher ideals are metaphysical.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know if I agree with them, because I don't know exactly what they are objecting to, and I don't know how much truth is behind whatever they are claiming.

I’ve done my research. Their concerns are very real and valid.

[Harbal]

What exactly do you mean by "transcend" our own persons and personal positions?

It is a good point to clarify. I believe in ideas, values and meaning that transcend the individual. That exist and are real even if the individual does not.

A given person may feel something to be true, but feelings or some immediacy of perception is insufficient.

When values are at stake, or those things I define as “higher”, and if those values are understood to be transcendental to a given man, and even Man, then the individual should (can, does better if he) transcends his personal self.

All higher ideals and values involve a sacrifice of self in this sense. And most and perhaps all higher ideals are metaphysical.

It could be said that "metaphysics" is just a fancy word for looking at things in a certain way.

It could also be said that "transcendence", at least in the way you seem to be using it, doesn't really have any referent at all.

[Harbal]

I don't know if I agree with them, because I don't know exactly what they are objecting to, and I don't know how much truth is behind whatever they are claiming.

I’ve done my research. Their concerns are very real and valid.

What research have you done; what are your sources; how reliable are they; how can anyone know if you are telling the truth? Depending on your answers to all those questions, it might then be appropriate to lay out the results of your research.

What, specifically are "their" concerns, and are they based on verifiable fact, or just gut feeling? If I knew what they were concerned about, would I agree that it was even a matter of concern?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Only you could verify. It would require your own investigation.

You don’t trust anything I say. And on the important basics we do not share agreements.

It could be said that "metaphysics" is just a fancy word for looking at things in a certain way.

Sure — anything can be said. In your case (if I could humbly suggest) you would have to devote study to the topic before you might decide authoritatively.

[Wizard22]

Few quick points before I can return later with a solid block of time to wipe-out these reprobates...

[ stretches arms out in front and cracks knuckles ]

Now, let's get to work, shall we?


#1 Alexis is serving up the meat-n-taters here, not liquid waffles.

I'm with Alexis on two critical points he just brought up: Love and Demons. If sex is just about sex, and that's it, for you, then how is your mentality around sex any different than an animal's? ...seriously? What sets Humanity apart from animals, except for our ability to understand Causality, the Consequences of our actions -that- if we have "unprotected sex" (you know, the regular kind??) then that's three lifetimes of change affected! Your life is affected. The woman's life is affected. And the procreated child's life, is 1000% affected. Therefore, Natural Sex, affects everybody's lives the most. This cannot be refuted.

The terms: Demos, Demon, Democracy, Daemonic, Etc. all come from this same source and root: Carnal Sexuality. The masses, because they rarely act 'any different' than animals, 20th Century Psychologists did in fact see people and their unbridled sex drives as 'demonic' forces. You can take this Literally, or Figuratively, or Metaphorically, or Anyway you want, it doesn't change the meaning. This is why Iwan's original point, that sex is used as a means to control the masses, is critical, and pivotal.


#2 Prom...isn't exactly a moral paragon for Monogamous relationships...

Prom, what's your longest monogamous relationship? Mine was 6 years. The reason why pornography is to be avoided in monogamous relationships, is because women are really jealous of other women in your affections, and it makes them paranoid. Men, and women, demand Loyalty from Monogamous relationships. Monogamy is not for everybody, in fact, it is actually for very few sections of Humanity (the Aristocracy, Royalty, Nobility). This is why the Bourgeois and Proletariats don't really 'understand the point' of Monogamous relationships, or "want out" of them. Because, again, the Animal forces, the Carnality, the Demos of the masses, want to "Be Free" (Liberalism) with their Sexuality, Loyalties, and Desires.


#3 Hairball needs to own up.

Alexis, have you noticed how Hairball keeps side-stepping the main points and attacking you with 'waffling'??? That's because Hairball needs to continue his Idiocy Ploy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb-RVIETRCE , demonstrated here) to appease his Liberal-Left alliance. Hairball is a moron, true, but not that much... He, and the other Liberals know what "It Isn't Going To Lick Itself" means, in a drag-show in front of children.

[Harbal]

Only you could verify. It would require your own investigation.

You don’t trust anything I say. And on the important basics we do not share agreements.

Now it's my turn to say it isn't personal; I don't trust anything anybody says.

It could be said that "metaphysics" is just a fancy word for looking at things in a certain way.

Sure — anything can be said. In your case (if I could humbly suggest) you would have to devote study to the topic before you might decide authoritatively.

I have to say I am bound to agree with you there.

[Harbal]

I'm with Alexis

Lucky Alexis.

Hairball is a moron

What say you, Alexis, am I a moron?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re an idiot — in the Greek sense.

And you are also one among millions extruded by the mill of postmodernism out onto the Walmart like floor of our present, ailing civilization.

Perhaps you drool — but if so you drool right along with a multitude! We all *gargle in the rat-race choir* but some seem more innately fitted to the role & performance.

Don’t feel bad.

Sad really that you don’t have enough spare cash to take the 10 Week Email Course. Could you get a loan?

[Harbal]

You’re an idiot — in the Greek sense.

I obviously have no idea what that means, so I asked ChatGPT:

If someone were to call you an "idiot" in the Greek sense, they would be referring to the original meaning of the word in ancient Greece. In ancient Greek society, an "idiot" (ἰδιώτης, idiotes) referred to someone who was not actively engaged in public life, particularly in politics. The term was used to describe individuals who focused solely on their personal affairs and did not participate in the affairs of the community or the state.

So, if someone called you an "idiot" in the Greek sense, they would likely be implying that you are apathetic or indifferent to important matters concerning society or community, rather than suggesting you lack intelligence.

I really am an idiot.