Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 06:28 pm
Kicky's "Slave for an hour" thread brought up an idea that has been brewing in my mind for a while. The Puritans have won. The Puritans were obsessed with the idea that people might do anything "odd". They were particularly upset that might enjoy sex, or even experience sex, outside of a narrowly prescribed ritual.

When Kicky posted a "bet" that was obviously a fun part of a consensual relationship-- the shocked and dismayed responses were worried that he have only "consensual sex"-- as if play acting dominance is too aberrant even for consenting adults. Strictly egalitarian sex has become the missionary position of the 21st century.

Add this to the recently discussed scarlet letter but on the "cheating husband", and the dismay expressed that anyone could enjoy a strip club, or a fling without showing disrespect for half the human race.

Human beings have sex-- usually with multiple partners over a lifetime and often in many different ways. When is society going to accept this? If the people involved find this fulfilling or enjoyable, why is it the business of anyone else.

It seems to me, in a modern society, marital infidelity should have nothing to do with someone's political career. Society has no business keeping two consenting adults for exchanging sex for money.

Americans feel justified judging, and even controlling the practices of others. I don't think this is the same in other countries-- in some cases leaders are expected to have a robust and healthy sexuality. It the curse of our Puritan heritage.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,544 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 11:47 pm
@ebrown p,
You are a very sick man and I'm sure that you're destined for Hell unless you repent!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 12:15 am
@ebrown p,
Yep, in the old days it was born from a fear of Hell, and now it is born from a fear of almost everything. The fear of Hell was created on purpose by the Church for its own interests, and the fear of modern Americans has been created by the political ruling class for its own interests.

What I find hilarious is that the modern Puritans will blast the old time religous Puritans here at a2k and other places. We get to constantly hear how evolved and how much better we are than they were, when we are doing the same stupid **** all over again. History books exist for a reason, it would be helpful if folks read them.

It would be nice if laws and public disapproval would make people morally pure. So many act as though this will work. What it does is drive what we don't want to see further underground, making it increasingly difficult to deal with.
0 Replies
 
sullyfish6
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 07:26 am
Sorry, but when a public figure, who has taken a religious vow and entered legal contract with another person, violates those promises (usually using public funds to do it) then they ought to be exposed and relieved of their duty.

I'd have more respect if they either separtated or divorced. But to keep up the "sham" for political, personal gain irks me.

Like it or not, marriage vows are here to stay. You either keep them or have the courage to go it alone.

Apparently, the publlic does not like divorces. I think that there is more shame given to divorce than in living a marriage full of lies and deceit.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 08:06 am
@sullyfish6,
Is this something about a "public figure", or would you say the same about a "private figure"?

If you commit some sin (be it adultery or any other sin) should it affect your career? It seems to me that sins you commit that have nothing to do with how you do your job should be your own business.

To me there is a big difference between the misuse of public funds and adultery (the first being related to the job). If we weren't so hung up with what people did in their private lives, there would be less need for expensive cover-ups.





sullyfish6
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 08:57 am
Yes, being a public figure puts you into a category where EVERY move is scrutinized. That's part of the burden and maybe why we have so few who step forward.

On another level: Re: A man or woman who cheats on his spouse.
Would you hire him to do a job?
Handle money?

Just asking.


talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 09:05 am
@ebrown p,
There are two types of public figures. The political one can directly affect society by his/her behavior. The entertainment 'public figure' can influence public behavior by showing it is alright as they can get away with it as long as you are a celebrity. Sports figures would be included.

The private citizen would be dealing with the law and the courts.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 09:42 am
Puritans worship a zombie-ghost!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 09:50 am
@sullyfish6,
Quote:

On another level: Re: A man or woman who cheats on his spouse.
Would you hire him to do a job?
Handle money?


Of course I would, and you would too. (Or do you run a background check on the people who you hire fix your car.)

The personal lives of people who do work for you is none of your business.


0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 09:58 am
@talk72000,
Quote:
There are two types of public figures. The political one can directly affect society by his/her behavior. The entertainment 'public figure' can influence public behavior by showing it is alright as they can get away with it as long as you are a celebrity. Sports figures would be included.

The private citizen would be dealing with the law and the courts.


First, let's not confuse the law with morality. These are two unrelated topics. Adultery never comes into play in the courts any more (except in civil divorce matters).

It is a Puritan trait to worry about influencing "public behavior". Private citizens commit sins (be it adultery or anything else). Public figures are no different.

The idea that a guy who is very good at throwing a football is going to be any more pure than the average guy who fixes cars for a living is silly. Either way, it is just a job... and ones personal life has nothing to do with how many touchdowns he scores.

Let's just let human beings be human beings. If they are doing their job well (whether it is hitting a ball with a stick, or passing health care legislation or fixing my brakes) then their personal lives are irrelevant.


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 10:14 am
@ebrown p,
Quote:
The idea that a guy who is very good at throwing a football is going to be any more pure than the average guy who fixes cars for a living is silly. Either way, it is just a job... and ones personal life has nothing to do with how many touchdowns he scores.


yes, but in America at least it is demanded that he attempt to be a beacon of virtue because he is a role model. After all, we can't have our sweet young children see how people really are, they must be shown only examples of purity, and then told that this is what they should grow up to be.

It has everything to do with American unwillingness to deal with reality, of our desire to live our fantasies, our drive to attempt to turn our fantasies into reality.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 04:22 pm
@ebrown p,
I agree with you that private matters are private matters but we live in an open society and the higher you go up the ladder of success the more the challenges and pitfalls. Gone are the days of the discrete media. People who have gained control of the media are more like bloodhounds now. It goes with the territory. It seems like an equalizer. In the old days no one could or dared to question people on top. Now it is possible to bring down the very top person by his behavior. Remember it was Clinton who signed legislature that allowed the mass media to be controlled by a few people and all the smears and scandals are acts of politics.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 05:43 pm
@talk72000,
Clinton balanced the budget. That was his job. I didn't care about his extramarital activities.

Look at the great leaders who committed adultery.

- Martin Luther King
- Thomas Jefferson
- JFK
- Albert Einstein
- Princess Diana

Why should anyone care?

I get your point that these days people have the ability to bring down powerful people with their private lives.

I contend our obsession with what anyone does in their private lives is a bad thing.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 06:11 pm
@ebrown p,
Ha, ha, ha. I didn't know about those 4. I only knew about JFK.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
GOP Empire Strikes Back - Discussion by parados
Government School Indoctrination - Discussion by H2O MAN
The Democrats will win again in 2016 - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Obama care 2014 - Discussion by wts
The 'I voted' thread! - Question by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Modern Puritanism
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 12:43:11