Violence Against Women - More on Causation Rape and Affects

This was an attempt to clarify some points - useful thinking.

I never knew you were a “Plato Guy / Bloke”, fact is tricky here due to the evolution in thought and the “mash up” that is modern perception – whatever happened, history is only as useful as the future it makes – we are both agreed on what the future should be.

The semantics related to the term “platonic” in contemporary context I believe supports my use of the term to communicate non-sexual association. It may be the case that Plato argued in defense of women’s equality, there is a degree of linearity in “platonic” relations and stoicism, in so much as one manages the relations – what is relevant is the contemporary expression of “celibacy” and it being held as a “value”; if you’re advocating for Plato as a feminist, I’ll let history speak. Celibacy exercised as a life choice is a “platonic” value, humans are innately “a” platonic, and our default state is to engage in sexual relations. The fact that religious organizations hold celibacy as a value, puts us at odds with our “innate” state of being and has in it inherent conflict. Christian doctrines tend to hold a negative bias toward women in the management of sexual relations, that is to say, women are given the responsibility of virtuosity to a greater extent than men – this is certainly true tacitly in society – the double standard that exists which to a degree gives men a tacit pat on the back at sexual conquest and has the same action by women garners an unfavourable social outcome. THIS IS WRONG TO BE CLEAR. While I appreciate your knowledge, what is relevant is how the complex of contributing factors – contemporary culture and the memes that have travelled to us out of past western teaching land on the minds of people to an actuate proper treatment of women or not – presently women are the recipients of a disturbing degree of sexual violence.      

“Self - Control” as delivered by Stoicism is of course a good thing, the challenge with “self-control” and Stoicism is that many people, in an effort to exercise Self-control of emotion often end up suppressing emotion – Stoicism practiced “healthfully” permits the choice to access emotion or to leave it, but emotion is present. To some extent “stoicism” is more actively expressed in the male population – women often describe men as “emotionally unavailable” – it maybe that the attempt to detach one’s self from overriding attachment effects a degree of conflict in relations with women. It has been my observation that when natural and healthy inclinations are suppressed – ugliness and violence ensue. Violence first in the suppressing in many cases and violence in circumventing the suppression and violence again in the punishing of the for the second.

God is a divine – humans’ response to God is a human construct – this is evidenced by the multitude accepting there is a God, and yet having many different ways of attending to metaphysical contemplation. I am saying, violence is a part of the human condition, as you point out, dominance is an inclination of humans – male and female. The inclination to violence as a means to dominate is primal, perhaps archetypical; it resides in us individually and tribally – the realities of manliness & womanliness historically permitted male dominance – no man has ever been barefoot and pregnant.  England is a country founded on religion generally, yet it holds dear stoic values – stiff upper lip – in the US the Abrahamic adherents have found much common cause, the channel has been stoicism’s primary carrier. Jesus was a tender, gentle, tolerant – beautiful – entity, as you point out his actions on earth sullied no one – yet the institutions that have emerged in his name have – at the confluence of social reality and narrative marginalized and sullied female sexuality to an even greater degree than sexual relations generally.       

I take your point with respect to physical harm; it is my assertion that the greatest affect is mental - more so spiritually. I think much of the “frat boy” or “date rape” hinges on attraction. It may be the case there are numbers to support attraction is a smaller player than I assert. This in no way negates the capacity for women to manage risk – where you are, how you conduct yourself, who you associate with, where you place your faith – all play a role in self-protection. It is the total assault on one’s being, regardless of physical pain, it is the breach all things sacred, defenselessness – the failure of structure to effect safety – the illusion of order is attacked. It would be my assertion to say mental trauma occurs, and that physical trauma only serves to contribute to it.

It is clearly the responsibility of parents to firstly council against sexually violent material and secondly, to curb viewing via electronic media. There should be no coercive elements permitted to play on the inclinations of young women, in a healthy setting there is a forum to discuss these influences. As you say “make it essential for her to unequivocally say yes”.  

Progressing Personal Liberty - A case for moral relativism

Progressing Personal Liberty - A case for moral relativism 

In the acceptance or creation of a moray, one needs to begin contemplation with the presence or absence of harm and or the presence or absence of goodly outcome.

Morality finds our minds mostly as memes from our parents, and cultural influences as are extracted from the Metanarrative in which our development is steeped. The innate human morality that exists, such as the almost universally recognized morality of reciprocity (or as it is found in the Christian world – the golden rule), is augmented by the aforementioned. There is a tendency for many to grip morality in an unconscious manner, given the nature of its introduction to our beings, morality is absent of a rationale, it just is. Yet morals come to us both tacitly and explicitly, sometimes in accord and sometimes in discord with each other. Often the Meta-Christian narrative ascribes moral conduct that challenges fundamental human inclination. It is from these realities that much inner and outer conflict occurs under the influence of morality, often effecting “moral action” that results in pain. It is this paradox where morals intended to manage human behaviour for good can distort human action with the most inhuman results. The ability to discern morality is innate and "god" given, it is in this context humanity must take the liberty to examine its conduct in the context of morality and revise morality under an umbrella of more complete knowledge. The best place to begin to consider morality is to ask, "does this belief and my application of it, result in good outcomes or in pain for others". Strict and fervent adherence to unclear and tacitly transmitted moral structure is the source of outright evil. There have been actual cases of mothers outcasting their own daughters as the result of the daughter’s unwanted pregnancy. What could cause such behaviour, the meeting of a child’s error with absolute immoral neglect? Extreme travesties happen as societal pressure contorts the human psyche to the point where the moral code promotes inhumane action.

