As for Fischer's statement to Avery about sexuality, I think if you will review, you will find that Fischer says two things: That is wonderful to be free and that he *let* the hormones drive him. What Fischer says it that he is beyond sexuality in another place that he thinks is better and he very much realizes that--while the hormones contributed--he is responsible for his actions. I'm still not exactly sure how you have come to the conclusion that this attitude represents human sexuality as a flaw. I think what the Wind is saying is that human sexuality is a precursor. (But we can certainly open up a discussion on it in the new Discussion section if you'd like!)
This probably would be best as a new discussion in the Discussion section, but I'll make a valiant attempt anyway ;). And, of course, correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.
My problem with Fischer's stance on human sexuality is he uses it as an excuse for his previous transgressions. He sexually assaulted Gwenevere, and then said (in essence), "My hormones made me do it." I call BS on that. Any psychologist/psychiatrist/criminologist/etc will tell you that sexual assault isn't about sex (or sexuality) (as Fischer seems to be insinuating), it's about power. Therefore, Fischer did not do what he did to Gwenevere because he wanted to have sex with her, he did it because he ultimately wanted to have power over her. He's just blaming it on his hormones.
Okay, let me take another run at this. I think you have to consider the context of the Fischer's statements. He has known Avery for a very long time and has waited to have this conversation. Throughout the conversaion, there are numerous examples of Fischer being light-hearted with Avery. There is great joy in this for Fischer. In other words, Fischer at this point is not detailing his entire life history and attempting to make sure that the person that he is talking to knows that he knows that he takes full responsibility for everything he did. (And I think if you could hear his tone at that moment you would hear his voice drop into a deep and profound regret over what he did--which I didn't include because I had enough parenthetical statements as it was!! ;-)
My sense is that if Fischer were having the same conversation with Gwenevere, it would be in an entirely different tone and there would be no excuses offered and a full confession of responsbility would be given and there would be no talk of hormones. ;-) I think if you will review the Wind's stance on life, they have no difficulty saying, "I take responsbility. I did this." Stone tells Gwenevere that Fischer deeply desires to seek her forgiveness. And, earlier in the book, "Grandma" does seek Gwenevere's forgiveness.
If you were able to pose your statements to Fischer, my sense is that he would absolutely agree with them and he might even apologize for expressing himself in a way that caused you to misunderstand his true acceptance of his responsibility in the matter. (Of course, he wasn't really talking to you at the time, he was talking to Avery and framing it in a context that Avery would understand and derive the meaning of what was being said.)
Having said that--and hopefully bringing a different context to Fischer's statement--are there other places that you feel the Wind claims that human sexuality is flawed? Because honestly, I have no sense that the Wind believes that human sexuality is flawed. My sense is that the Wind believe human sexuality is a precusor and that what is beyond is better.
I think you have to consider the context of the Fischer's statements. He has known Avery for a very long time and has waited to have this conversation. Throughout the conversaion, there are numerous examples of Fischer being light-hearted with Avery. There is great joy in this for Fischer. In other words, Fischer at this point is not detailing his entire life history and attempting to make sure that the person that he is talking to knows that he knows that he takes full responsibility for everything he did. (And I think if you could hear his tone at that moment you would hear his voice drop into a deep and profound regret over what he did--which I didn't include because I had enough parenthetical statements as it was!! ;-)
This I can grant. With different people, different tactics are used.
I think if you will review the Wind's stance on life, they have no difficulty saying, "I take responsbility. I did this."
Yes, they say that. But then, the Wind does not appear to suffer any sort of consequences for their actions, either. A person could take that, "Yeah, I did it. What're you gonna do about?" Kind of like with Stone's treatment of the 475+ peaceful protesters. He admitted to killing them all...but so what? There's no consequence for it. He goes on his merry way, and the Resistance forms because there are unhappy people (and I bet it would be bigger if people weren't so afraid of the trigger-happy blood-thirsty Wind).
Now that I'm totally off topic...
are there other places that you feel the Wind claims that human sexuality is flawed? Because honestly, I have no sense that the Wind believes that human sexuality is flawed.
