Criticizing religious ideals that are anti sex is controversial but let’s not kid ourselves. A great deal of guilt has its root in religion.
Dogma pretends an authority to sanction sexuality as moral or immoral. These beliefs are advocated by the leaders regardless of hypocrisy on their own part. In other words these ethics are arbitrary. The idea that any such beliefs are the ticket to legitimacy is absurd!
Many displays of sexuality can be benign though they fall outside of some custom. Any argument suggesting people voluntarily choose the limits of religious sexual ideas is doubtful i.e. women in Arabia. The difference between West and East is ideology and degree of public shaming.
By Todd Vickers
If different kinds of human sexual interaction could be tried on equal footing the individual could choose what was suitable to them. Their tastes would likely change over time. Such sexual freedom is not allowed. Shame for all that is beyond sanction. We have a kind of bonsai pot defined by some group of men. The problem with a bonsai pot is the tree grows old but never grows up.
Rebellion to ideas is not autonomy. The rebel must oppose the rule and the conformist must obey and the coin can flip from one side to the other. In either case the ideal is the governing force not what is wholesome to the individual and their lovers. In this way rebellion and conformity have something in common –> the ideal.
We can adapt to life or to ideas about life but only one of those can we touch.
–By Todd Vickers
Content Copyright 2012 © Vickers Publications. All Rights Reserved