originally posted by Hunter
I'm not sure I'd be as kind as Derek as they seem a very rose coloured view but everyone is entitled to their opinions. Interesting you mention your children will be *told* all about sex rather than giving them all relevant information and allowing them to reach their own conclusions?
I guess it's good you weren't at woodstock where it was said it was easier to have sex than get breakfast.
Apparently dolphins, like humans, are animals for who enjoy sex for enjoyment not just for procreation, breeding and the continuation of the species.
I wonder if, should Arithon and Elaira had consummated their relationship in the grove given the heightened lane flux and potential impact of power released on Athera, whether the Arithon would have asked - "did the earth move for you?" (bad I know…)
originally posted by Clansman
Hunter, I think you are reading a bit much into my comment about "telling" my children about sex. Perhaps I should have used the words "fully inform", i.e. I will tell them everything about sex, from its basic biological mechanisms to its abuses, to sexual orientation, to pregnancy, to birth control, what I believe about how sex should be experienced and why, in an open and honest way. I will use reliable, scientific materials to educate them. I will encourage questions, so that sex is not some taboo topic that is not spoken of and as a result, my children go elsewhere and get information from less-than-reliable sources (i.e. their friends, the internet, and MTV).
This way, I encourage an open and honest relationship with my children and demonstrate that I am worthy of their trust (even when they become teenagers, I hope).
Right now, my children are 3 and 7, and not capable of making conclusions about sex. Eventually, they will make their own conclusions, based on all of the facts. I think that is the point of teaching them honestly and openly. I think that teaching them to fall in love with someone's head and heart before falling into bad with them will let them lead happier, more filfulling lives.
Incidentally, I came to my views about sex long before becoming a Christian, when I was still firmly agnostic. My family background is secular agnostic humanism, with a healthy dose of liberalism. My Christian faith only confirmed beliefs about sex that I already held, as personal choices. My liberalism and my Christian faith does not allow me to impose my view on others, merely to present it and argue it (as I am 
). Please don't confuse my profession of faith with that of the so-called Christian Right. Much of what they do and profess I find very un-Christian and hypocritical, and evil, and is a slander to my faith.
RE: Woodstock. I would have loved it! I was only two, but I love music, so Woodstock would have been my thing. I don't care about other people having sex. I do care about the cavalier attitude that society encourages about sex that causes the pain and difficulty that people do not consider before succumbing to the myth of the greener grass (more than once I have thrown up my hands and silently shouted "why didn't you just tie a knot in it, you idiot!" when hearing, yet again, of a client's pain due to his or her indiscretions). I do care about the abuse of sex by pornographers, pimps, and the like. It would be trite to say more on that latter point.
RE: Dolphins and sex. The bonobos (sp?), chimp-like primates that live in small numbers in the eastern Congo, use sex for enjoyment and consolation. For instance, if one gets a minor injury, then another has sex with it. They do it several times a day, and indiscriminately with both sexes. Active little fellows.
originally posted by Clansman
Sorry, I meant "bed", not "bad" in my last post, and no, it was not a Freudian slip.
Hey Trys, how about an edit function for posts for cases like these? Is that possible?
originally posted by Trys
Clansman,
A Jungian slip? <grin>
I can edit the post if you want. You can edit any post for up to 5 minutes after you post it. That number can be changed but it is always in minutes. There is no infinity setting for this option.
Trys
originally posted by Clansman
DOH!
Until now, I have failed to notice the little "Edit Post" message beside the posting time…
originally posted by Brittani Pasek
I agree whole heartedly with Clansman. I did not grow up in a Christian environment, I became a Christian in my early teens. As I am still in my early 20's now I can honestly say that the way my mother approached the "sex talk" was way off base for how I will approach it with my future children. My mother actually told me that she did not want me to have sex until I was 16 and that when I decided to have sex to just tell her and she would put me on the pill. I laughed at her and told her that there would be no sex until I was married. After that sex was taboo in our house.