Page 404. Gwenevere's "grandmother" lumped bondages and fetishes and alternate lifestyles in with pornography and bestiality, as well as saying that sex-oriented newsgroups were gone too.
Having no clue what was meant by "alternate lifestyles", I'll leave that one alone (I take it to mean homosexuality, but there's a lot of other grounds it could cover, considering this particular context). Bondage and fetishes really do NOT need to be put together with bestiality. And pornography (adult pornography, not child, mind you) should also be not in that category.
Fetishim is quite harmless (naturally, I'm not adding the extreme cases). I'm sure ANY number of guys would admit to being a "boob man" or a "leg man" or a "butt man." Heck, I'm a "chest woman" when it comes to guys. That's fetishism. How's that so morally offensive to the Wind?
BDSM is, by all accounts, even more polite and respectful than singles' night at the club. Considering the amount of care that is taken to ensure it's consensual and comfortable and it STOPS when any one person becomes even the slightest bit uncomfortable. So again, how's that so morally offensive? Do they prefer people to ignore it so they can continue their bloodthirsting?
Gwenevere's granny then goes on to say that children need to be protected from that which is harmful, thus implying that the Wind considers sexuality to be harmful (if they look on humans as children). But they then allow humans to reproduce (obviously). They really need to take one stand or another. Either it's not harmful, and they need to butt out, or it is, and they need to develop alternate methods of population (or not!).
FTR: I did not ever, in my wildest dreams, imagine discussing BDSM and fetishism here at NitC. And if this sounds disjointed, I've not yet slept as my internal clock is wonky.
Machiko!
It's interesting the topics that eventually come up around here isn't it? ;-)
Okay...in terms of how the Wind deals with sexuality on Earth, there really could be only one stance. They either are or represent themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ. So...in writing them as characters, there really was one and only one place to go for an idea on what they would do. And, that's the Bible. In order for the book to be internally consistent, there was *no* choice in this.
So...what are the basic principles laid out in the Bible concerning sexuality. You probably already know the answer to this but just in case you don't: The Bible places the expression of sexuality inside a covenant relationship between man and a woman. And within that covenant? Anything goes! (Caveat: Certainly this does *not* include activities to which one party is averse or will result in long-term mental or physical damage.) If the guy enjoys having his wife strap him to the bed and go after him with a paddle...I don't find anything in scripture to preclude that. (The Apostle Paul says that the "marriage bed is honorable in all.")
At this point, I will defere giving additional examples because we need to keep this rated PG-13. ;-)
Jesus Christ further refines this notion of the proper place of sexuality by making a startling statement when he says that people recognize that having an illicit affair is adulterous behavior but for a man to look with lust at a women is the same thing.
Now, you may say that that is ridiculous. That's fine. That's your opinion. Everyone gets a right to their own opinion around here.
But I fail to see how the Wind's enforcement of what they claim is their standard for how human sexuality is expressed means that they believe that human sexuality is flawed.
My sense is that they would agree with the old saying, "Sex is like Drano. When used properly, it works well and gets the job done but if you use it improperly, it can burn and even kill you."
But that doesn't mean that the person making that statement believes that Drano is flawed. It simply exists for a purpose.
P.S. I happen to be a leg man but that doesn't mean that I want to hop in bed with every pair of nice legs that wanders by. (And I wouldn't label that proclivity a "fetish". Fetish for me has the connotation of a controlling behavior. But, perhaps we're just apart on symantics.)
Machiko!
Sorry...didn't respond to your other point concerning what consequences there are for the actions of the Wind. You're right that there seems to be no consequences to their actions. But then again, *who* is going to hold them accountable? Who is going to arrest them and jail them? ;-)
(On the other hand...what if there were "others"? Others who showed up in say...900 years...ya know...there just might another series of books there...might even call that series "Realmers"--for reasons that will become apparent if I ever get back to writing and get some of these universes out of my head!!! ;-)
"Jesus Christ further refines this notion of the proper place of sexuality by making a startling statement when he says that people recognize that having an illicit affair is adulterous behavior but for a man to look with lust at a women is the same thing"
I'd argue that that statement is precisely the one that makes The Wind against sexuality, for the following reason: lust is the desire to have sex, or reproduce. Therefore the statement you just made is "It is wrong to look at a women and want to reproduce with her" or, "it is wrong to look at a women sexually". Thus, sexuality is wrong. There's no way around it.
