sex is private
-
Peace all
I would like your oppinions on the following article that I had read on the net.
Why Sex is Private
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
February 6, 2002Do the crude sexual references and nudity in the mass media offend you?
Do you ever wonder if you are just prudish?
Don't.
Conservatives are accused of being old fashioned but this isn't true. We cringe at public sex and nudity because sex is sacred and private.
I'm not referring to sex as physical release. That's masturbation.
I'm talking about making love.
The act of love expresses our fundamental spiritual need to overcome our ego-isolation.
Sex manifests the union in Love of two people.
God is Love. The union is marriage.
By definition, the act of love is about relationship, exclusivity and privacy.
This is the intimacy we all seek.
We are looking for release from the cage of the ego. We need to be accepted and cherished by another human being, and to give love. This environment where we can be "ourselves," is essential to our emotional and spiritual growth. It is marriage.
Powerful political and economic forces are opposed to love, marriage and family. They prefer that people remain isolated and dysfunctional, amenable to sexual cues. They are imposing their immorality on us.
Although scientific studies say married people are happier and get more sex, marriage is rarely portrayed in positive terms. Instead, the cultural message is that relationships are based on sexual attraction. Bombarded with soft- core pornography, we are conditioned to be always "on the lookout", in a state of perpetual courtship.
The prime time TV program "Temptation Island" is an example Six hard-body single couples arrive on a tropical island to "test" their feelings. They are paired off with six other hard-bodies in skimpy bathing suits. The game is to see who can resist. Most cannot. The couples cavort in bed with the TV audience as voyeur.
My friend Ron Lieberman summed it up "the producers of this show wish to prove that all loving committed relationships can be destroyed. Why? Because they hate the expression of heterosexual love, blessed by God, within a moral context. As agnostics, they view marriage as an artificial construct which is morally equivalent to any sexual contract, even a one-night stand."
Karl Marx once remarked that under socialism women would also be publicly owned. Isn't this what has happened?
Feminism promised to "empower" women. In fact women have become public property.
Economically, they are cogs in the machine. Young women are taught to eschew marriage, remain "independent" and to seek satisfaction in careers.
Sexually, they are a commodity on auction to the highest bidder. At a young age, in sex education classes, their dignity, privacy and natural modesty is stripped away. They are given role models like Britney Spears whose act is pure strip tease. When contraceptives fail, they and their babies become wards of the public services.
In contrast, look at the religious view of woman. Her sexuality is private and reserved for marriage. So is her mystery, her deepest self. She is covered. Her nakedness is an expression of her love. Her spiritual, emotional and physical selves are in sync.
Women spend billions trying to look beautiful. But men will attest that, regardless of this effort, women become very beautiful when they are loved.
In the love act, they transcend their individuality and know themselves to be divine. The Bible thus refers to a man "knowing" his wife.
More than anything, a woman wants to be "known" considered, cherished and utilized by her husband for a cause she believes in. She wants to surrender an aspect of her power in return for his love. This is how loving union takes place.
In this process, the man also transcends himself. He sees his wife as part of himself. His desire is not to stifle or control. He nurtures and wants her to flourish in her own right. She is part of him.
This mystical union is what makes people whole. This is the source of the Intimacy we seek.
If singles looked at potential partners in these terms, they would not be distracted by all and sundry. But sex is promoted as a substitute for love, marriage and family.
As inevitably we become frustrated, the sexual drumbeat becomes louder, more perverted, and more public.
Gay activists are leading this trend.
Gareth Kirby, the editor of the Vancouver gay newspaper Xtra West recently wrote that gays don't need marriage "We know that a 30-year relationship is no better than a nine-week or nine-minute fling; it's different but no better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute in Stanley Park can be profoundly beautiful thing..." (Quoted in "Reality" Jan/Feb 2002.)
As Kirby says, sex for many gays literally takes place in public, in washrooms and parks. It is flaunted in parades and on TV programs like "Will and Grace" or in Dan Savage's column "Savage Love." There is nothing "private" or intimate about multiple and/or anonymous partners.
This behavior strikes me as an act of defiance for having been deprived of a father's love.
Unable to find true intimacy, they "up the ante" engaging in sadomasochism or wallowing in filth. Based on sexual attraction, their relationships are short-lived and not exclusive. Surveys show that only 2% are long-term.
