|
It has become more acutely obvious in the past 35 years that one of the major splits between conservatives and liberals is whether violence or sex is worse. Conservatives tend to believe that sex is bad, that people need to abstain from freely engaging in it, that those who are not heterosexual are simply perverts, that no one really should be enjoying it and having sex only to procreate. Conservatives hope for a day when sex is limited to only married, heterosexual couples for the most part, and only when the man initiates it.
Liberals believe that violence is the worst thing in our world. That killing others is the worst sin possible, that our culture glorifies violence in ways that infiltrate our children at a very young age, and that using toys such as guns and other weapons are wrong. Liberals hope for a day when violence is no longer necessary, and that children are able to enjoy toys and activities which stress imagination, production and innovation, not war and not killing.
Of course there is a lot of grey area in between these two, very extreme points of view, and I personally don't know where the midline should be.
Do we have a moderate believing that some war is justified, if it's in defense of one's country, and that sexual activity is a normal function in the day to day world, whether it's a couple of mixed gender, or one of the same gender?
Personally, I have come to believe that sex is unjustly looked at as a deviant behavior in any form. Sex is part of life, completely and totally. It can be a symbol of joy and happiness, and it can be a freeing experience. Anything associated with it is fine as long as no one gets hurt, and that the behavior is done with consenting adults.
I also believe that, unfortunately, violence is also going to be with us for many years to come. Globally, violence is a means to an end, and while many of us do not condone it, it is inbred in our species from millennia of the survival of the fittest. We are still animals in that regard, and while many of us would like to rise about that label, it is very difficult to do so when there is just too much evidence that it is part of our very being.
It has been noted that some very isolated cultures were violence free (or outward appearances showed that violence was not a major part of a culture) until the Europeans showed up. This might be true to some extent, but what one culture accepts as normal might be an aberration to another. The ancient races in the Americas are a good example: they were badly influenced by the Spanish and by their use of violence, but these natives were also prone to throwing a virginal maiden or boy into the volcano to keep their gods happy.
It is the oldest races on our planet who give greater credence to the axiom that life is so precious, and that the death of one affects many. In such religions as Buddhism and even Hinduism, even the life of an insect is precious. (I would never go that far!) Since many of the Asian cultures have had a working civilization for a lot longer than most of Europe, for example, do we look at their evolution as slightly further along that evolutionary path, and begin to see the wisdom in their thoughts?
What do you think?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
