- Religion and Philosophy»
- The Role of Religion in History & Society
Sexual Attitudes and Ethics
Sexual Attitudes and Ethics
Sexual Attitudes and Ethics Part 1
All are interrelated together as one in all things, so let’s take a look at how sexual attitudes can generalize over into other aspects of living.
Outspoken conservatives seem to think that the world would be a better place if only people would agree with them and behave according to their standards. They seek to impose their idea of utopia on the rest of the world whether or not the rest of the world holds the same values and interests. Their happiness depends upon restricting the freedoms of others for the sake of their world view only. They do not value other's freedoms or differences in experience, lifestyle, or ethics. Their favorite concept is me. The whole world revolves around them and they are the measure of everyone else.
When I am in the world and do and see others do the things that these conservatives are against, I can see all sides of the experience, but I am an honest person while conservatives tend to be dishonest hypocrites. I may speak up about the behavior, but not to condemn it. Only to take a look at it long enough to consider whether or not it is normal or worth doing. I never really care to judge other's behavior or deem them to be right, wrong, good, evil, light, darkness, or anything other than a curious expression of experiencing life to the full. It makes me no difference what others choose to do for fun, happiness, fulfillment...and these are the things conservatives are always against for some reason unbeknownst to me. For the life of me I just don't understand the motivation behind anyone not being happy unless they can regulate other's liberty. Perhaps this busybody syndrome needs to be addressed clinically. Is there a chill pill they can take for their anxiety and distress over seeing people have freedom and fun?
So begins my look at how sexual attitudes are really a sign of deeper and more generally seeded issues.
Part 2 Gays, Sex Offenders, People who have Children Out of Wedlock, and Cheaters
Between the 4 there is enough interference going on for each to respect the dynamic of the other, but usually this never happens. Each is always pointing the finger at the other claiming “I’m holier than thou.” Therefore let’s contrast all 4 with virginity in adulthood. Where does this take us? First of all let’s reason that no one plans that they will fit into any of these categories. Life circumstances and personality plays into whether or not you are exposed to situations that cultivate any given behavior pattern or lifestyle. Therefore it is not fair for a virgin to look down their nose on these others because if they were in their shoes do they really think they wouldn’t have done the same things? If anyone is deluded enough to believe that given similar circumstances and personality that they would come out pure as the driven snow, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. The truth is we are all made out of the same stuff at the highest level and we are all connected in life as one and what you feel we all feel. Why isn’t it plausible to you that thinking and doing follow in the same way? So if even virginity cannot be promoted as an example for all to follow as an absolute because of its’ lack of power to resist change, for we were all virgins for a time, but deemed it better at some point - perhaps without much contemplation – to loose it. So when circumstances dictated that you loose your virginity did you count the cost? Did you plan it out thoroughly considering all of the consequences of your actions, or did you simply go along with the flow? Also what level of virgin are you? Do you watch porn or read sleazy romance novels? Are you a wannabe sexual person who just can’t break through to actual sexual experience? So without even saying a word about the former, it’s easy to see that sexuality is an attitude. This attitude can be condemning and be me against you, us vs. them; or it can be the oneness of all, flowing with life experience of individuals sharing the same humanity. Even a virgin wants love. When we mature we all want sex as an expression of love which brings me to my next point… - - - What is the proper expression of sexuality in love? Isn’t what is proper what is fitting for the audience, and not a one glove fits them all standard? When person “A” comes from a broken home, is poor, abused, undereducated, friendless, emotionally unstable; and person “B” has both parents in the home, has an allowance, all needs taken care of, loved and nurtured by its’ environment, is fearless and otherwise well adjusted – what do you think they will see as being appropriate sexual behavior and will they even agree on the concept of love? This brings us back to the question of why judge anyone at all. Voila’, there you have it in a nutshell that obviously sexuality has as a consequence the teaching of the eternal absolute of being nonjudgemental. This is the highest form of divine ethics. Go and doest thou likewise.
So what’s it going to be, are we going to stay underdeveloped, or will we grow up and behave like children – who are nonjudgemental before the ego takes over?
Part 3 Ego is Nurture, not Nature
The ego is everything that has been imposed upon your genetic, natural personality from both without, and within from your own processing. Ego is what we get from parents, school, church, society, learning, peers, coworkers, political party or any other affiliation or anything else you identify with. Because people are social creatures we want to fit in and be part of the gang. Others want to be acceptable as leaders of the masses, so they have to make themselves presentable. Both of these are a recipe for ego. The ego uses all of the Freudian defense mechanisms to stay in power over a personality – subjugation, oppression, repression, sublimation, denial, and suppression. It’s a hard battle to confront the ego whether it’s yours, someone else’s, or the collective ego’s. All conflict arises out of the battle of egos whether it is an internal or external conflict. In order to be at peace with oneself one must uncover the personality beneath the ego. Persons who remain captive to and buried beneath the ego suffer anxiety and neurosis - to be free to be me or not to be is the question.