Not to mention that you somehow expect people to reproduce, but don't want them looking at each other in that way. What, then, is to compel them to get together and have children?
I have nothing to add to Nick's statement that he hasn't already said.
P.S. I happen to be a leg man but that doesn't mean that I want to hop in bed with every pair of nice legs that wanders by. (And I wouldn't label that proclivity a "fetish". Fetish for me has the connotation of a controlling behavior. But, perhaps we're just apart on symantics.)
It probably is semantics. I look at fetish as:
Quote:Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
And of course, I'd forget this myself:
You're right that there seems to be no consequences to their actions. But then again, *who* is going to hold them accountable? Who is going to arrest them and jail them? ;-)
That's precisely my problem with the Wind. They do what they want, when they want, with no consequences to their actions, then they act all surprised that Avery's not exactly eager to get all buddy-buddy with them. What have they done to earn his favor? Why would they be surprised/upset that there IS a Resistance?
Machiko!
My schedule has collapsed these last few days. (Christmas parties, Christmas cantata rehearsals, yada, yada, yada). I think I can grab some time tomorrow night to respond! ;-)
More to come!
Machiko! Nick!
Okay...one at a time:
As far as "sexuality" goes, I think you're blurring together the whole continuum that is "sexuality" and attempting to make it all the same thing.
And, honestly, I *really* have a hard time believing that you don't realize that. ;-) Are you really saying that the only reason for people to be attracted to each other is because they are "lusting" for each other?
Since Machiko wisely consulted the dictionary on "fetish" let's see what it has to say about "lust": "Intense or unrestrained sexual craving".
In other words, "lust" is way at one end of a spectrum. But there's also another end of the spectrum and that is what is translated from the Greek word "agape". It is a self-sacrificial intense desire to see the best come to pass for the object of that affection. For the one who is filled with this kind of love, it does not matter if any of their physical sexual needs are *ever* met.
If you choose to define sexuality soley and only in terms of "intense or unrestrained sexual craving", that's your business but, honestly, I feel a little sorry for you that you appparently don't realize that there's more to sexuality than animalistic rutting. ;-)
Now...as I've already said, I think you're already aware that you're blurring the continuum in your attempt to make a point so I suspect that you *do* know there's more to sexuality than lust.
For instance, I married my wife, not because I had an "intense or unrestrained sexual craving" for her but because I *loved* her, because she was a wonderful person to be with. She talented and creative and funny and smart. She's fabulous! And if we never had sex again that would be okay because I am not only fully committed and dedicated to her, I *love* her--not for what she can do for me, or provide for me physically but because of who she is and because I want the best for her!
Now...I *suppose* if you want to contend that the Wind believes that "lust" is flawed and should be discouraged, I would agree with that statement.
But "sexuality"? Sexuality is not solely defined by "lust". It is far too wonderful for that.
On to playing favorites with the Jewish nation: The simple fact is that, if you take the Bible as the standard for the Wind's behavior, there are many, many promises in scripture that put the Jewish nation in a very special place. As to why Abraham was singled out and made into a nation of blessing. Beats me! I'm just trying to be true to the characters. ;-)
As for Avery and his attitude toward the Wind and their attitudes toward him and the Resistance. I think you have misread Fischer's attempt to get Avery to think about why he refuses to trust the Wind.
My sense is that the Wind is not at all confused about why Avery hesistates to trust Them. Nor are They in the least concerned that there is a Resistance. In fact, if you will read a bit between the lines you will conclude that They allow the Resistance to exist because it serves a purpose. And when that purpose is over...
Sexuality, according to the dictionary:
Quote:Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
Quote:a strong sexual desire
Quote:Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.
