I don't know if it's true, and I don't know if that even makes him full of shit about anything he said, or stood for, but just wanted to point out that saints are either lame, cowardly and simply incapable, or abuse their power, position, and influence, if they can get away with it. People need to take some personal responsibility for not letting them get away with it, or have a good defense, like overwhelming force, or drugs or something for why they were able to do it at all, otherwise things get absurd. Particularly if it's basically stuff everyone experiences, and isn't a fringe behavior, otherwise we're operating on some fantasy about the way the would ought to be, rather than dealing with the way it actually is.

I'm sure that they were all horrifically, unrecoverably traumatized.

saints are either lame, cowardly and simply incapable, or abuse their power, position, and influence, if they can get away with it. — Wosret

No doubt that some people who claim to be saints are as you describe here, but I very much doubt that you can make this claim about all saints.

I did, and do. People are only super humans in stories, I've never met one.

But you seem to deny that these primary desires can be inflamed, increased and redirected by many factors — Agustino

No.

Yes, but in my view you tend to overestimate their influence and underestimate our natural tendency towards "evil" or "sin", or whatever you want to call it, in the sexual arena. — Baden

Sure, I don't disagree with that or with all of Agu's cultural criticisms. I just see biology as playing a bigger role than he does and am skeptical of the weight he gives to the Hollywood etc influence on sexual misbehavior. — Baden

Which makes much of the rest of your post irrelevant. It's easy to argue against a caricature of someone's position. There are some relevant points of disagreement in there though which I'll dig out anon.

Actually, more than a few...

No. — Baden

Right, you take the naive view that they are already inflamed, increased and redirected - naturally. Just look at chimps! ;) :D

I did, and do. People are only super humans in stories, I've never met one. — Wosret

Well would you expect to have met a super human? Presumably, super humans are rare right? If they were common occurrence, they wouldn't be super humans in the first place.

Same reason I've never met a leprechaun, I suppose.

Same reason I've never met a leprechaun, I suppose. — Wosret

No Wos, it's actually quite a rational and mathematical reason. What's a superhuman? 1 in how many human beings? 1/10,000? 1/100,000? 1/1,000,000? If it's either of those 3, then the expected value of you having met such a person and known them rounds off to 0. You probably have met and known in your life less than 5,000 people. So you wouldn't exactly expect to have met and known a superhuman.

Well since we're sharing, I was groped while working as a childminder by the neighbour's prematurely sexualised seven-year-old girl. A highly inappropriate, unwelcome piece of sexual harassment that was mildly traumatic for me, but I imagine was an expression of a much more traumatic upbringing from her side. But since I was the person of power in the relationship, I was able to deal with it. If I had had an ounce of respect for the local child social services, I might have talked to them, but as it was, I was confident they would only make things worse for everyone. — unenlightened

un, I have been thinking about what you said here. To begin with, I am incredibly grateful that I knew making a pass at my Science teacher would be inappropriate but I sure hope he knows how many girls in my class that were totally in lust with him. He was such a catch that a group of us girls took Summer school Science just to see him.

I think that what I was feeling normal and was glad that if he did know, that he didn't act upon it because there is a chance that because of what was happening at home, I would have fallen for him and his advances that never came. Kudos to Mr. Oberland!

And Kudos to you for thinking through the "why" she did what she did and how you handled it would have ramifications that might just feed the dysfunction at home, that leaves her searching deeply for validation of feelings of love outside of her family.

The problem is not liberal society and it is not primate behaviour, instinct genes, testosterone, or what women are attracted to. The problem is men behaving badly. Let's stop saying it's 'natural' and also stop saying it's acceptable or that women like it really. — unenlightened

(Y) Well, this is it, really. Even further still, there is a constant assumption that I lack intelligence, undermining my capacity, disrespecting me and attempting to reinforce an assertive power over my quiet nature. I am attractive, so I must be stupid. Just shut the fuck up and take your clothes off. When I was studying my PhD, my supervisor went on the attack because I refused to adopt a Marxist angle in my research - your methodology is too feminine - and the IR department itself had appalling stats in relation to female academics. When I was at work, I had a younger man bully me with indirect threats in his vicious attempt to try and gain authority over me, despite the fact that he lacked the skills and character appropriate for such a role; power is imagined.