Heterosexuals are being encouraged to emulate the gay model. The "trend-setting" TV program "Sex and the City" is an example. The women are looking for love but the scope of their quest makes them unfit for it. The character Samantha has slept with hundreds of men. The other three women are not as ambitious. The program chronicles their relationships, and abounds in nudity and scatological references.
In conclusion, the attempt to achieve ersatz intimacy by sex is sick and doomed. Its promotion in popular culture is a deliberate attack on the human soul.
All human beings are looking for self-transcendence and wholeness. The only way this can be found is though love union with another human being. Sex expresses this sacred marriage. That's why sex is private.
-
Peace,
I agree almost totaly, i was thinking to write something on this subject for spreading it in my country. This was almost exactly what i was thinking. Only i missed the point that savage carrot did see(yes, i edited) that indeed it is only the girls refered too. It indeed works both ways....Men are also programmed to 'conquer' as much as they can.
-
Sexually, they are a commodity on auction to the highest bidder. At a young age, in sex education classes, their dignity, privacy and natural modesty is stripped away. They are given role models like Britney Spears whose act is pure strip tease. When contraceptives fail, they and their babies become wards of the public services.
I would just like to address some of the points in this one para. I would think that in all times women have been on auction to the highest bidder and a commodity. As to their dignity, privacy and natural modesty...this should apply to both sexes equally not just women. Britney Spears types can be found in both sexes as well, if in only music. There was a time in the 80's where the men where role models of having as many women as can be found and to behave a certain way (David Lee Roth, Paul Stanley, Gene Simmons etc).
I would be very cautious when making generalizations on how women 'naturally' are, because other than the fact that they are childbearers and all the natural instincts present in that and how far it goes, how far back it starts etc...everything else fluctuates. Men and women should equally guard their chastity and their sexual drives etc should be private and not brandished about.
-
Peace salgan, all
Interesting article which has some good things to say.
In general, yes, sex is a private thing and should be shared in responsible caring relationships in which people "feel at home" with their partners and are bound together by affection and compassion.
Furthermore this should include the notion that relationships like these are based on mutual complementarity (our partners our from our own selves) and a sign from God which points towards a higher purpose.
Qur'?n 30/21 elaborates on this.The sell out of sexuality in our world is both absurd and dangerous to our collective health.
The description of sexuality in most of modern media sounds like a horrible competition sports game to me and not like something people would give to each other as a gift and relief.
To a large part it seems repulsive to me.But appart from a general agreement with the article it also exposes some typical ( i assume) judaeo christian neo-con overgeneralizations that I would question.
I would like to adress some of these points, sorry for the length.Sex manifests the union in Love of two people.
God is Love. The union is marriage.
God is Love is a typical good feel statement. Reminds me of Disneyland everytime I read it.
God certainly loves, He is al Wad?d.
But His love is bound to conditions of our conduct. God certainly does not love Adolf Hitler .... .Love, in general, is an unfortunately difficult term. Especially today it is used in a very broad sense and is treated in a very superficial way.
Yes, I would say that I love certain things and certain people as well, in different measurements.
Definitely I do! (before I sound cold hearted) )
But for a successfull relationship there is needed much more to effectively mirror the divine attributes in it and qualifies the love.The author seems to evoke the christian idea of marriage, I assume. A sacred sacrament.
The qur?n does not talk about a sacred sacrament. It talks about nikah, a mutual commitment, not more and not less.
Overidealizing this commitment into a sacrament can lead to a problematic conception of it.By definition, the act of love is about relationship, exclusivity and privacy.
By whose definition?
The word love is, as said, these days used in such a general way. The ancient Greeks actually had I think four terms (eros, agape, philia and a fourth one that I can?t remember now) for what we in English now call love.
Each of these terms had another definition.
The qur'?n has at least two terms that are translated as love in most translations. Both have different definitions.Powerful political and economic forces are opposed to love, marriage and family. They prefer that people remain isolated and dysfunctional, amenable to sexual cues. They are imposing their immorality on us.
Partly true, yes.
However, I would say the biggest enemy here is not some powerful political and economic force but the single human ego which seeks for egoistic fullfillments of lust and desires without barriers.Karl Marx once remarked that under socialism women would also be publicly owned.
