PDA

View Full Version : What is morality?


nola
02-04-2005, 11:17 PM
Don't get your knickers twisted - morality isn't just about sex

By D.K. Roberts

When it comes to sex, Americans act like adolescents, simultaneously confused, titillated, scandalized, drooling, obsessed, and grossed-out. Maybe it's because we are comparatively young nation. Maybe it's because our mythic founders – the Puritans – were the most unfun people in Europe.

It doesn't take much for us to get our knickers in a twist. A promo for the nighttime soap "Desperate Housewives" appearing on "Monday Night Football" treated viewers to a creamy-skinned blonde, dropping her towel in front of a fully-padded player in a steamy locker room. The family values nation bowed up, peppering ABC with complaints. They weren't offended that this low-rent seduction scene played into retrograde "Mandingo" style stereotypes about big black bucks and randy white misses. They just don't like NEKKIDNESS. Children could be watching!

Of course, it is a scientific fact that the mere sight of a nice set of female thoracic vertebrae can corrupt the minds of the young. Better to focus on the game, in which a bunch of steroid-crazed, wife-beating, semi-literate millionaires do grievous bodily harm to another bunch of steroid-crazed, wife-beating, semi-literate millionaires while fans with faces and torsos painted blue or else giant pieces of styrofoam cheese on their heads cheer them on. Football is good clean all-American fun. Sex is dirty; violence is OK.

The hissy fit over Nicolette Sheridan's bare back on "Monday Night Football" isn't surprising in a country where the Attorney General ordered the statue of Justice covered up because she sported a bare bosom, the hussy. Gay marriage, abortion, pornography, sex education – these were among the issues "values" voters in the presidential election cited as important to them. Most are evangelical Christians and most went for George W. Bush. A lot of them were still mad about such attacks on the chastity of their senses as Bono's feckless use of the "F-word" on a televised awards show and Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl. The scary prospect of glimpsing a nanosecond of nipple far outweighed the commercials with the farting horses, the booze bingeing, and the one where the voice intones, "Erections lasting more than four hours require immediate medical attention."

Values" voters claim to be all about "spirituality." In truth, they are fixated on the body. The Religious Right regards sexuality as dangerous, anarchic, an enemy of the orderly state. For progressives, expressions of sexuality (like religion) among consenting adults are a matter of individual liberty. In other words, not that big a deal.

But throughout American history, conservatives have used sex to tar liberals and liberal ideas. When Thomas Jefferson ran for president against John Adams, he was accused of being a crypto French Revolutionist, hell-bent on promoting non-stop partying and sanctioned adultery. The 1800 equivalents of the NEW YORK POST and Fox News ran endless (and quite prurient) stories about his affair with his slave Sally Hemings. Pro-slavery ideology in the 1850s argued that if "the African" were emancipated, "our civilization and its institutions would be destroyed." "Free love" would replace domesticity, uppity women would demand the right to vote, the family would disintegrate and Christianity would wither and die.

Now we are told that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, the institution of heterosexual marriage will be wrecked. As one congressman breathlessly threatened, next thing you know polygamy will be legalized. People could marry dogs or goats.

Given that straight people divorce over fifty percent of the time, the idea that gay marriage somehow undermines traditional marriage is flimsy as the outfits the "Desperate Housewives" wear to do the dusting. Surely even men who believe in "wifely submission" don't really want to marry a dog, no matter how obedient. And goats? How desperate do you have to be to want a long-term relationship with a goat?

This beat goes on and on. Sex education which mentions anything other than abstinence will somehow make teens start rutting like rabbits. Allowing women the right to an abortion promulgates sin because nice girls don't do it till they're married. But the central question is this: when did sexual morality become equated with morality in total? What about the morality of tax cuts for the rich and extra burdens for the poor? The morality of insisting that children be born then refusing them health care and a decent education? Capital punishment? Colonialism? Torture? Lying about reasons to send young men and women to their deaths in war? Morality isn't just about reproductive organs.

George W. Bush and his cadre of True Believers have successfully tapped into the deep need in American culture for definition and certainty: you're either with us or against us. You're our kind of Christian or you're no Christian at all. You are pure or you are polluted. Just watching the movie about Alfred Kinsey will, according to the Family Research Council, lead you into perversion or at least wild unprocreative sex.

Even the medieval Catholic church, an institution hardly known for its tolerance, considered lust the least of the Seven Deadly Sins – pride was number one.

Grasshopper
02-05-2005, 02:37 PM
Author D. K. Diane Roberts:

http://dialog.ua.edu/dialog20031208/images/roberts.jpg

I think most people instinctively associate moral issues with emotional issues. People find immoral whatever they find most emotionally upsetting. Emotional preference is first, moral principles are second.

So moral issues become issues of personal style and visceral feelings.

If you think homosexuality is disgusting you will find homosexual marriage to be immoral.

It's not that people don't think issues of health care and taxes and pollution are moral issues it's just that to make people see them as moral issues you first have to make them EMOTIONAL issues by framing the argument in terms of simple stories that have a victim and a villain.

If you tell a story about a dying child who can't get medical care because her family is poor and there is no national health care and you show her skinny and sick and dying then you can get people emotionally involved in seeing health care as a moral issue.

Instead of people like the author claiming morality goes beyond sexual issues, those people who want other people to see that must first make these other issues emotionally upsetting. Then people will feel a moral obligation to do something about it.

nola
02-05-2005, 02:53 PM
Most of us here get emotional about issues besides sexual ones. What was the point of posting Diane Robert's photo? Were you trying to say that men on YW don't get emotional about the issues below? Au contraire, mon frere.

