Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    30
  • comments
    126
  • views
    1,872

Steven Hawking's secret prayer tips turn frigid wives into swingers

Sign in to follow this  
socolais

2,224 views

The human brain is a glorious collection of neurons that mostly respond to various signals from our well known senses and it performs a few other trivial tasks as well (like keep us alive). Our brain is our most powerful sex organ - an impressive bonus for humanity. The complex features of our brain drive us toward our instinctive behaviors and interestingly, allow us the capability to consciously override instinctive programming. Our invention of morality rules is a product of our ability to understand abstraction and consider long-term goals for humanity at large.

 

The function of morality is to replace some instinctive behaviors with alternative behaviors designed to foster the general advancement of a polite and civilized society. Broadly speaking, our instincts establish a higher priority for self preservation than species preservation while morality rules serve to reverse that priority or at least, benefit deserving individuals with a bias in favor of promoting rewards for the community. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Morality rules also tend to protect weaker individuals from undesirable selfish impulses of the stronger.

 

Invariably, all known human civilizations enforce morality rules regarding sexual behavior. I think it's quite ironic that some societies are more understanding and lenient toward "cheaters" than swingers. Other societies execute both groups. I think the prevailing logic is that cheaters fail to live up to morality they acknowledge as proper (simply a pitiful character flaw), while swingers blatantly reject the sexual exclusivity rules as false morality. Most early societies used the death penalty as a deterrent against sexual immorality - clearly, it was less than completely effective.

 

Societies generally derive their morality rules from the collective of ancient wisdom and get reinforced or refined over time. Let's explore the history of the sexual exclusivity rule to illuminate its social value. If we're going to discount the validity of a long-standing rule, we must shoulder the responsibility of rationalizing the improved social value or continue to covertly practice our deviancy in the shallow hopes of avoiding detection and punishment (certainly not the moral high ground).

 

At first glance, historical artifacts provide few universally accepted answers. Several branches of modern scientific study are actively involved with reconstructing historical truths and resolving the hows and whys of early human social development. Civilizations pillaged and destroyed historical artifacts when they conquered each other and the Roman Catholic Church played a big role in the destruction and creative replacement of information contrary to its doctrines.

 

I think the rise in political power of the early Catholic Church is a significant milestone in the broad enforcement of the marital sexual exclusivity component of morality rules. Around the mid first century A.D. The Catholic leadership fully embraced the concept of sexual asceticism based on principles of natural law. It took several hundred years of political pressure to affect these radical changes. The church changed the meaning of certain words to make their ancient documents appear to support their new objectives. Voluntary celibacy was held in the highest regard and men who had insufficiently strong character were limited to one wife at a time. Sex outside of marriage earned the death penalty and it was strongly limited within marriage to procreation attempts. Proponents of the new sexual morality included: Apostle Paul, Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine - indisputably wise men. None of the sources of this new morality listed valid logical reasons for the superiority of their prescription for the new social order. Every one of their weak reasons (remote extensions of natural law) were completely rejected by subsequent scientific observation. The few logical reasons remaining is that sexual asceticism promotes strength of character in individual citizens, or perhaps the allure of sexual freedoms would be too rich of an opportunity for the strong to unduly manipulate the weak.

 

Whatever the original reasons behind the morality rules were, the new question becomes, "What are the current reasons to admonish swinging?" We have the advantage of observing a century and a half of the old rules in practice. Do the rules need to be adjusted? Or perhaps, once we come to the personal understanding that those rules don't apply to certain situations, then we're ready to accept the responsibilities of moral non-monogamy.

 

Our swinger's license gets validated by every swinger that chooses to interact with us. We recognize each other by the respect we show in our behaviors. We don't need a secret handshake or decoder ring. Swinging is a fun reminder that I got lucky as hell when I picked my wife as the person to spend my life with. And that,,, is unimpeachable morality.

 

**************************

I read back over this blog entry and I realize this is only a skeleton of a story and my biases are clearly exposed. For the sake of brevity, I must assume the readers have a background knowledge of world history to fill in the supporting details and follow the logic of my outline. I began my study of the history of this morality rule because I needed to make a personal decision about the morality of my participation in this hobby. I read translations of ancient manuscripts, and narratives of historical findings. I happen to know a little Greek from my military travels, so that came in handy. I made my decision from a position of knowledge and with confidence from first hand experience. I still struggle with applying this morality to the larger population.