And, do you know what I did? I tried helping him secure that very role. Why? To save myself from the hurt he was inflicting on me emotionally. Then you look at all those girls wearing tonnes of make-up, avoiding an education or a career, and taking selfies or trying to be "beautiful" and that is what they are trying to do too, save themselves. It is almost ideological. Women who return to their violent husbands are experiencing psychological and emotional trauma and violence - whether gender-based or not - need not only be physical.

And Kudos to you for thinking through the "why" she did what she did and how you handled it would have ramifications that might just feed the dysfunction at home, that leaves her searching deeply for validation of feelings of love outside of her family. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It is the ethical responsibility towards those who are at a disadvantage; children, persons with a disability, most human rights abuses exemplify this lack thereof and it is why here in my state in Australia, we legislatively have enforced the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities that confirms human rights and freedoms vis-a-vis responsibilities as not being mutually exclusive.

Oh? Then what are we doing in advertising and marketing if not inflaming already existent and basic human desires, re-directing them, and so on so forth? :s What are we doing in psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, moral philosophy, etc. if not trying to change our structure of desire? — Agustino

You've answered your own criticism, to change the structure of something is not to distill it out. How can one change the structure of something that is no longer there. :s

That is true, but to suppose that human beings are primates in the same sense that chimps are is folly — Agustino

I don't. Note the difference between being "like" (in some respects) and being the "same".

Reason can indeed only work with what it is given, but what is given isn't biological in large majority, but culturally mediated. — Agustino

Sure, biology is culturally mediated as is reason itself, and we are disputing extent.

All religions, but especially Christianity and some forms of Buddhism encourage the abandonment of imitative desire as the solution to the ills of the world. — Agustino

Again, sure. And how does that work out in practice and why?

Your liberal society is not liberal at all, but illiberal. When rivalry is allowed to run amok, nobody can enjoy the object of desire - everyone is busy killing each other off, outplaying each other, competing, etc. - we all become fascinated with the rival, and the rival is more punishing than any law would be. — Agustino

Kind of sounds like we're a bunch of chimps or something. :)

Just because there is choice does not mean that there is freedom. The two shouldn't be confused. — Agustino

Amen.

In one sense, I do understand why society is becoming "liberal" - sacrificial mechanisms no longer work to keep the peace. But this becoming more "liberal" is identical with becoming more violent - violence becomes harder to control. — Agustino

And yet the most liberal societies (e.g.western Europe, particularly Scandinavia) are among the most peaceful that have ever existed. :s

Right, you take the naive view that they are already inflamed, increased and redirected - naturally. Just look at chimps — Agustino

Hmm, but... Nevermind.

Actually, society does need radical reform. I'm with you there. I'm probably not with you in terms of the type of reform or the extent of its effects.

Well, this is it, really. — TimeLine

I grant it may not be useful to have gone off on this tangent with Agu. I didn't intend to distract from the practical side of this issue.

I grant it may not be useful to have gone off on this tangent with Agu. I didn't intend to distract from the practical side of this issue. — Baden

He has that effect.

This thread exposed something that is wrong within me. I just finished an application for an international post in human rights working with children in a developing country. I think I am reaching a point - I'm not there yet - but I am reaching it, of a radical reformation within myself. I feel like I have been on a tangent for long enough. It is time to focus on the practical.

I know that feeling. (Y)

You've answered your own criticism, to change the structure of something is not to distill it out. How can one change the structure of something that is no longer there. :s — Baden

Well, evidently those means I mentioned aim to change the structure that has already been placed there by our culture & society through the way we were raised up. If you were raised up differently, in a different society and under a different culture and different circumstances, you would get a different structure in place by the time you grow up. We only need to change it, because our culture and society doesn't get it right from the first place.

Again, sure. And how does that work out in practice and why? — Baden

Depends on the epoch and how influential those practices/beliefs are in culture and society.