) 
Allow me to step in here. The Talmud, for one, is not in fact a set of scriptures; the Talmud is a set of commentary on and explication of scripture.
(For the rest of this bit, someone feel free to jump in and correct me, as I've left my reference books at school.)
The Hebrew scriptures are organized into three categories, these being the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim. (English spellings vary wildly.) The Torah consists of the five "books of Moses": Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. They cover the creation of the world through the entry into the promised land. The Nevi'im are the books of the prophets; stuff like Joshua, Judges, Ezekiel, Amos, and the like fall into this group. (There are major prophets and minor prophets, but that's getting into more detail than is needed here.) Kethuvim are assorted writings -- Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, and other books are in here. (For a much better outline than I just gave, see this site.)
You may notice that all the books I've mentioned wound up lumped together in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The set of scriptures to which Christians refer (ignoring for the moment this business about apocryphal books) includes as a rather large component the set of scriptures that Jews recognize. Christians and Jews read the texts differently, but a great deal of the time, they read from the same books. So the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, is really both, depending on whom you ask.
Of course, the Wind, fulfilling as they do the prophecies made in Revelation (and let me just say that the odd image of the New Jerusalem as a Borg vessel in Earth orbit is going to stick with me for a while), definitely seem to come down on the Christian side of the equation. And I confess that I'm not enough of a scholar on Christian and Jewish eschatology to really know what's going on there. And having said that, I'll bow out of this particular train of thought until I've had time to think on it some more.
As far as you go, Matt, you are correct. It's common for Jews to refer to a copy of all the books of the Jewish bible (I don't call it the OT, since there is no NT in Jewish canon) as a "Tanach", which is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im and Chetuvim.
On a side note, when the books of the Torah are in bound form, it's often called a "Chumash" (note that this is not after the Native American tribe -- the "Ch" is a gutteral as in "Bach").
Chumash from Chamesh (for 5 -- the five books of Moses).
Thank you Matt, Scott!
Time to bookmark that site and take a look!
Quote:and let me just say that the odd image of the New Jerusalem as a Borg vessel in Earth orbit is going to stick with me for a while
No, the One is Keanu Reeves. Whoa!
Greetings All!
With regards to the New Jerusalem resembling the Borg cube, it is, in fact, the other way around, the Borg cube resembles the New Jerusalem because the description of the New Jerusalem as a cube existed a very long time before there was ever a Borg cube. ;-)
Honestly, the first time I saw the Borg, I thought they were just a typical back-handed Hollywood slap at Christianity until I reminded myself that it was probably just a coincidence since most writers in Hollywood have a startling lack of understanding about religion.
Back to the discussion of sexuality:
Machiko! I am more than willing--deferring to the dictionary--to remove agape from the discussion but I only introduced it because Nick was attempting to make the point that the *only* reason for people to be "attracted" to each other was if they were sexually attracted to each other.
I understand that we live in a society where sexual attraction is promoted as the end-all, be-all. But there really is more to true life than that. It was not my wife's sexuality that first attracted me to her, it was her ability to play the piano.
We were in college together and she was practicing for a recital and playing a 20th century piece and it was gorgeous! And when she finished, I didn't want jump her and rip her clothes off but I did want to be with her. Because I considered the discipline that existed in her to be a *very* attractive thing.
But even if we remove agape from the sexuality discussion, I would still maintain that there is a large continuum between lust and sexuality and I think the definitions support this.
Lust is way off at the end of one side and what is depicted in the book is the Wind dealing with that end of the spectrum not with human sexuality in general.
And I've said multiple times already, my sense if that the Wind does not consider human sexuality in general to be flawed but rather that it is a precursor and that it serves a purpose and that what is beyond is better.
Does that make sense?
(The next week or so is going to be really busy but I will attempt to check in. Then I will be in a technology-free zone with my wife the last week of this year! Have a great holiday! ;-)
Definitely need to agree on a definition of sexuality.
I maintain that lust is only a small part of the whole picture of sexuality. I mean, if a person's sexuality hasn't been awakened yet, they're not going to recognize lust if it kicked them in the backside (just ask any six year old!).