I really like her last point too.

What about the morality of tax cuts for the rich and extra burdens for the poor? The morality of insisting that children be born then refusing them health care and a decent education? Capital punishment? Colonialism? Torture? Lying about reasons to send young men and women to their deaths in war? Morality isn't just about reproductive organs.

Even the medieval Catholic church, an institution hardly known for its tolerance, considered lust the least of the Seven Deadly Sins – pride was number one.


Mo·ral·i·ty

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.


I think Americans and we on YW discuss what's right or wrong on many issues outside of sex.

kuilong
02-05-2005, 06:34 PM
As C. S. Lewis wrote:

Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

Hiroshi2
02-05-2005, 08:19 PM
Well I understand where their coming from, since the Bible specifically says (in 1 Corinthians, I believe) that any sex outside of marriage is sin.


However, it's obvious many Americans, even those who show up in church EVERY Sunday, kinda overlook that rule, as well as the one that says that homosexuality is not an acceptable behavior.


I don't know how much of an effect one exposed titty on TV at dinner is going to have on little Johnny, but that's where they're coming from, the conservatives.


And it's true that people care more about sex than violence. But that's because violence isn't really prevalent in suburbia. Sex, unwanted pregnancy, STDs, AIDS, drugs, those are problems that affect suburban, middle-income, white America just as much as it does urban, minority America. But violence? No...............that shit just doesn't happen as much out in the suburbs, whereas people get killed every day in the city.


You see, problems in American society aren't really considered problems until it shows up in white, suburban communties. Until then................it's just a problem for "other" people, whether that be poor people, non-white people, residents of urban areas, etc. But as long as little Miss America who lives in a cul-de-sac WAY outside of the city isn't directly affected by it, it's not a problem. When she does become exposed to AIDS, start smoking crack, or has to get an abortion, THEN it's a serious problem that must be addressed.


I swear America is a country full of bad listeners.

jutau
02-06-2005, 06:30 AM
I'm studying abroad in italy now, and their censorship here is very different. I mean i've seen bared bossoms everywhere. on commercials and in the streets. Not many people care about that type of stuff here, or i haven't seen one person sneered or put that stuff down. And from the other european cities i've been to so far, dont differ much from italy in their censorship as far as i know. I dont understand what, seeing a lil buttocks or a lil cleavage, could possibly do to the public.

Irezumi Kiss
02-06-2005, 10:14 AM
I'm studying abroad in italy now, and their censorship here is very different. I mean i've seen bared bossoms everywhere. on commercials and in the streets. Not many people care about that type of stuff here, or i haven't seen one person sneered or put that stuff down. And from the other european cities i've been to so far, dont differ much from italy in their censorship as far as i know. I dont understand what, seeing a lil buttocks or a lil cleavage, could possibly do to the public.
In America, it doesn't do ANYTHING...

...as long as it's WHITE...

Ask yourself this...what made MORE of a conniption when it came out...Janet Jackson's tackily faux-nipple pierced, UNerotic bared boob...or Madonna and Britney giving each other a totally staged tongue bath?

I guess simulated White lesbianism is a lot better to swallow than the exposed sexuality of a minority...whenever "they" are in control of our sexuality then it ceases to be an issue! Then again, that KIND of lesbianism doesn't threaten the men in control!

Try imagining a show like "Sex in the City" with an ALL NON-White female cast of any other race taking off like it did. Just doesn't quite mix right for some reason, does it? Nothing against how fun the show is for what it is and all's good in the end...but c'mon...if any one of us "minorities" did the exact same thing, it'd be a "problem" instead of a "phenomenon."

Hiroshi2
02-06-2005, 10:26 AM
Try imagining a show like "Sex in the City" with an ALL NON-White female cast of any other race taking off like it did. Just doesn't quite mix right for some reason, does it? Nothing against how fun the show is for what it is and all's good in the end...but c'mon...if any one of us "minorities" did the exact same thing, it'd be a "problem" instead of a "phenomenon."


It'd be seen as "strange" or "frighetening" more than anything else. It's scary to see all those big black women fucking every dude in town, and actually appearing intelligent. It's strange to see asian women on TV who actually think and act just like us, I mean don't they eat dogs and cats and shit?

YuheiCarreau
02-06-2005, 01:01 PM
Try imagining a show like "Sex in the City" with an ALL NON-White female cast of any other race taking off like it did. Just doesn't quite mix right for some reason, does it? Nothing against how fun the show is for what it is and all's good in the end...but c'mon...if any one of us "minorities" did the exact same thing, it'd be a "problem" instead of a "phenomenon."

It was a movie. Called WAITING TO EXHALE. And then there was HOW STELLA GOT HER GROOVE BACK.

Irezumi Kiss
02-06-2005, 01:29 PM
It was a movie. Called WAITING TO EXHALE. And then there was HOW STELLA GOT HER GROOVE BACK.
Allll-most similar in the four-woman structure and friendship bonding nature of the characters, but "Exhale" didn't have the direct sexual focus that SITC had. It was also a bit skewed from the book it came from. "City" was a whole different kettle of fish from concept to starting out at the gate.

Despite Exhale's success at the box office, "Stella" was about one woman and didnt' stick nearly half as well when it came out.

Shogun Empress
02-08-2005, 12:57 AM
As C. S. Lewis wrote:That's my man's and them.


Morality is virtue. If you think its wrong, don't do it.