 

**************************

Apologies to Steven Hawking, I just thought that would make a catchy headline. I guess I owe him props on his new theory and book although I remain unconvinced his theory discounts the existence and interaction of God. I haven't read the book, I'm afraid it would require way too much effort to digest. I do believe if Steven were-able bodied, there's a non-zero probability he would be a swinger.

Sign in to follow this  


8 Comments


Recommended Comments

Eh. I think Paul is accepted by modern scholarship to have been the author of 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 7, he wrote "29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away." The time was short, and a focus on passion was nothing better than a distraction from the end game. This was his stated reason for embracing asceticism, but as would become apparent over time, an incorrect presumption. The world has continued "in its present form" for 2,000 years+ (though I suppose some would argue the burning of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. marked the "end of the age"). I have not studied Jerome or Augustine enough to know their reasons.

 

Biblical rules regarding sexuality and most everything else are rules I had to assess and come to some conclusion about many years ago. One of my personal beliefs is that sex, in and of itself, is a neutral concept, and it is the circumstances attached to sex that deem it morally acceptable or unacceptable.

 

Shades of gray... the world functions in shades of gray. To everything we must put thought. Paul once said, when addressing the "rules" of one who walks in "grace," in some scripture I am too lazy to google at the moment: "All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." Even Paul recognized the difficulty of the absolute position in its practical application to everyday life.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yes, I agree, Paul expected the rapture to occur any second now, perhaps even before his epistle would arrive in Corinth. That belief would surely affect his priorities - don't waste time on pleasurable activities, there'll be plenty of time in heaven. I think Paul's words significantly contributed to the Christian ascetic doctrine. The Catholic Church didn't embrace sexual asceticism until about 500 A.D. By then, everyone knew Paul's expected time-line was a bit skewed.

 

St. Augustine is an interesting character. Before his conversion, he was a very successful playboy. He had to leave Europe to get away from his reputation. Gigolo money financed his monastery in Africa.

 

As you say, true morality is in the circumstances.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I offer this thought that Paul's religious experience changed EVERYTHING. He was struck by lightning and consequently sensed a presence. Might have been something similar to what is described here:

 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

 

His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. Simplified considerably, the idea goes like so: When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."

 

Had Paul not had his flash of inspiration and had not been such a charismatic leader, Jesus might well have been forgotten by history. Alternatively, had Jesus' memory endured, priests, at least, would have been allowed to marry and the rest of history would certainly have been different.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Agreed that Paul is the reason for the successful spread of the church. He was a fascinating personality to grasp. Your comment about the memory of Jesus reminds me strongly... Have you seen The Last Temptation of Christ? There is a scene in which Paul meets the not so dead Jesus and says to him, "You know, I'm glad I met you. Because now I can forget all about you. My Jesus is much more important and much more powerful."

 

Rambling now, but in case you've never seen it (and just to bring the topic back to sex), Last Temptation has one of the most erotic soundtracks I've ever heard;-)

Share this comment


Link to comment

Looked it up; Martin Scorsese? How ever did I miss this one. Will have to see it as well as experience the erotic soundtrack.

 

Back to Steven Hawkings, correct, swingers don't need a secret handshake or decoder rings. Destroying cliff-side images of Buddhas -- that's immoral. Building satisfying relationships, whether with swingers, baseball fans, pen pals, or members of virtual communities -- these are innocuous expressions of human nature.

Share this comment


Link to comment
The Last Temptation of Christ
We watched the movie on Netflix. Wow! This version of the story is about as likely as any other. I does contain a very masculine fantasy -- using your masculine charm and charisma to convert a prostitute into a respectable woman. No wonder is was so easy for Satan to tempt Jesus into this. But I feel satisfied that He did the right thing in the end -- most men would, I believe. That is, to say, most men would stand on principle. I am proud to say that Jesus was a man, although God, his father, might just as well been his Heavenly Mother, a female.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The film may have been deemed sacrilegious by some, but it really affirmed the humanity of Christ, at least to me... as much as any fictional tale can:) Funny how that happens. I'll never forget hearing someone say that the gospel of John, while being entirely fictional, was probably the most "spiritually true."

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts:)

Share this comment


Link to comment

Have you considered that Paul , being struck by lightning, is a metaphor for being touched by the hand of God ?

 

I find that most dogma is simply theology that is back engineered. The premise of the immaculate conception of Mary was because the question was asked, how could the mother, the vessel, of Christ contain sin ? The idea is nowhere in the bible as with most dogma.

 

You should try and read Stephen's book, it's easier than you think.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...