![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From elsewhere
Oct. 3rd, 2005 09:46 amI enjoy reading things on the web. If LJ were built differently I might keep a blogroll.
This isn't the only place I write things. Argument is much like breathing, and when I am moved, I write.
I don't normally point to those writings (I may point to conversations I am in, but I don't point to the specific things I've written)
I also don't usually quote the comments of others, because it's unlikely they will know of it, and be able to defend themselves.
But most things allow for exception, and today I make one.
Over at Pandagon Amanda rips into Charlotte Hays for being stupid on the subject of sex.
What you don't know can't please you
To my mind, that's a bad thing, but Charlotte Hays is here to correct me--knowledge is bad because well, dammit, if you know about sex then it's not a mystery and it's just better if it's a mystery. And if you're properly ignorant, you can't even challenge her because you don't know any better. That's the beauty of it.
Charlotte Hays writes for the Independant Women's Forum, a group which worries about important issues facing the nation, and women today.
Things which affect women. The role women ought to play. The way women ought to run their lives.
Things like Homeland Security
Or sex
That ought to give an idea of the group's bias.
A visitor came by to tell Amanda she was wrong, in method (she did a very funny, IMO, interlinear snarking of the post) and content.
She argues that knowing all about what people can do with each other's bodies, for mutual fun and pleasure, makes those people little better than beast, because it deprives them of the mysteries of sex. She also wails about her being forced to hear/see/read all about it.
This isn't new. I've seen it before and I think it bunk. But she went on.
Daphne:Why am I saddened? Because even though many (most? all?) of you would deny it vociferously, we are more than animals. But you here have reduced sex to a physical act that is comparable to learning to tumble in gym class; hard at first but it gets easier and is *really* *really* fun. But you have deadened your souls to its more spiritual aspects and severed its connection to love (not crushes; not marital internships but love).
I wonder, for example, can you understand an opera like Wagner's Tristan and Isolde? Hell, can you understand Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet? Can you read the world's great love poetry and appreciate it? These all express an appreciation for the power of love (and sex) that gets lost when it is talked to death and handled like the cheap merchandise at a flea market.
Foolish Owl: Romeo and Juliet? Tristan and Isolde? Those aren't stories about love. They're stories about adolescent infatuation. Tristan and Isolde died of longing for each other, without ever having really known each other, let alone touched each other. Their fantastic notions of a perfect love were unsullied by any contact with the real. Romeo and Juliet had, at best, the beginning of real love, not love itself. In both cases, each person chose to die alone, rather than engage with reality, or to really be a part of another person's genuine, human life.
Daphne:Foolish Owl: It is too bad you can't take my Medieval Romance course. I would teach you better about Tristan and Isolde, as well as, tangentially, the others. This would enrich your life and your imagination.
While you all may have found early sexual experiences painful and miserable due to ignorance, that is not what I am talking about. In fact, now I am really sad that the only mystery around the power of love and sex that you can imagine is ignorance of the mechanics of sex!
...
See, Foolish Owl? Bear has just made my point. She has named some of the great poets (and left many more out) that fill the shelves of my library. But she doesn't get them. We are not talking about the loss of virginity or ignorance or anyone's belief that you all are rutting like animals. We aren't talking conservative or liberal or virgin or nymphomaniac.
We are talking, in part, about a very modern ill. The inability to shut up and let silence be golden. The inability to respect the humanity in others who have, for good or ill, shared something with you that is not common currency. The frantic need to seek the approval of others for indulging an appetite shared by slugs and dogs. Well, ok, I am not so sure about slugs.
Maybe wisdom will come with time. I do have the sense that most of you are still relatively young and may have some delightful (and not so delightful) discoveries about the nature of love ahead of you.
And this is the part which got to me. She said that those who know the mechanics of sex, can't (because of that knowledge) appreciate the mysteries of love. That such knowledge ruins all sorts of things.