Quote:Lust is way off at the end of one side and what is depicted in the book is the Wind dealing with that end of the spectrum not with human sexuality in general.
Honestly, the first time I saw the Borg, I thought they were just a typical back-handed Hollywood slap at Christianity until I reminded myself that it was probably just a coincidence since most writers in Hollywood have a startling lack of understanding about religion.
You know, I honestly never thought of it that way; my view had always been that their ships are regular shapes, cubes and spheres, because regular cubes and spheres simply don't exist in the natural world, not to the degree of perfection that the Borg build them. The unnatural perfection of their ships mirrors the unnatural perfection of their selves. Though I guess one could connect this to the New Jerusalem on a higher level through the "perfection" argument.
Machiko!
Happy new year!
Ya know, we should probably go back to exactly what the books says.
"Grandmother" says, “It’s all gone, Gwenevere. All the pornography and the sex-oriented newsgroups and the frank discussions about bondage and bestiality and fetishes and alternate lifestyles. It’s all gone. When we interfaced with the power companies we installed our systems at the local phone exchanges as well. Our equipment monitors every piece of data—whether it’s encrypted or not—and filters out anything that violates our standards.”
Now...that's what the book says. It doesn't really *imply* anything beyond. ;-) If you want to *infer* what is beyond that, that's up to you. And, if you want--on the basis of that inference--to attempt to build an argument on why you think the Wind has problems with human sexuality, that's up to you.
But what you've done is built a case against the Wind on *inference* and that is commonly called a "straw man" argument.
In other words, I think you're really trying too hard to invent things that prove your point.
And besides...kinks and quirks in human sexuality have existed for a very, very long time. Are you really saying that a loving couple that wishes to engage in a bit out of the ordinary play *really* needs the Internet to do that?!?! Wow! How in the world did anyone manage this before the Internet? ;-) (I guess I'm just old enough that I remember the world before the Internet, and I do believe that couples managed quite well thank you very much! ;-)
Matthew!
As I said, it was just a thought that I had the first time I saw the Borg. ;-)
It says, specifically, "All... the sex-oriented newgroups [are gone]." *Any* discussion about sex on a newsgroup is gone. That means the educational ones about birth-control methods, dysfunctions, etc. How is anybody misinterpreting that statement?
Nick!
I think you're trying too hard here, my friend. As I said about Fischer's comments to Avery, it is really important to consider the context of statements and not extract one piece and try to build a case on it.
At that point in the book "Grandma" is talking to Gem and it is abundantly clear what the discussion is about.
Of course, there's is nothing I can do if you wish to continue to take what the book says out of context simply because you have an agenda to prove that the Wind believes that human sexuality is flawed.
I, however, being the person who is mostly likely the most initimately aquainted with the Wind (as much as a human can be) would simply like to restate that it is my belief that the Wind does not believe that human sexuality is flawed merely that it is a precusor and what is beyond is better.
So if the Wind believes that human sexuality isn't as great as the thereafter, does that mean they don't really care at all about how healthy a person is sexually, since "it gets better, I promise"?
(Except to legislate what may or may not be done in a relationship, that is.)
Being, if Soozie is sexually frigid (for whatever reason), they won't make any attempt to help her, but let her be like that until she dies?
I'm so confused now.
Machiko!
I don't believe that I said that the Wind wouldn't make any attempt to help. Nor did I say that the Wind believes that humans should put up with whatever sexual dysfunction that they might be experiencing. Just because the Wind believes what is beyond is better does not mean that They would automatically dismiss the place and purpose of human sexuality.
As for dyfunction, you should first remember that the Wind has alleviated the world of all physical dysfunction--including physical sexual dysfuntion. So...my sense is that everyone's plumbing works just fine.
Of course sexuality is more than just plumbing and there are at least two instances in the book of the Wind assisting individuals with difficulties that they are experiencing with respect to their mental concepts of human sexuality and relationships (i.e. Teresa Gray and Gem).
In other words, I think the book at least provides some indication on how these issues are addressed. (i.e. there's really no need for confusion.)
