Sexuality is not discussed or examined in an objective way because of political / intellectual prejudices. The only way is to wipe away all politics, stereotypes, and whatever pre-concieved 'patterns' and start from scratch.
Objective means you can demonstrate (and very important, have looked it up instead of assuming) the ideas. Here is an example.
Greco-Roman culture is the basis of our (Western) culture. If this concept sounds totally alien or nonsense, then I guess me explaining the idea in one paragraph won't change much of a point of view. You say something like "never in recorded history has homosexuality been accepted etc" I say it has been accepted, long ago, before judeo-christian values were drilled ad nauseam into the brains of people in the West. If you take some time to read some history of other cultures (ancien specially) you'll see that homosexuality was not an aberration in many cultures.
The writer here is happy to declare that ancient greek homosexuality was very much accepted. In order to have an objective discussion, this declaration must be shown to exist in reality. No url or literature or anything was assigned to the idea... it was just stated.
If one looks in the homosexuality issue with ancient greece, one must consider the medical practices, the philosophy, the literature, and, ultimately, athenian law.
All we hear is Plato talking of male to male love in the Symposium and young male nude statues. But we find out that the young male nude statues are seen as perfect sexuality because they are male (in the shape of a man) and also feminine (they have the innocent feminine on them) Plato's Xenephon ends up banning homosexuality as an offense to the laws of hubris (but to be fair, he bans many things as well).
In Aristophanes plays, the homosexual characters corrupt systems with their bottomless appetites. In the plays of Euripides, such as Chryssipus, where Laius, Pedipus's father, rapes Peolps and starts a chain reaction of erotic disorder that culminates in incest, parricide, and the blight of crops and hers.
The infamous Aristotle calls homosexuality unnatural either to disorder or to 'abnormal' habits.
In Athenian law, the homosexual act was found to be so severe that the correction demanded death.
Whether or not homosexuality flourished is one thing, but we can accurately say that it certainly wasn't celebrated in the ancient Greek era. It was true that gay sex was seen as an innovation to nature, whose purpose was to keep women virgins (this was also adopted in 14th century Italy). But, oddly, this use of homosexual sex was to keep women pure for later marriage.
To have opinions flinging back and forth is nothing but a snake devouring its tail. This is why we need more research, rather than less, and no more political prejudices.
Here is another one:
When Rome falls, the Dark Ages followed, where with the passage of time the Catholic Church took over and imposed its judeo-christian views on people. That trend has been basically been kept until relatively in History recently that many of its notions began to be questioned.
When Europe was in the Dark Age, the light of civilization shined in the Islamic World, otherwise known as the Saracen Civilization. (Ancient texts were translated to arabic and then translated back to latin when the renaissance started).
The Islamic teaching on sexuality at the time was very much identical to Christianity.
Anyone who thinks the western religions are 'strict' sexually (such as Christian, Islam, Jewish, etc.) and are looking for freedom in eastern religions are going to be shocked. Eastern religion, which has little to no ties to the western religions, is almost
identical with the ideas of sexual conduct.
Even Tibet culture, one of the most ancient in the world, is identical to Catholicism. The Pope and the Dalai Lama are best friends. They even hang out together.
To say that the Catholic Church imposed something (that was common and widespread throughout the rest of the world) is misplaced. Whatever one thinks about Catholicism, one
cannot say that its teachings on sexual conduct are unique as they are shared by almost all the other religions and several philosophies as well.
This information is easily researched. Why don't people do it? It is because they are subscribing to a political or philosophical idea before they enter the Discussion Hall. Since they are already subscribing to the idea, there is no need to look it up.
Religion has quite a lot to say about sexuality. No one knows because very few bother to actually look up what their ancient text says. Catholicism, for example, goes into quite a lot of detail and explains why it stands the way it does. Whether or not you agree or disagree with it is not relevant, what is relevant is that you have looked up what the teachings are before a conclusion is made.
-------------------------
PRL, there are problems with the idea of 'duality that creates life' platform of sexuality.
Most of Nature doesn't reproduce in any duality form. The Animal Kingdom does but even then sexuality isn't based on gender, gender is based on sexuality. Hyenas have a higher tesosterone level so the females run the show while the males pick up the pieces.
The other kingdoms of Nature possess no duality as
parthogenesis is considered the norm of Nature (such as with many plants).
It might be said, "But Pook! We are talking about animals and not
asexuality." But asexuality is very much sexuality.
A fascinating question: do humans contain a form of asexual reproduction? Could this be an explanation of Sexual Transmutation? After all, great art, literature, music, science, all has its root in sexual transmutation.
But your definition has no explanation for transmutation, parthogenesis, and several of the other odd 'wonders' (why is it when males obtain the best of female elements, they become the most attractive, and vice versa for women?).
The male may gravitate more towards the scientific (mathematical and engineering) field of work because his aggressive nature gives him the drive to focus and study a problem in complete solitude and is in less need to be sociable with others, and it gives him the resolve to stay the course until the task is completed.
But the poet, writer, general, and priest require more solitary time. Which leads to...
Many scientist and inventors have this mindset. Men not only have a drive to study the sciences but also to put this newfound knowledge to work. We are Carpenters and Masons, Plumbers and electricians. Men manipulate and orchestrate the financial world, which in turn determines our physical comfort and whether we live in want or live in rich sustenance. We are warriors. Man is a thinker and a builder of worlds, and a destroyer of life!
This I consider to be the most interesting thing you said. Man very much does create worlds. It is
natural for him to do this. But how does this factor into any duality?
Otto Weineger came to a different conclusion. He said (and I still cannot disprove his ideas) that women are 100% sexuality (which means their purpose in the universe to create unions first for themselves and then, once achieving union with themselves, set up unions in other people) [which is why I call them Nature's Emissaries, which annoys some people]. Man, however, is only partly sexual depending on if he chooses to.
To Weineger, women cannot be taught sexuality as that is what they ARE. Men, however, must learn to embrace their sexuality if they are ever to get into unions with women. Nice Guys are often
non-sexualized. Cool Guys are often
sexualized. Whereas Great Men are
hyper-sexualized.
To Weineger, the placement of the organs depends a lot. Women have their sexual organs inside them, thus they are
controlled by it. Since it is inside them, any part of their body can become eroticized. And since they cannot see the organs, their body is always a mystery to them.
Contrast this to the male whose sexual organs are outside of his body. To the male, sexuality is seen as foreign. So when the male is around a woman he likes, he becomes frustrated, shocked that these feelings are invading his body. The woman, as can easily be witnessed, becomes
animated and increasingly so as her attraction increases.
Rather than saying Sexuality Creates Life, shouldn't it be, Life Creates Sexuality?
