|
|
 |
Reader Feedback on "Where's the Sin?"
For a more enlightening view of the story of Adam n Eve
(radically different than what most people were taught) see:http://shmuzings.blogspot.com/2006/06/eden-revisited.html
--
08/08 |
"Save sin. Save sex. Save fucking."
Don't forget to practice 'Save-sex'
--SS
08/08 |
auslander its beitler how r you call 516-314-5880
--
02/27 |
Very, very funny. But I'd just like to point out there's a strange vein of truth in it: several studies have shown that the most orgasmic/sexually satisfied women are conservative Christians and Jews who married as virgins. Who knew? Maybe that crazy old bible has something to it ...
--cmw
01/22 |
What a fucking piece of shit. Try a new occupation will yah?
--RN
01/16 |
Interesting- I'll just throw in my thoughts- I have just been reading on how the old testament used to be read in literal terms, figurative terms, alegorical terms, metaphorical terms and esoterical(the hidden meaning)terms-
anyways I don't think the "original sin" story of adam and eve is about sex I think its about desire and -that sumarized- is that there is always atleast onething out there that can take you out of your peace in life- but if your strong (and the only way to be truly strong is to commune with God) people can avoid the frantic spiritual death and confusion that adam and eve had.-- I've been told that applies for sex and women- there's always onegirl outthere that can make you go crazy--its better just to find the one and commune with her. peace
--Sfg
04/29 |
Oi vey!!! My holy brother, the fires of Gehinom will be turned up tenfold once you pass through its gates!! HAHAHA!! PUSSSSAAY!!! You rock! Keep it up!!!
--SMF
04/28 |
“Believers” voluntarily surrender the chance to understand the nature of our evolution from slime to sub-sublime, since they will not be capable of seeing themselves and the rest of us outside the intellectual prison of magical causality.
Religion evolved as males needed to find new ways of asserting hierarchical status and dominance over other males. As property replaced hunting trophies as the primary mark of sexual status and personal power, women were conveniently close to hand, and weaker, hence could be transformed into chattels - - long before men had "domesticated" other mammals. Had we not needed property to reach the next stages of our biocultural evolution, then we would not have needed to invent the big stick of the ultimate daddy in the sky to condition women to their new subservience. Had we not evolved from hunters to farmers, then miners, then manufacturers, then militarists, there would not be any "religions" as we know them today, namely, corrupt, life-confining, ignorance-fostering institutions that are all corrupt, all the time.
Men will continue to foster and support organized religions, as they will continue to support all male-dominated hierarchies, because these structures supply them with structure, and at little cost in terms of personal danger. They have no choice but to arrange and co-operate in power hierarchies, because we have "progressed" to a world where they are not permitted to fight for dominance, and, being far stupider (on the historical and current evidence) on average than women, cannot imagine any other way to assert their sexual superiority over other males.
All this crap about guilt and sin and good and bad is just that: crap. If our species is to survive, and thus earn the chance to evolve into something other than an ape who has lost his hunting and raping party, women, including the Author, need to get beyond this magic daddy childishness, need to re-envision the rules of the sociobiological game, even re-invent it. Women must do this, alone and together, because it is a certainty men won't.
--DY
04/25 |
Terrific Essay. What you say is extremely true, one of those ironic elements of human nature. Sometimes I wonder where the religious (in certain religions, that is) inclination to stifle sexuality comes from. From an evolutionary biology standpoint, it seems counter-intuitive. And yet, it does, of course, often have the opposite effect. In Catholicism, for instance, the female body is considered a vessel of sin (I'm a non-practicing Reform Jew, correct me if I'm wrong). Sure that's not exactly a sex-tolerant view; but, paradoxically, it's an extremely sexual thing to view a woman as less of an individual and more of a talking vagina.
--LP
04/22 |
Completely true..and completely fantastic.
--CP
04/20 |
Great piece! I'm female and was raised fundamentalist Protestant rather than orthodox Jewish, but it seems to have done the same thing to me: if it's not forbidden, it's not hot. You didn't mention the effect this has on marriage, when the thrill of fornicating becomes the payment of the marriage debt or the sanctified act of love performed in the marital bed, preferably with prayer and Bible reading before and after. Ick, ick, ICK! One divorce later, here's to living in blissful sin!
--JP
04/19 |
If I understand you correctly, you're lamenting that it's no fun to break the rules when the rules have changed so much that they're not being broken anymore. So you want the rules back. Of course, that clashes with those of us who champion free expression. Fortunately, I believe there is a happy middle. Simply put up big signs and posters all over the place where you live, saying, "NO SEXUAL THOUGHTS ALLOWED". Now, whenever you have a sexual thought, there will be the thrill that you are breaking a rule. And as a bonus, anyone who comes to visit you will also start having sexual thoughts (the same effect as when you ask people not to think of a purple hippo).
--JCF
04/19 |
dude. that chit rocks.
a delightful essay on the death of shame.
--hjc
04/19 |
very nice.
great writing.
why don't you actually start "Mothers Against Everything?"
it has a nice ring to it.
--pr
04/18 |
Very welcome relief from the interview with the mindless jerk promoting abstinence through manipulated music. An entertaining piece that still has a good point to it. Good stuff.
--AI
04/18 |
send feedback on "Where's the Sin?"
back to "Where's the Sin?" |
|
|