And just in case there is any confusion regarding birth control, there really is not any need for birth control. The human population of the earth was significantly reduced in the Coming and the Wind already has plans underway for the expansion of human habitation beyond earth (but that's addressed in book three).
Chief, have you considered a public draft process? Post "final drafts" to the web so that we might copyedit and otherwise harass the text?
Quote:[B]ut that's addressed in book three. . .
Yes, putting the book online when he wants to sell it and make money is A GREAT IDEA. [end sarcasm]
Sure is just killing Cory Doctorow's career, isn't it?
You pays your money and you takes your chances. The Chief doesn't have to leave it online after it has been published.
there really is not any need for birth control
Err, what if a married couple wants to be intimate but not have children? Is this not allowed by the Wind?
Greetings all!
Sorry I've been away so long. Still working on that musrder-mystery project.
Mark: As far as posting future books on the Internet, I'm not sure how other writers work but for me writing was an intensely personal experience and frankly, aside from proof-reading for typos, I really see no need for me to gather "suggestions" from anyone else. I write what I write. If people want to read it, that's fine but I'm not going to adjust my writing style or my subject matter just to be more popular amoung readers. The fact is that I have very employable skills as a technical projects manager so my plan is to work until I'm financially independant and then I'll just write what I want to write. ;-)
Nick: Again, I think you're trying too hard to disagree. If you will just stop and think a moment you will realize couples have been intimate for thousands of years without having thousands of children. It is simply a manner of timing and an acknowledgement that the female body works in a specific cyclical manner. You simply have to exercise a bit of restraint and/or find other ways to play (besides intercourse) for a few days out of the month and you can delay having children for as long as you want. And my sense is that--once humans begin to realize that they have increased longevity under the Reign--many will wait many years to have children. In other words, some may wait to marry until they are 100 years old and wait to have children until they are 200!
Posting when I was tired, that. Typos and proofreading was where I was going.
Quote:[A]side from proof-reading for typos, I really see no need for me to gather "suggestions" from anyone else.
Nick: Again, I think you're trying too hard to disagree. If you will just stop and think a moment you will realize couples have been intimate for thousands of years without having thousands of children.
I don't see where Nick was disagreeing with anything. It's a valid question. And what about women who take birth control for reasons OTHER than birth control (steady cycles, decreasing of menstrual cramps, etc?) Or has all of that been fixed by the Wind too?
Plus, not all cultures have used the "natural" method of birth control. There have been many that use contraceptive teas or other herbs. Would it also be correct to assume those are no longer available?
Mark: No problem!
Machiko: I think it's safe to say all physical maladies have been corrected including unsteady cycles, et al. There is simply no need for corrective medicines. This is part of the "blissful, halcyon existence" referred to at the beginning of the book. And certainly, Judge Stone demonstrated himself capable of handling a wide variety of physical maladies.
As for manufactured medicines that might or might not be available, my sense is that business corporations would quickly disintegrate under a system where no one was forced to work to supply their basic needs. So I'm guessing that the drug industry--already dealt a severe blow by the general health of the populace--would implode given the lack of people willing to staff the repetative, mundane task-fullfillment needed by corporations. This would include vitamin companies because there would be no need for supplements because everyone would get their vitamin requirements met through eating the food they grew in their backyards from the Wind's genetically-engineered seeds and seedlings.
Since manufactured drugs probably wouldn't be available, that leaves herbalists and if people want to go see an herbalists, my sense is that they are more than free to do that. (Now, if the herbalist is just a "snake-oil" salesman, I would imagine that the Wind would deal with him and there would be one less herbalist).
If people want to take herbs or drink tea or whatever for contraception and they can find an herbalist to supply them--and provided what the herbalist is selling actually works--I don't have any sense that that would be a problem. Of course, I would imagine that it would be a case by case basis as everything is with the Wind and there might be certain cases where the Wind would say that there was a problem with underlying motivations that had to be dealt with.
Wow... I have so much less to add to this discussion than I thought I would... :-) Seems like I came in a couple.. or a couple of couples... of years late again.
