Deep Thoughts

I just got around to reading that little missive from Sara Grogg that caused sucha an uproar! and I have to admit that I don't find much wrong with it! :) In fact, in most ways I agree.

Some points:

1. Society has been completely desensitized to believe that everything is ok and nothing is bad as long as someone likes it. Even if a majority of people are offended by it, they are forced to be tolerant because it makes someone else feel good.

I think she is right about this. Ask most people about their conception of right and wrong, and it often comes down to not so much "Is this true? Is this right?" than "Am I comfortable with this?" She probably relates this to a loss of "Christian ethics," and I think that plays a role for many people, but it's not the whole picture. There are plenty of intelligent atheists and agnostics and pagans (Plato, anybody?) who realize and manage to coherently avoid the ethical bankruptcy of relativism. But many other "moderns" don't.

This is either because people are paralyzed by the idea of making definite distinctions, or because they are simply unmotivated to develop a method with which to evaluate truth or falsity, right or wrong. A nastier person than me would say, "Intellectually lazy." But I think in some respects it's not their fault. The culture itself is highly relativistic; ours is a society that loathes philosophy. You can't expect lots of people to drag themselves out of the (very comfortable) morass of their own volition.

You see this in the gay marriage debate a lot, on both sides. A lot of people are just freaked out by homosexuals (usually as a result of a lack of personal contact with them) and that's the extent of the depth of their position - when in fact there's a rich, very deep natural law argument against gay marriage that they never bother to investigate. Other than to say, "that ain't natural!" which isn't much of anything at all. And I have yet to read anything in support of gay marriage that does not devolve into a treatise on how people feel they should be allowed to get married and it hurts them that they can't, and it feels terrible so let's change the law! Singing: Feeeeelings, whoa whoa whoaaa feeeeeelings ... Hello? Does anybody care to think and use their brains to come up with an INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT?(I feel a rant about the nature of philosophy coming on ... eck ... not now .. stifles self)

Point 2:

2. Society has completely taken away the concept of sex as something sacred. It used to be improper to talk about sex, and it was an experience only between you and your husband/wife. Marriage used to be a lifelong commitment. I think that it is really sad that very few people have anything that they're proud of anymore. Sex used to be something that you could give as a "gift" to your husband or wife. Now that everyone's doing it with whomever they want, whenever they want, sex has lost its meaning and significance. People have become selfish and very me-oriented. The mindset of today is that "anything and everything is acceptable as long as I get something out of it or it makes me feel good"

This "point" is a bit messier. I don't see why it should be considered "improper" to talk about sex. The crass, degrading, pornographic way of discussing sexuality is, of course, both disgusting and commonplace. But that doesn't mean that mature people shouldn't be allowed to discuss sex (I think that rules out most college students, lol).

She is correct, however, that sex is for the most part no longer considered something sacred. Rather than being a unique part of marriage intimately connected to the mystery of new life, it has become something casual and pedestrian. Again, some people might consider this the "Christian fundamentalist" position, but ironically, in the years before Christianity came to Europe, sex was, to the pagan societies, a sacred event due to its connection with the creation of new life, and it was even included in the pagan marriage ritual (ooo, imagine being a bridesmaid at one of those shindigs, lol ;)

I love how she refers to sex as a "gift" exchanged between husband and wife. I wonder if she is a closet Catholic or thinking of converting, (lol, probably NOT ;) because that way of looking at sexuality is an idea right out of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

I think she is also onto something with her suggestion that people have become very "me-oriented." My connection, not hers: I think this has a lot to do with the rise of birth control and contraception. No one says, "I have a boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife, and I want to use them and their body to obtain physical pleasure, as though the one I love was a cheap device from a porn store. However, I might make a child, which would involve "commitment," which obviously I am not interested in, since it isn't fun. So I'm going to wear a condom, swallow a pill, or do other nasty unnatural chemical things to my body to prevent it." What they do say is more along the lines of, "We're in love, but we're not married, we're not ready to have children blah blah ..." Of course, the Church teaches that sex is both procreative and unitive; that is, it's for producing children AND for the meaningful union between two people. But, as the Church also teaches, there's not much "meaning" to a union where one or both of the partners wants to deliberately prevent the creation of new life. When you actually analyze it intellectually, the reasons for contraception are incredibly narcissistic. The pursuit of personal pleasure is put above the other considerations (we're not ready to have children). I want it, my pleasure, it feels good to me, I-my-me-me-me.

Think about it: (and let me be a bit crude) What's the major sexual difference between humans and blow-up dolls? The major sexual difference between your significant other and a blow-up doll? Oh yeah. You and your significant other can create new life. Contraception, whether it comes in the form of rubber or medicine, reduces the other person to so much plastic. A sexual receptacle. Yeah, it was such a victory for women's rights that now men can sleep with as many girls as they like without worrying. It's a regular Sex-Objectopia. "Batter up, they're all on the pill!"

Point 3:

3. Obviously if you're only 20 years old, and you've already resorted to finding pleasure in something that is man-made, there is something wrong. It's sad to think that something that was created for the enjoyment and pleasure between two married people has been perverted into something that we can just joke about and have parties about.

Hmmm. I find "pleasure" in a lot of things that are man-made. Art, music, literature ... Snickers. LOL, and I'm not even kidding about that last one! ;) However, that's not what she means. She is talking about using sex toys to "spice up" intercourse. Again, I think her idea is correct: There is no need to take what is naturally a beautiful, enjoyable thing and introduce something artificial into it. Unless of course you are not actually interested in the meaningful union of bodies but rather, only the pleasure that accompanies it.

Well, that's my rant. I thought the "piece" was actually pretty mature, in that she did not dismiss sexuality as something "dirty" but nevertheless pointed out that it is meaningful and not something that ought to be casual - what's the really crude line from the movie - "Screwing is not like shaking hands." She probably went about communicating her ideas in the wrong way - she should have gotten permission, etc. Although she does have a right to free speech, and this is a public university. I hope I didn't offend anybody, and if I did, I'm sorry, I'm not judging anyone or anyone's conscience. These are just the thoughts trolling around my mad, mad brain :)