Free to be me means that natural naked desires are not taboo, but are gently explored and facilitated. They are not punished or ostracized or made to feel guilty or shamed. A person knows that it is loved when they are not judged for their desires. Where there is judgement and punishment, there is also animosity and hate. Even without animosity and hate there is still a lack of concern for the persons development. Can we say that we believe in human development when we incarcerate people in institutions behind walls for years and decades and sometimes for a lifetime? Is that what it takes to protect society and the individual? Do the survivors advocate for real justice where all parties’ deficits are addressed to the healing of the individual and society? Does the perpetrator also ask for this justice? Why cannot everyone be on the same page? There need be no offence vs. defense, but instead everyone should seek divine justice carried out by human beings. Not being judgemental doesn’t mean burying your head in the sand and not addressing the issues. It simply means looking at the issues from every angle and vector to find the absolute solution relative to the situation. Without being nonjudgemental it is impossible to achieve divine justice. What’s the point of ethics? Isn’t it to provide guidelines to safeguard the individual and society and when these guidelines are broken to provide a measure of naturalness whereby to discern and manage deviation? If ethics are based on what is natural, then it is not egotistical, but it can be imposed by reason and by society. The difference being that it is enlightened development. It is the heart of a child. It is the kingdom both within and without.
Part 4 Deviation from That Which Is Natural
To be natural is to be naked, true, honest, and hopeful. Without these qualities there exist some degree of hypocrisy. Everyone has naked desires and to deny them is to deny your personhood in exchange for the ego and its’ epic dramas that are all centered on right and wrong instead of what is natural and common. A current channeler on this topic tries to hide the simplicity of this subject matter with academic sounding prose, but in reality all epic dramas are solved not by looking for right and wrong, but for what is natural and common. One would think that with the great body of knowledge gathered from anthropologists that by now the whole world would know what behaviors are natural and common. Education of this type should be a primary focus of all people and every society. Just a thought…if certain behaviors are constantly being repeated as crimes, do they not then represent a norm? What we should be asking is not how to punish these behaviors or label them as crimes, but we should be asking how do we reach this population with what it needs to be fulfilled. There is a certain seemingly diabolical faction that seeks to advance society through means that are in conflict with the ends. They want peace and happiness, but they murder to get it. Are they wrong? Is there a better way or just a different way? If their survival and happiness depends upon the suffering of others, should we then allow them to continue as is or what do we offer as an alternative that they are happy with? First you must ask what kind of lifestyle they like and where does it come from. Ultimately it has its’ roots in spirituality and the type of spirits it deals with will determine its’ behavior. For one thing we must ask what kind of conscience must they have. Is it clear or is it defiled or seared? Truly the oppressed can only grieve and hope that the good people standing by in society on the sidelines supporting these egos will come to their senses and apply justice for all and not just for some. Even if this doesn’t happen perpetrators of injustice, no matter what blessing they gathered to themselves in life, will not survive eternity. They can only destroy so far, but they cannot end a life. They can only transform life to a different plane. When their time comes it will be the end for them permanently as the creator will destroy body, soul, and spirit for all eternity. Nobody knows when the day will come when it’s time for the final judgement. The time could be relative to each individual. Some may get to pass on into other lives when they die, while others may be condemned to destruction. My whole point here is that the ultimate deviation requires the ultimate correction. If a life proves to be naturally unteachable, incorrigible, hostile, and destructive to the individual and society, then compassion for the rest of us outweighs compassion for the perpetrators. Either way compassion wins out. When norms kill, steal, and destroy, then it’s time to analyze that personality closer. They are normal for who or what? They are normal for fallen beings that have outlived their usefulness to society. We can do better without them. Their contributions will be better administered by those with respect for the oness of all. In the meantime we would do well to find out who they are and mark them out of influencing society if they are yet allowed a personal life and they should be as long as they are not also similarly destructive within it. So now let’s ask a dumb question. What about a criminal’s rights? What are rights? Who gets them and are they conditional? How long do they last and do they change over time or are they absolute? First we must ask what a criminal is. A criminal is someone who infringes on other’s rights. What is a right? In the world we have all given authority to the collective to govern over us haven’t we. The USA collective has all kinds of documentation defining rights. They are the laws that govern us. For the most part these laws are acceptable, but there are instances where the process of writing a law and interpreting a law needs to be scrutinized more carefully as sometimes these laws contradict higher laws.
The bottom line is that if you don’t have love in your heart, then no law or amount of moralizing or talking about ethics is going to make a hill of beans difference. I could have continued this writing to answer the above questions, but I deem it unnecessary. If individuals or society have not love, then they are none of my concern. My love is enough for me. Do you really need a full explanation before you decide to be loving.