Did he say so? I?d like to have a reference with context, why he said so, what where the accompanying remarks.
Sure, some socialist movements had an idea of "free love without restrictions" but this has barely somethign to do with "owning women".
Marxist and Socialist movements have done a lot for a more equal treatment of us women in modern societies.More than anything, a woman wants to be "known" considered, cherished and utilized by her husband for a cause she believes in. She wants to surrender an aspect of her power in return for his love. This is how loving union takes place.
Good that Mr. Makow knows what I want more than anything.
Well, I am not opposed to what Makow calls to be "known".
But it is surely not what I want more than anything!And this idea --- does that mean all women only should become loveable by a man when they surrender an aspect of her power ???
I would say that this may work with some couples but not with all. Human natures and needs are so varied with regard to dominance, responsibility etc..
Some men don?t even like to be the one in power, duh.In this process, the man also transcends himself. He sees his wife as part of himself. His desire is not to stifle or control. He nurtures and wants her to flourish in her own right. She is part of him.
Surely because she was created from his rib, right, Mr. Makow?
The qur'?n teaches us that believing men and believing women are auliya to each other, not only one sided. It also teaches us that we can also be a protecting garment to each other. Again, this works mutually, not one sided.
Heterosexuals are being encouraged to emulate the gay model. The "trend-setting" TV program "Sex and the City" is an example. The women are looking for love but the scope of their quest makes them unfit for it. The character Samantha has slept with hundreds of men. The other three women are not as ambitious. The program chronicles their relationships, and abounds in nudity and scatological references.
I?d say the problem is not about a heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy.
Homosexual woman (lesbians) are known to be much less promiscuous and much more faithfull than many heterosexual men.
This indicates to me that the problem with a high rate of promiscuity among some gay men is more about the fact of them being men then about their sexual orientation.What Sex and the City etc. project are male fantasies, I suspect. The women in there are good available meat for men. that?s the main point.
Or maybe also they project fantasies of women who want to follow the previous male example out of some inferiority complex.
Men, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have a long history of enjoying sexuality without limits while women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, were much more controlled and restricted for centuries.Now some women want to strike back. This is understandable from a certain point of view, though it is definitely wrong and to be rejected.
savage carrot
I agree perfectly. Good points.bye,
Leyla
-
young women are taught to eschew marriage, remain "independent" and to seek satisfaction in careers.
Women have worked very hard to achieve their independence. They went from powerlessness in Sufragettes Movement to become Prime Ministers and Presidents of nations. This is a great achievement. We should all celebrate this achievement instead of undermining it...
Regards,
-
young women are taught to eschew marriage, remain "independent" and to seek satisfaction in careers.
Women have worked very hard to achieve their independence. They went from powerlessness in Sufragettes Movement to become Prime Ministers and Presidents of nations. This is a great achievement. We should all celebrate this achievement instead of undermining it...
Regards,
Oh Yes, we should celebrate and make women more and more a "Market Product" and strip her. Right?
Every precious thing in this universe is in manifold.
Diamonds are hidden in rocks.
Pearls are found in deep deep shells in the sea.So what if God made women to be precious and to stay in manifolds? Are you jealous of it?
And what is the great need to liberate women? Liberation from what? Ethical Norms? Liberation from cloths?
Is it essential that women show their body and breast to progress? Cant they progress without being exposed?DO THE MEN HAVE TO SHOW THEIR HIDDEN PARTS TO PROGRESS AND LIBERATE? DO THEY SHOW THEIR SEX ORGANS?
A WOMEN SHOWING HER BODY VS A WOMEN HIDING HER BODY,,,WHICH ONE IS MORE CHEAPER LOOKING?
VE
-
Salaam virtual eye,
by answering lote in this manner you're just assuming...
he speaks of the best achieved by the fight for equality and you speak of the worst of 'women liberation' which really is just a new slavery...for men and women alike BTW - there's just no common ground
lk
-
young women are taught to eschew marriage, remain "independent" and to seek satisfaction in careers.
Women have worked very hard to achieve their independence. They went from powerlessness in Sufragettes Movement to become Prime Ministers and Presidents of nations. This is a great achievement. We should all celebrate this achievement instead of undermining it...
Regards,
Oh Yes, we should celebrate and make women more and more a "Market Product" and strip her. Right?