Which brings me to quoting myself, to her:
You are saying, in essence (from the summa of your argument) that talking about the mechanics of sex (and having it forced on you; which isn't really the case because you choose to see the movies, television; read the book and magazines; listen to the radio and take part in the conversations. Apart from rude people speaking in public places about private matters no one here is forcing, nor advocating the forcing of the things you dissaprove; save that we feel an understanding of the, "Mechanics" makes for a deeper appreciation of the "Mysteries".
Which view was shared by Donne, Herrick, Herbert, Hooke, Darwin, Erasmus, Leibnitz, Einstein, William Jennings Bryant, Byron, Browning (both of them) Campion, Jonson, Shakespeare, Milton, Raleigh, and a host of others.
You have said, repeatedly, with great force and decided tenacity that those of us who don't mind (at times even revel in) revelations of the, "merely" physical are little more than rutting beasts.
By which you reduce the mechanical to the animating force of naturel; because if my appreciation of how (in the writings of Feilding, Shakespeare, Herrick [I really like Herrick, you ought to add his complete list to the poets on your shelf] Shikibu, Marvell, Donne (who compares the loss of virgnity to a flea bite) and the like is somehow diminished because I know the "how" of what they are discussing, as well as the emotional; well then sex is pretty amazing stuff, because knowing about it (as opposed to doing it) will destroy my reason.
I see you don't really address my comments on the deeper understanding of things from the appreciation of the mechanics, but go back to prating that these things are somehow more important. As if by apprehending them only through a glass, darkly, they somehow become more prepotent for the mystery of it.
Nonsense.
If that were the case then those of us who keep animals, and see the cock casually mounting the hen (who just sort of puts up with him) or the stallion in the herd, who picks on everyone, save the boss mares (amazing how much more deferential a stud becomes when he lives in the herd, instead of being a creature around whom all is driven by sex), or the careless of humping of dogs (who will go for anything which moves when the urge strikes them, masturbating a post... well horses will do the same, but I shan't offend you with the details of that) would never fall in love.
They would never have traipsed into the villiage to see travelling players telling the tale of Pyramus and Thisbe, they'd not care about Perils of Pauline. Never would they appreciate Portia and Bassanio.
But they did. And they had an intimate appreciation of the ruder aspects of sex. But still they appreciated love; while appreciateing the physical side of it. Offering greetings in letters (my most humble affections I beg you to confer upon your beloved, wife and bedmate) which declared a sense of that passion which love inspires.
That passion is what enobles the understanding. The drive to find that passion is what makes the young so reckless. The belief that sex will make it clear is why so many engage in sex so young; and with coices foolish.
Knowing what the mechanics are make it more likely that the mystery of it will wait. And that seeking after that mystery will also wait.
This, I think, is part of the reason why abstinence only fails as a way to cause kids to refrain from early sex. It's why I think (and I have to thank Daphne for this, because seeing her comments led me to this pondering) good sex-ed has, apparently accross the board, reduced teen pregnancy, and STDs, and; by implication, teen-sex.
When the mystery of it, the talismanic power of sex to create magic; in it's own right, is diminished, then the urge to use it to get to that magical place; the place of Tristan and Isolde, of Romeo and Juliet, of all the great (and tragic, all love is tragic) loves of the world is reduced.
Which, I think, makes it more likely for those who get such education can attain that level of magic for themselves.
This isn't the only place I write things. Argument is much like breathing, and when I am moved, I write.
I don't normally point to those writings (I may point to conversations I am in, but I don't point to the specific things I've written)
I also don't usually quote the comments of others, because it's unlikely they will know of it, and be able to defend themselves.
But most things allow for exception, and today I make one.
Over at Pandagon Amanda rips into Charlotte Hays for being stupid on the subject of sex.
