|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:47 pm
Hey everyone. Just doing some research on monogamy, non-monogamy and such for an essay and I came across this one block of text. Now I have to ask what you all think and feel when you're reading this quote. Also a guessing game for you: guess when the book that this quote is in was written. To give you a slight time-frame I have taken out books from the library that were written anywhere between 1867 and 2011. 20k to the person who guesses* the closest date. However, to be eligible to win you must also post your thoughts and feelings of the quote along with your guess. * One guess per person, while supplies last, only available at participating retailers. Quote: “Multiplicity belongs to the culture of culinary delights, not to that of sexual pleasure; the former goes with a great variety of nutritious and tasty substances, the latter with the personal intimacy and inexhaustible riches of a single human being. […] There is no polygamous drive in the sense in which there is a drive for gratification through sexual intercourse, a drive for the other sex, for a loving fixation on a particular person. There are, of course, many kinds of reason why a man may, temporarily or permanently, lose the desire for his wife, or also conceive a strong inclination for conduct. But this is far from implying a generally diffused polygamous disposition; certainly no more than it implies the existence of other devious dispositions, such as the homosexual, in fact less so. The many men who have already, to some degree, practice polygamy, are as little ‘polygamous by nature’ as the likewise very many men who have practiced self-abuse] are, for this reason, genuinely ‘onanistic by nature’ and ‘unsuited’ for a normal sex-life. The question in most cases is not about polygamy or monogamy but about whether one should always give way to one’s desires or not; whether struggling against a passion is necessarily useless and beside the point, or not; whether marriage is only worth while as long as everything that might upset it simply and quietly keeps its distance, or whether ir is an objective good which is worth defending in itself. The answer hardly needs to be spelt out. This does not mean that the upholding of the marriage tie is always, without exception, a moral demand; but rather, that it is an aspect of marriage in the normal case, that it is in general possible and should only be abandoned in exceptional circumstances, but that it should never on any account be declared not binding in the name of some prescribed polygamous ‘point of view’. ”
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm
I'm too tired and in too much pain to worry about the contest right now, but as for my thoughts and feelings on it...
It feels like people think that you have to sacrifice marriage or good values, to give into 'temptation'. And I think that it's very narrow-minded that its just talking about the sexual view of polygamy; that there can't possibly be any other rhyme or reason for someone to follow this path.
I guess in short, I view it as saying its a form of cheating and that it is the undoing of moral standings.
{I'm sorry if none of that made sense. I'm literally fighting to keep my eyes open.}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:57 pm
It's from Kolani's Sexual Ethics, 2005. I had that passage highlighted in my copy.
My feelings on the subject- basically there will always be well paid jerks who will write BS to get money- but to break it down a little, 1) It's sexist, homophobic, sex-negative BS starting with body shame for masturbation, limiting waning interest in a partner to men alone and characterizing the LGBT community as "devious". The problem they're writing about would be just fine if it was about open communication and the idea that "Oh- I'm poly, see ya" isn't an ok way to break up with someone- but the entire book makes a better table level than it does an insight to relationship ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:23 pm
*grin* Riri, care to tell the entire world? I found this doorstop on Google books and it apparently needs some reviews written. Sexual ethics: the meaning and foundations of sexual morality By Aurel Kolnai, Francis Dunlop (On Google Books)Any writing on ethics is likely to show the author's personal beliefs. At the end of the day, you can look for advice and guidance all you like, but the final decision was yours. Cut the red wire or the blue wire? Evacuate the town or try to patch the dam? Send in the troops or the diplomats? Perform the surgery now or give the medication a little more time? Now, my personal take on the passage? Well, that will have to wait for me to get back from work. I'll see you in the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:50 am
And now, for part two: razz
Perhaps it's just because I'm a bit tired, or from my own situation, but the last section is what sticks out to me right now. "marriage is only worth while as long as everything that might upset it simply and quietly keeps its distance, or whether ir is an objective good which is worth defending in itself." and after that...
It seems to me as if the author views anything other than what they consider "normal" to actually be a threat marriage? *shakes cobwebs out of brain and reinserts it* Marriage is for the people involved to decide! Yes, people! I don't care what the gender is if they want to tie the knot!
And why should you? If you don't like it, DON'T MARRY THEM! [/wild tangent] [/rant]
Obviously, someone as "straight laced" as this author (I haven't read the work, and am going cross-eyed at the wording. Reminds me of some bad legalese, or some less pleasant early 1900's writing I've read) is extremely conservative. I'm sure that WBC would gladly welcome them into their fold stare *looks up at what he's written* Wow...I am a bit cranky after reading that sad and wandering off topic sweatdrop I'm sorry, Mame... would you like me to try again on the weekend when I have a bit more focus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:46 am
Well that was tackled.... far sooner than I expected. XD Congrats Riri. I should have known better than to try to play this game with the likes of you around!
Also: Saew there is no right or wrong here. I was just curious what everyone else thought/felt while reading it. It's all good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:32 am
Mameoyashi Also: Saew there is no right or wrong here. I was just curious what everyone else thought/felt while reading it. It's all good. I know, although I was a bit frustrated with myself for getting so riled up sweatdrop Did a digging into info on the book. I was curious about language usage in particular. Seems it's a translation, and was originally written in the twenties. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:10 am
Saew Mameoyashi Also: Saew there is no right or wrong here. I was just curious what everyone else thought/felt while reading it. It's all good. I know, although I was a bit frustrated with myself for getting so riled up sweatdrop Did a digging into info on the book. I was curious about language usage in particular. Seems it's a translation, and was originally written in the twenties. mrgreen Twenties you say? That makes some more sense (particularly with language and style not to mention mode of thought). Odd that the copy I have doesn't mention the original date. It says it is a translation by Francis Dunlop but it doesn't give a date on the original version anywhere. Though upon further inspection and reading the translators introduction (which I am pressed for time when it comes to this essay so I tend to skip such intros unless they seem relevant to the particular issue and in a book that thick and how I only need a very small amount of information from it... it didn't seem pertinent). It does in fact say that Kolani wrote it 'when he wasn't even thirty' and states he was born in 1900... so that would place it somewhere in the twenties, yup XD Though I see one reviewer called this "an astonishingly objective approach to experience." Objective my left foot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