Every precious thing in this universe is in manifold.
Diamonds are hidden in rocks.
Pearls are found in deep deep shells in the sea.Reducing Women to inanimate objects like Diamonds and Pearls is stripping Women of their human dignity!
Virtual Eye women are NOT diamonds and pearls - they are human beings. They too have dreams and aspirations. They too yearn to be free and not be subservient to a man!Regards,
-
peace lotetree,
Reducing Women to inanimate objects like Diamonds and Pearls is stripping Women of their human dignity!
Virtual Eye women are NOT diamonds and pearls - they are human beings. They too have dreams and aspirations. They too yearn to be free and not be subservient to a man!i agree with you LT ;D.
peace.
-
young women are taught to eschew marriage, remain "independent" and to seek satisfaction in careers.
Women have worked very hard to achieve their independence. They went from powerlessness in Sufragettes Movement to become Prime Ministers and Presidents of nations. This is a great achievement. We should all celebrate this achievement instead of undermining it...
Regards,
Oh Yes, we should celebrate and make women more and more a "Market Product" and strip her. Right?
Every precious thing in this universe is in manifold.
Diamonds are hidden in rocks.
Pearls are found in deep deep shells in the sea.Reducing Women to inanimate objects like Diamonds and Pearls is stripping Women of their human dignity!
Virtual Eye women are NOT diamonds and pearls - they are human beings. They too have dreams and aspirations. They too yearn to be free and not be subservient to a man!Regards,
Its metaphorically. Otherwise who told you that women should be used to make jewlery and should be close in small boxes?
Consider two twins sisters so same beauty.
One is wearing mini skirt and short dress etc. and one is wearing complete decent dress while hiding her all body. Both are walking down the street.
Now there is immoral person looking for some victim at the corner of street. What do you think , will he be attracted and make target? The girl who is already sexy looking in shorts? or the girl who is decently hiding her body and her private parts?Ofcourse the girl who is looking a "Babe" will have much more probabilty of being teased or staired at, while making people horny.
I hope you undersand now, (I can just hope).
VE
-
Peace,
The Quran gives a couple of easy rules
1.women and men must cover their private parts.(cover is, that they are not seen from the outside, so not to tight we can every detail)
The women may relax (their dress code) around their fathers, their sons, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, the other women, and their (female) servants. They shall reverence GOD. GOD witnesses all things.
-
Tell the believing men to lower their eyes and guard their private parts. There is for them goodness in this. God is aware of what they do.
-
Tell the believing women to lower their eyes, guard their private parts, and not display their charms except what is apparent outwardly, and cover their bosoms(this word refers to parts of the body with 'holes' in it, except the face, if i'm correct) with their veils and not to show their finery except to their husbands or their fathers or fathers-in-law, their sons or step-sons, brothers, or their brothers' and sisters' sons, or their women attendants or captives, or male attendants who do not have any need (for women), or boys not yet aware of sex. They should not walk stamping their feet lest they make known what they hide of their Ornaments. O believers, turn to God, every one of you, so that you may be successful.
2.women are directed to lengthen their clothes, so no short clothing.(no open belly button, no supershorts and no short skirts)
O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
3.men and women are both directed to not stare at the opposite sex, so they don't get quickly arroused and learn people are humans, not objects. 2430 and 2431
4.women are restricted of not moving/dancing in public to reveal what was ordered to be concealed. 2431
The elderly women who do not expect to get married commit nothing wrong by relaxing their dress code, provided they do not reveal too much of their bodies. To maintain modesty is better for them. GOD is Hearer, Knower.
These rules are easy and detailed enough to tell exactly what to do with the question, so everybody shut up! ;D
-
-
Peace arnold
...and shut up yourself ;D
where do you get that 24.31 is about dancing ? i'd rather refer to these ladies that walk likes ships on a rough see
and the suras are intelligent enough to be adapted to different times and societies - when does a skirt become too short ? The limit is different in saudia and america for sure
lk
-
Peace,
The length depends on its culture, and place of use. Also you can read the persons intentions on the way they dress, but we all know what is meant here with these verses. And you have different forms of dances, here it only refers to real exposing dancing of course.... My dad used to say;"the shorter the skirt, the smaller the self-respect and brain."(he was only joking people, but i still like it.... )
And no, you shut up ;D
-
Every precious thing in this universe is in manifold.