Kind of sounds like we're a bunch of chimps or something. :) — Baden

Hominization does happen precisely through cultural institutions, ritual, sacrifice, and prohibitions. If we eliminate those, it's not at all surprising that we start to return to chimp levels of behaviour.

And yet the most liberal societies (e.g.western Europe, particularly Scandinavia) are among the most peaceful that have ever existed. :s — Baden

Oh yeah the GREAT Scandinavia :-} - Scandinavia is not peaceful at all. Anders Brevik was from there for example. There are also many Neo-Nazi groups in those Nordic countries too.

And to judge the "peacefulness" of Western society based on less than 100 years from what were the 2 most brutal and bloody conflicts in human history is childish.

Oh yeah the GREAT Scandinavia :-} - Scandinavia is not peaceful at all. Anders Brevik was from there for example. There are also many Neo-Nazi groups in those Nordic countries too.

And to judge the "peacefulness" of Western society based on less than 100 years from what were the 2 most brutal and bloody conflicts in human history is childish. — Agustino

There you go again...Reality = Iceland and Denmark are in the top five most peaceful countries in the world and the top 20 is dominated by western liberal democracies.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273159/most-peaceful-countries-in-the-global-peace-index/

You can have the last word on the rest.

There you go again...Reality = Iceland and Denmark are in the top five most peaceful countries in the world and the top 20 is dominated by western liberal democracies. — Baden

And to judge the "peacefulness" of Western society based on less than 100 years from what were the 2 most brutal and bloody conflicts in human history is childish. — Agustino

*facepalm*

*Returns serve* (You don't get to gerrymander the terms of the debate to immunize yourself against evidence). Tangent over. Hopefully.

(Today's WAPO. Full article behind paywall)

My answer again, political partisanship. Must be incredibly frustrating for them.

Today's WAPO. Full article behind paywall — Baden

If you time it right and press ESC before the paywall shows (but not too early else the page won't fully load) you can read the full article.

Yes, I always do that. (Y)

Strange thing, nobody - absolutely nobody - voted in this poll. — Agustino

I misclicked an option in the 2nd poll and can't unselect it, thus I can't vote.
Edit: managed to unselect it but can't vote.

Okay, but that doesn't make it moral or right. — Agustino

And that doesn't make it immoral or wrong. That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality.

That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality. — BlueBanana

:-d Care to provide some substance for this assertion?

Well, I think we can agree that the situation in question is very much related to the reasons of sexuality being such a taboo in our culture, which is due at least partially due to christianity's effect on it.

I wasn't invited, and I would have enjoyed it (assuming he does it well). — Bitter Crank

But you're neither funny nor female. Zing... >:)

There was some speculation as to whether or not this will result in a movement and I came across a woman who put this revolution into perspective:

"As the day, and the show, went on, her other cohosts weighed in with Al Roker saying he was "still processing" while the newest addition to Today, Megyn Kelly, said that this one hit close to home, "But when this happens what we don’t see is the pain on the faces of those who found the courage to come forward, and it’s a terrifying thing to do. We are in the middle of a sea change in this country. An empowerment revolution. As painful as this moment is for so many here at NBC today, at CBS earlier this month, at Fox News over the last year, in Hollywood this fall, it is a sign of progress. Of women finding their voices, their courage and of the erosion of a shameful power imbalance that has been in place for far too long."

Call it what you will but the "sea change" or an "empowerment revolution" for women to come out of the shadows in regards to sexual harassment they have experienced on the job, is not something that is going to go away, there is no turning back to the way it was.

And that doesn't make it immoral or wrong. That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality. — BlueBanana

Christianity has plenty to answer for, no doubt. But let's be fair: religion isn't the only player in determining the shape of our contradictions. Social practices, economics, politics, jurisprudence, and so on all apply torque. Over the last two millennia Christianity has changed, changed again, and changed once more, as have the societies which preceded the present ones. One thing that is a constant, is that sex always finds a way. Everything from the most boring heterosexually normative sex within the bonds of marriage to exotic polymorphous perversity have all happened over, and over, and over, during every generation to have lived within the Christian sphere of influence (and outside that sphere).