cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Literae Humaniores

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2007, 10:01 PM   #1
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Reading about the development of sexual attitudes in America

is a fascinating discussion.

One or two salient points. Perhaps it is obvious to others, but to me it was not.

First, until recently, our culture did not think in terms of "sexuality" as a separate concept. People did not think of themselves in terms of hetero and homo, but only that it was something you did, not a character trait.

Second, the reforming movement for marriage here and in England was a power play, the ministers wanted additional authority. And the puritans wanted it for marriage as opposed to how may settlers used it for a committed relationship. Yet puritans were not victorian, they enjoyed and encouraged rich sexuality within marriage.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 10:28 PM   #2
BarbaraGordon
Senior Member
 
BarbaraGordon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
BarbaraGordon is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

First, until recently, our culture did not think in terms of "sexuality" as a separate concept. People did not think of themselves in terms of hetero and homo, but only that it was something you did, not a character trait.
So you're saying sexual preference used to be a do and now it's a be?

Do they suggest how or why this change came about?

It's interesting, because if you define it as something one does rather than something one is, then it might be easier to define it as sin.
BarbaraGordon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 10:37 PM   #3
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon View Post
So you're saying sexual preference used to be a do and now it's a be?

Do they suggest how or why this change came about?

It's interesting, because if you define it as something one does rather than something one is, then it might be easier to define it as sin.
It really had a complex description; it quoted one southern gentleman as bemoaning his masturbatory tendencies polluting his love for his wife.

There wasn't a discussion of sexual preference. In fact, people until the latter half of the twentieth century didn't see it in those terms. I get the feeling that some people were more "bi", not exclusively "homo". Historically, bisexuality was a more common occurrence, and exclusively "homo" was rare. But I'm using improper terminology. The author is quite effective.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2007, 02:27 AM   #4
Detroitdad
Resident Jackass
 
Detroitdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
Detroitdad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
is a fascinating discussion.

One or two salient points. Perhaps it is obvious to others, but to me it was not.

First, until recently, our culture did not think in terms of "sexuality" as a separate concept. People did not think of themselves in terms of hetero and homo, but only that it was something you did, not a character trait.

Second, the reforming movement for marriage here and in England was a power play, the ministers wanted additional authority. And the puritans wanted it for marriage as opposed to how may settlers used it for a committed relationship. Yet puritans were not victorian, they enjoyed and encouraged rich sexuality within marriage.
A couple of months back in the Atlantic Monthly they had an article about homosexuality in Sadi Arabia and how it is thriving based upon these very same notions of sexuality as a thing you do, not a thing you are. Also, the severe strictures on the interactions of men and women has led to homosexuality as a release valve (pun intended) for male sexuality, since the really bad punishments are reserved for hetero sex. I'd provide the link but it is a subscriber link and it won't let ya'll see it. But it was provocative reading. And totally unexpected aout Saudi Arabia.

Last edited by Detroitdad; 06-07-2007 at 04:16 AM.
Detroitdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2007, 03:10 AM   #5
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

It's this book, "Sexual Revolution in Early America" by Richard Godbeer. It is written in decent prose with reasonable justifications and citations. Now I have checked the sources, but everything sounds plausible.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.