You cannot make that a rule. There are countless precious things of Allah's creations that are within reach..Have you not noticed any!?Diamonds are hidden in rocks.
And so? What makes diamonds precious in the first place? Just the fact that they are hidden? And so because diamonds are hard to get so they become precious!?
Do you know what was the mahar of Fatmah Al Zahra'a (pbuh)? How precious was it?Pearls are found in deep deep shells in the sea.
Why are pearls so precious (I suppose you mean the natural one)? Is it because that their price is the lives of poor human beings? Or those divers who would make it back to the ship only to get the price of their meal as their pay? Is that what make pearls precious?
Your analogy is not right. Women are not stones (diamonds) or grains of sand inside a shell (pearls). -
Peace all )
You know what bothers me very much?
All the time people with a certain identity are talking about other people, defining them, speaking for them.
Men do that for women, rich whites do that for poor blacks, heterosexuals do that for queers, feminist Westerners do that for traditional Arab women, traditional Arab women do that for feminist Westerners etc. etc. etc..
They all talk about others, whose experiences they haven?t shared, whose feelings they haven?t explored.
And all it shows is only one thing
The establishment of a power relation!As I mentioned, how does that Mr. Makow know what a woman wants more than anything?
And the same applies to this silly pearls and diamonds rhetoric that has been repeated over and over in the recent decades, mostly by traditional sunnis.
Women don?t need men to tell them that they are pearls and diamonds.
We don?t take this as a compliment when it is used to restrict OUR behaviour and to define us from an outside position.There are many many parts of modern feminism that I dont like. Partly it has replaced the demonization of the independent woman by a demonization of the woman who wants to belong.
This is wrong. Personal likes should be considered in both cases and personal interactions with men as well.
However, the modern conception of being a woman has achieved one thing that is very much to be appreciated
That women can talk for themselves, say themselves how they feel like, what they want and how they want to be valued.Regards,
Leyla
-
Ofcourse the girl who is looking a "Babe" will have much more probabilty of being teased or staired at, while making people horny.
So a "babe" makes a guy "horny" therefore that gives you the right to strip all women of their human dignity and subjugate them under the power of men and make them into men's property - into Diamonds and Pearls so that they can be hidden away in hareems and black cloaks? Virtual Eye try to see women as human beings then you might realise that diamonds and pearls argument was invented by men to keep women under subjugation, to deny them their rights as human beings, to deny their freedom to be human being!
Regards,
-
All the time people with a certain identity are talking about other people, defining them, speaking for them.
Men do that for women, rich whites do that for poor blacks, heterosexuals do that for queers, feminist Westerners do that for traditional Arab women, traditional Arab women do that for feminist Westerners etc. etc. etc..
They all talk about others, whose experiences they haven?t shared, whose feelings they haven?t explored.
And all it shows is only one thingThe establishment of a power relation!I don't understand your comments above of people speaking for other people. Slavery was not abolished by slaves talking for themselves. It was usually ordinary people and former slave owners that came to realise that Evil of Slavery and worked towards emancipationg the slaves. We don't have to experience injustice to speak against injustice.
Regards,
-
Peace Lote Tree
Please read my post again, more carefully, also in context as an answer to the posts of virtualeye and the article by Mr. Makow who both tried to speak for women and define them.
I think you misunderstood my point.
I did not write about speaking for justice.
I wrote about defining others from an outsider`s position.As an addition
I guess slaves realized much earlier than the "ordinary people" the evils of slavery and tried to do much earlier something against it.
The list of historically documented tries of slave rebellions etc. is pretty long.
I guess that was because they experienced directly what those evils were about.
How nice that finally after centuries some from the class in power joined them! -
Please read my post again, more carefully, also in context as an answer to the posts of virtualeye and the article by Mr. Makow who both tried to speak for women and define them.
I too spoke for women but from the point view of individuals. Thats why your comments where bit confusing.
I guess slaves realized much earlier than the "ordinary people" the evils of slavery and tried to do much earlier something against it. The list of historically documented tries of slave rebellions etc. is pretty long.
How nice that finally after centuries some from the class in power joined them!All these things too. But changed was brought about by those that were not slaves themselves, those that have not experienced slavery.
Regards,