What you don't know can't please you
To my mind, that's a bad thing, but Charlotte Hays is here to correct me--knowledge is bad because well, dammit, if you know about sex then it's not a mystery and it's just better if it's a mystery. And if you're properly ignorant, you can't even challenge her because you don't know any better. That's the beauty of it.
Charlotte Hays writes for the Independant Women's Forum, a group which worries about important issues facing the nation, and women today.
Things which affect women. The role women ought to play. The way women ought to run their lives.
Things like Homeland Security
Home > Issues > Homeland Security
Days of Our Lives: The Cicadas Are Back
5/26/2004
The last time they were here, Ronald Reagan was talking about the evil empire. Now George Bush fights the axis of evil. What does it all mean?
IWF Decries Partisanship of 9-11 Commission
Urges All Americans to Sign Petition of Protest
4/15/2004
IWF is launching an online petition urging Americans to condemn the bitter political grandstanding by certain members of the 9/11 Commission.
Improve Effectiveness of Military Basic Training By Separating Men and Women Recruits
Executive Summary
7/8/1997
Initial entry (or basic) training in the military is an extraordinary experience that imposes extreme demands and stress on new recruits.
Or sex
On Valentine's Day, Let's Celebrate Love and Romance
2/14/2005
Students deserve to hear the full story about the joys of committed love. Valentine's Day is a perfect time to start telling it.
Sex (Ms.) Education
2/10/2005
A report by Carrie Lukas looks at what young women need to know (but won't hear in women's studies) about sex, love and marriage.
Thanks to Mr. Clinton, Our Bosses Are Scared of Us
6/21/2004
I wanted to come to Washington to gain valuable work experience and prepare for life after college, not to be the butt of intern jokes.
That ought to give an idea of the group's bias.
A visitor came by to tell Amanda she was wrong, in method (she did a very funny, IMO, interlinear snarking of the post) and content.
She argues that knowing all about what people can do with each other's bodies, for mutual fun and pleasure, makes those people little better than beast, because it deprives them of the mysteries of sex. She also wails about her being forced to hear/see/read all about it.
This isn't new. I've seen it before and I think it bunk. But she went on.
Daphne:Why am I saddened? Because even though many (most? all?) of you would deny it vociferously, we are more than animals. But you here have reduced sex to a physical act that is comparable to learning to tumble in gym class; hard at first but it gets easier and is *really* *really* fun. But you have deadened your souls to its more spiritual aspects and severed its connection to love (not crushes; not marital internships but love).
I wonder, for example, can you understand an opera like Wagner's Tristan and Isolde? Hell, can you understand Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet? Can you read the world's great love poetry and appreciate it? These all express an appreciation for the power of love (and sex) that gets lost when it is talked to death and handled like the cheap merchandise at a flea market.
Foolish Owl: Romeo and Juliet? Tristan and Isolde? Those aren't stories about love. They're stories about adolescent infatuation. Tristan and Isolde died of longing for each other, without ever having really known each other, let alone touched each other. Their fantastic notions of a perfect love were unsullied by any contact with the real. Romeo and Juliet had, at best, the beginning of real love, not love itself. In both cases, each person chose to die alone, rather than engage with reality, or to really be a part of another person's genuine, human life.
Daphne:Foolish Owl: It is too bad you can't take my Medieval Romance course. I would teach you better about Tristan and Isolde, as well as, tangentially, the others. This would enrich your life and your imagination.
While you all may have found early sexual experiences painful and miserable due to ignorance, that is not what I am talking about. In fact, now I am really sad that the only mystery around the power of love and sex that you can imagine is ignorance of the mechanics of sex!
...
See, Foolish Owl? Bear has just made my point. She has named some of the great poets (and left many more out) that fill the shelves of my library. But she doesn't get them. We are not talking about the loss of virginity or ignorance or anyone's belief that you all are rutting like animals. We aren't talking conservative or liberal or virgin or nymphomaniac.
