Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: The Unanswered Question(s), part 2 Message-ID: <820@pucc-h> Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 03:28:41 EDT Article-I.D.: pucc-h.820 Posted: Tue Jul 3 03:28:41 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 03:26:10 EDT References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Lines: 118 Trying to finish my arrears (how DOES Rich have time to write so much?): 5) SOCIETALLY PRESCRIBED ROLES IN GENERAL; SEX ROLES IN PARTICULAR | Why is there a need at all to assign labels to sexual lifestyles & sex roles, | and to designate who the appropriate people (and sexes) should be to take on | those lifestyles and roles? Must there be a "husband" and "wife" in every | relationship, according to "standard" definitions of those terms? And must | it be the man who is the "husband" and the woman who is the "wife"? How can | this thinking apply in homosexual relationships among both sexes, or even in | the hypothetical two hermaphrodite relationship? Does it matter? It's a trifle tricky to steer a straight (no pun intended) course here, but I'll try. I'm not sure I have an answer to all of your half-dozen questions, but here goes: I don't see a need for sex roles (except that only women can, physically, be mothers and [not counting rare cases most often reported in National Enquirer] breast-feed babies). I still consider that man and woman were meant to complement one another, that while two MOTSS's may be very different they still have a fundamental sameness which obviates the complementary nature that makes for the optimal ultimate relationship (plus the little detail, applicable to some male gays, that the anus's purpose is excretion of feces; there is an orifice made to accept the penis, but it happens to exist only in women). But there's nothing wrong with, say, the woman doing yardwork, house & auto repair, checkbook balancing, et al. while the man cleans the house -- if that's what they want to do; it is indeed a reversal of traditional "sex roles" in task assignments, but so what? I'm not sure about the "husband" and "wife" (which have traditionally meant "leader" and "follower" respectively). In my personal growth, I seem to be realizing (if not yet internalizing) the idea that the best relationship is between two persons who are free and equal, free to grow and develop their uniqueness, equal in that neither dominates the other. This is probably the toughest kind of relationship to develop, but the best. An interesting interpretation of the verse in Ephesians which says "The husband is the head of the wife" is the idea that "head" is like the head of a river -- i.e. the source, someone who feeds and nourishes the wife, rather than the dictator. I have recently read a book (not a religious one) in which at least one rather "liberated" woman stated that even if she took the initiative in starting a relationship with the man -- asking him out, paying for the dinner, etc. -- she would still want to feel "pursued" by the man at some point. I.e. there seems to be some validity to traditional sex roles after all -- i.e. the "husband" (or reasonable facsimile) being the stronger. I've gotten into enough hot water already by uninformed postings about homosexuals, so I'll sidestep that question; and I doubt that I've ever even met any hermaphrodites. > I have stated in the past that it > would seem that religionist doctrine values the value systems and rules > more than the needs and wants of the people themselves. This is difficult to respond to. Part of this is because many religionists (note the distinction from Rich's sentence) seem to indeed value the rules, which meets their want for security and predictability. On the other hand, the New Testament talks a great deal about freedom. The apostle Paul even said, "All things are lawful for me -- but not all things are profitable." In other words, you're free to do anything you want; but some things, as you will eventually discover, are not good for you, so you'd do better to avoid them. People need freedom in order to grow. They may not always feel that they want it, because it provides a lot more opportunity to get acutely hurt; but on the other hand, it provides a lot more chance to become the beautiful humans we all can be and, at bottom, want to be (I hope). The *doctrine* states that humanity is of infinite value (so valuable indeed that God gave His Son to save us), and that the "rules" were given because God values us so highly He doesn't want us to get hurt. The other reason it's difficult to answer this is that the rebellious part of me agrees with Rich's statement. Part of me wonders how on earth it could hurt to have sex with a woman without committing my life to her, provided that I was not destroying her virginity and that proper precautions were taken to avoid pregnancy. (Side note: The hymen seems to have been one of God's most sexist ideas; it treats women like aspirin bottles ["Do not purchase if seal is broken"]. Curiosity: In the non-religious view, why on earth would something so seemingly useless as the hymen have evolved?) Any of the other net Christians care to answer this one? I'm really struggling with it. 6) SOCIETAL RULES BASED ON "ANCIENT WISDOM"/"GOD'S WORD" RATHER THAN LOGIC | A bad reason to get precepts out of books of wisdom is precisely because | these people may have thought up some rational things (occasionally), but | they failed to explain the reasoning behind their thinking, and as I've | already mentioned, if there's no clear cut reason why a law exists, it's | worthless. Two comments on this: 1. If it has helped to make people live happier lives (IF), then why worry about the reasoning of the originators? If it works, go with it; just as we have some code floating around here that even the guy who wrote it isn't sure he understands, but which works. 2. You seem to consider your own reasoning powers to be strong. That being the case, you might be able to figure out the reasons behind the laws on your own. (The Bible says, though not in these words, "The proof is left as an exercise for the reader." [:-), but true; differing from math texts in that you "prove" it in the sense of testing it in real life rather than writing up a dry analysis of it]) | It makes more sense to formulate rules for a society of imperfect people | by using rationality rather than wisdom. Rationality means that you design | laws and give reasons for their existence. ("No murder, because a precept | of our society is that interfering with the rights of another human, | especially the right to live, is wrong. You've provided a reason for the law "No murder". Fine. What's the reason for the precept? Where did it come from? You're not at the bottom of this yet, though I will admit that a case could be made out in favor of that precept. The rest of this question (omitted from this article) has been pretty much discussed elsewhere. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|decvax|harpo|ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "...got to find my corner of the sky."