As many such moral precepts transfer as memes from one generation to another and where little thought is given to their origin or purpose, contemplation is required to ensure good action. Morality when considered in the context of rational purpose and good outcome takes on a healthier character. Much biblical morality comes to us in this fashion from our parents and or the Metanarrative of society at large. Biblical morality was committed to paper thousands of years ago when the mastery of biology and other related science was undiscovered. People learned from life experience that sexuality out of wedlock caused social strife; exposure to illness and caused conflict. What is necessary for Christianity to keep pace with an informed society is the recognition that knowledge and technology have offered the neutralization of threats that precipitated the necessity for the moray in the first place. In the absence of a rational basis for the assertion of a given moray, people begin to challenge the validity of that moray and more damaging, they then begin to challenge the morays carrying contemporary pertinence. It is a better circumstance to allow the examination of morays in the context of good outcomes and contemporary knowledge and provide latitude on morays that can safely be allowed to pass from the collective consciousness.              

When one sets about the task of rationally examining the collection of morals that determine our life actions, it becomes a cumbersome task, as they reside so deeply in our psyche and morph with every life exposure, the multitude, variability and transient nature of morals make them almost impossible to list and make explicit. A young boy is schooled by his mother to extend kindness to others and yet is later in life asked to find a moral reprieve from acts of war. So, even a moral tenet in Christ’s teachings as fundamental as respecting the life of another finds societal circumstances justifying its psychological circumvention. Was St. Augustine’s just war theory an act of moral relativism, or a practical moral adjustment, to what is at its roots, a passive theology? 

The precedent for the adjustment of morality in the light of circumstance is hardly new, only now it has a new handle, moral relativism. Moral relativism is merely a means to rationalize moral conduct to new knowledge or circumstance. A Moral action, is an action that is absent harm and promotes good, and good is like the beauty of the sun’s rays across the rolling countryside in the early morning, you'll know it when you see it. Goodness resides innately in humans and evil arises from circumstances. Morals are a code to promote circumstance absent evil and an environment where good can flourish.    

The Tale of TWO Christianities and the path forward for Female Liberation & Liberation Generally

Christ lived 2015 years ago, yet we allow our impression of his life to be formed by a committee of men in Rome 400 years after he died. Perhaps there is merit, now, in an enlightened world to reconsider some prior impressions and interpretations of Christ’s life. Perhaps by being willing to see that others have contemplated his life through a different lens, we can begin to contemplate his message through the lens of modernity, perhaps we then can develop a Christianity that is relevant to our times and offers flexibility on our path forward; rather than has so often been the case, where religion has foiled or obstructed human progress.  

Origen of Alexandria converted to Christianity around 200 AD. I read a description of his interpretation of God. It has it, that God is a concentration of spirit from which souls emanate, one might imagine a wellspring of human spirit genitally bubbling, and each bubble is a human soul and seeks to unite with a human being. This entity that is god exists in perfection and binds the entire universe on a foundation of perfection. Upon death, the soul then reunites with the perfection of God and becomes one with the universe.

There is a refreshing absence of threat in this view. It is consistent with the cyclical nature of other phenomena in the natural world that are readily observable. There is the presence here of a harmonious acceptance of my humanity and the absence of contorting doctrines; there is only the unobstructed union with perfection. I can imagine a beautiful child coming into being and being touched by perfection. The child, as its life develops will then be exposed to the rigours of existence and upon death be returned to perfection, having lived a life absent the fear of the all mighty and only with love to look forward to. This view finds accord with Jesus as was exemplified by his good works on earth and his innate tolerance and peacefulness.

This view stands in startling contrast to the doctrine of original sin, which has an innocent child labelled a sinner on the assertion that human inclination, the inclination that emanates from divine origins is wrong. Augustine was seriously challenged as a human being and tormented by his own sexuality. Of course, he would ascribe ugliness where beauty lives. When I see a child, I see the beauty and the opportunity for good things to come. Augustine projected his own angst around human sexuality and turned a beautiful exchange between a man and woman into sin. His legacy pervades Christendom’s psyche to this very day, distorting human conduct through the negative conditioning that finds expression in many of the formal Christian institutions, the sin lies in placing evil on a creation of a perfect god and inserting guilt where joy should be. One of the most unfortunate events in the journey of Christianity was the credence given to a sick man. 

I would be concerned about levelling this complaint against original sin, save that many in the two institutions that have to manage its legacy share this view. Distorting doctrine is in no way peculiar to original sin or Christianity – it is merely the subject matter I am familiar with, the general sternness by which religion, in general, has dealt natural human inclination is resulting in much pain and distortion. 

      

With Origen’s Christianity, liberation lives, as a person, you're connected to perfection, always present and always accessible. So rather than quaking in fear at a patriarch hijacked by a human being for concern of power, you're in direct connection with the supreme being and able to live life liberated from anthropogenic influence, with the full knowledge that perfection will be the net result of your existence.

 

In the 400 AD version of events, there has been gross infidelity in the delivery of Christ’s message, as it has been anthropomorphized with his message sullied first and second as his message has been hijacked by political concern. One is hopeful now that in the ambit of the hard-won advancements that the enlightenment has given us, we can bring free and open minds to the task of theological contemplations. I dare say unless the people of Christendom do, the absence of contemporary support due to the absence of relevant doctrine in the modern context will leave Christendom to erode against its own intransigence until it fades to inconsequence; as it has done in much of the “enlightened” world - this would be a loss to us all.