We are talking, in part, about a very modern ill. The inability to shut up and let silence be golden. The inability to respect the humanity in others who have, for good or ill, shared something with you that is not common currency. The frantic need to seek the approval of others for indulging an appetite shared by slugs and dogs. Well, ok, I am not so sure about slugs.
Maybe wisdom will come with time. I do have the sense that most of you are still relatively young and may have some delightful (and not so delightful) discoveries about the nature of love ahead of you.
And this is the part which got to me. She said that those who know the mechanics of sex, can't (because of that knowledge) appreciate the mysteries of love. That such knowledge ruins all sorts of things.
Which brings me to quoting myself, to her:
You are saying, in essence (from the summa of your argument) that talking about the mechanics of sex (and having it forced on you; which isn't really the case because you choose to see the movies, television; read the book and magazines; listen to the radio and take part in the conversations. Apart from rude people speaking in public places about private matters no one here is forcing, nor advocating the forcing of the things you dissaprove; save that we feel an understanding of the, "Mechanics" makes for a deeper appreciation of the "Mysteries".
Which view was shared by Donne, Herrick, Herbert, Hooke, Darwin, Erasmus, Leibnitz, Einstein, William Jennings Bryant, Byron, Browning (both of them) Campion, Jonson, Shakespeare, Milton, Raleigh, and a host of others.
You have said, repeatedly, with great force and decided tenacity that those of us who don't mind (at times even revel in) revelations of the, "merely" physical are little more than rutting beasts.
By which you reduce the mechanical to the animating force of naturel; because if my appreciation of how (in the writings of Feilding, Shakespeare, Herrick [I really like Herrick, you ought to add his complete list to the poets on your shelf] Shikibu, Marvell, Donne (who compares the loss of virgnity to a flea bite) and the like is somehow diminished because I know the "how" of what they are discussing, as well as the emotional; well then sex is pretty amazing stuff, because knowing about it (as opposed to doing it) will destroy my reason.
I see you don't really address my comments on the deeper understanding of things from the appreciation of the mechanics, but go back to prating that these things are somehow more important. As if by apprehending them only through a glass, darkly, they somehow become more prepotent for the mystery of it.
Nonsense.
If that were the case then those of us who keep animals, and see the cock casually mounting the hen (who just sort of puts up with him) or the stallion in the herd, who picks on everyone, save the boss mares (amazing how much more deferential a stud becomes when he lives in the herd, instead of being a creature around whom all is driven by sex), or the careless of humping of dogs (who will go for anything which moves when the urge strikes them, masturbating a post... well horses will do the same, but I shan't offend you with the details of that) would never fall in love.
They would never have traipsed into the villiage to see travelling players telling the tale of Pyramus and Thisbe, they'd not care about Perils of Pauline. Never would they appreciate Portia and Bassanio.
But they did. And they had an intimate appreciation of the ruder aspects of sex. But still they appreciated love; while appreciateing the physical side of it. Offering greetings in letters (my most humble affections I beg you to confer upon your beloved, wife and bedmate) which declared a sense of that passion which love inspires.
That passion is what enobles the understanding. The drive to find that passion is what makes the young so reckless. The belief that sex will make it clear is why so many engage in sex so young; and with coices foolish.
Knowing what the mechanics are make it more likely that the mystery of it will wait. And that seeking after that mystery will also wait.
This, I think, is part of the reason why abstinence only fails as a way to cause kids to refrain from early sex. It's why I think (and I have to thank Daphne for this, because seeing her comments led me to this pondering) good sex-ed has, apparently accross the board, reduced teen pregnancy, and STDs, and; by implication, teen-sex.
When the mystery of it, the talismanic power of sex to create magic; in it's own right, is diminished, then the urge to use it to get to that magical place; the place of Tristan and Isolde, of Romeo and Juliet, of all the great (and tragic, all love is tragic) loves of the world is reduced.
Which, I think, makes it more likely for those who get such education can attain that level of magic for themselves.