Reaching back into the thread a bit, I will ask, though, if everyone isn't going to the wrong dictionary? I mean, let's face it- English is a clumsy language. The Bible uses words like Agape- Unconditional love, Phileo - Brotherly/close-friend affection, etc. ...And we in English just translate it as 'love.' Which, thanks to Hollywood, and the culture of the day, is a word with about as little meaning as you get in a language. :-) We lost a lot of subtext, detail, and subtlety there.
So... and whether this will clarify or confuse, I don't know... what are the Jewish/Greek word used when the Bible talks about 'lust?' Is the definition a little more detailed than the English equivalent; one that might shed some light on the Biblical stance on lust? (I must say I know find myself curious about the lust/attraction dynamic, the Biblical distinctions, and the place for either/neither in marriage in a Biblical model.)
That said, I think it's safe to say that the Bible is pretty consistent about sex. It's designed for a covenant relationship. It strengthens existing bonds and creates new ones. It makes emotional connections. It is a 'wedding gift' from God to married couples, for their mutual good. It is not to be used as a bargaining chip, leverage, or withheld by either partner. And the list goes on. Based on that, I feel like the Bible is pretty clear that it's more than just, as Phil so aptly put it, 'animal rutting'- much more than a physical act, a thing you do with your body for your own fun and pleasure.
I'd be pretty confident in saying that, in a Biblical model, physical attraction shouldn't be the 'reason' for sex. It's a benefit, a gift to go alongside it- and make no mistake about that... the Song of Solomon is pretty clear about attraction being an important- and good- thing between husband and wife- but not the 'reason.' I feel like Biblically, sex should be initiated out of a desire for the other person's best, an 'Agape' desire, if you will, for them to receive that pleasure, to grow closer to them, to build and strengthen those bonds. A selfless act, even a way of serving the other person- doing what's best for them, even if you both come at sex from two very different sets of preferences. It's a way of giving, of serving, and of knitting both people closer together, uniting them in common purpose- the good feelings, the attraction, the pleasure; these are the results, the benefits, the gift. But they aren't the reason. So in that way, I wouldn't see anything inconsistent about the Wind labeling all lust as bad, and banned- it doesn't further the selfless, Biblical model of sex (I want them to have this, I want them to feel that good), instead it focuses on a selfish thing; one's own sexual desires (I want to have this, I want to feel that good)- which isn't how God intended it.
That's my two cents, anyhow.
, I think it's safe to say that the Bible is pretty consistent about sex. It's designed for a covenant relationship.
Please see Genesis 20:30-38
Assuming you're referring to Genesis 30:38 - in what way does the story of Rachel and Leah constitute marriage as God intended it? The story is about, among other things, deception- that should be the first clue not everything presented in it is God-sanctioned. :-)
It's a common Biblical fallacy that because a 'good' person does something in the Bible, it is an implicit condonement of their actions. In point of fact, the Bible also states that 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'- that no one is perfect. Therefore, no one, not even the 'good' ones, presented in the Bible, can be assumed to be corrected and a moral example of what God approves in everything they do; the Bible records the good with the bad each individual does as a history. To see what God intends, we can't use the actions of Biblical figures (except for Jesus, of course :-) ) which are histories, not 'do what they do' passages- we can only use the passages in which God actually speaks to us through His teachings- via the prophets, apostles, and the words of Jesus.
Pardon me, that's Genesis 19:30-38. Lot and his daughters.
Ah. Exact same counter still applies, though. :-) Lot and his family are not exactly held as examples of sterling behavior. Just recorded as histories.
Sorry for the mini-rant, BTW. Pet peeve of mine. :-)
In addition, it just occurred to me today- if sex is being returned to a biblical standard (as a private, intimacy-building, sacred activity in a covenant, monogamous, married relationship between one man and one woman) then it would be a private thing and thus all of the discussions groups being closed down (the controversy that initiated this thread) is a logical outgrowth; as a private thing it would not be something to be discussed- so no need for discussion groups. Which means that the rightness or wrongness of the discussion topics might not even have any relevance in the first place. :-)