My children will of course be raised in the church and taught the principles of character that are part of my beliefs as a Christian. That being said, as a Christian there is no "conclusion" about sex to come to. The truth is that sex is a beautiful thing when kept in the context that God created it to be in, and outside that context it is abuse and it is wrong. Stay pure of body and mind, fall in love, get married, then have sex. That is a very clear cut line in my opinion.
I disagree completely with children being permitted to come to their own conclusions about sex. I intend that my children will be educated in the joys and dangers of sex so that they don't need to figure it out on their own. Im the parent its my job to inform my children of experiences in life that they are not yet ready to experience themselves. Sex is clear cut and not open to a conclusion seeking thought process.
Janny does a fantastic job of illustrating the proper use of sex. I believe in Perils Gate it discusses Arithon having to go sit in a brothel for an evening to learn why casual sex is a bad thing. I personally liked that particular illustration. There were many times that I was completely dumbstruck by the horrifying violence that this series as produced and that one moment of interrupted prviacy did not hold a candle to the many scenes of violence.
originally posted by Hunter
Ok… so in all this spiritualizing of an act of nature ( I wonder how the 10,000 BC Neanderthals knew whether what they were doing was right or not given God hadn't been invented at that stage), where does this then put Arithon's mountainside dalliances with Dalwyn that were in reality Elaira's face on another's body? Arithon assuaged his need with Dalwyn, how is this different to the many mentions of Dakar's sojourns into the houses of paid delights? And why aren't people clamouring for Dakar's blood to ensure he burns the nethermost pits of hell for his transgressions?
Or, perhaps, the "loving" that Lysaer gave Ellaine which was within the supposed blessed sanctity of a Westlands marriage?
originally posted by Brittani
I don't know think that if Arithon had a "dalliance" with Dalwyn that it would be any different at all then Dakar paying to sleep with woman. As a Christian I don't clamour for anyones blood and would hate to see anyone burn in the nethermost pist of hell. One character flaw does not make a person a horrible person. Dakar has done a lot of good too.
And Lysaers treatment of Ellaine was horrible, who cares if they were married, it was just awfull. And I would call the treatment of another human in such a manner sinnful.
And how were the Neanderthals supposed to invent God when God invented them?..
Procreation is an act of nature but I think sex can be considered something else. For example it is often called making love. Making love is not an act of nature.
originally posted by Derek Coventry
Pause for vision of large mythical being sculpting cavemen from large bowl of clay…
I quite understand Dakar's dalliances, sex is a biological urge that does not require it's participants to be in love.
"Making love"! silly phrase isn't it. Love is not something that can be made; it has to be experienced.
I once brought up the subject of sex education with my son when he was younger and he grinned and said "What do you want to know?". I think I said something similar to my dad long ago.
originally posted by Clansman
I think my main point was that sex is much better (a more fulfilling and intense experience) in the context of a loving and committed relationship. The one-night stand can never compare, and certainly resorting to paid sex is just plain pathetic, besides being criminal and exploitative.
I disagree with Brittani on the point of Arithon's dalliance and Dakar's complete lack of any sexual conscience. I still love both characters, despite their flaws and mistakes. Dakar's activity, however, is exploitative, whereas Arithon's was not. The Peril's Gate reference in Britanni's previous post was an excellent example. Although all sin is created equal, the consequences of it vary widely, and Dakar will be sure to bear his consequences, and in fact, appears to be already doing so.
You can behave like a barnyard animal if you want, but the price to be paid for that is that you often end up being a barnyard animal. I might have liked Dakar, but I only started to respect him in the last couple of books.
Oh, and sin does not send one to hell according to Christian theology. If it did, there would be no point in being a Christian, because all of the Christians commit sins every day. Every one of us. It is the lack of a relationship with Jesus Christ, according to my faith, that results in eternal separation from God, because Jesus bridges the gap created by sin.
Though we will continue to disagree it is fun to parry and thrust on this stuff. Makes me think, and keeps me sharp, and actually reinforces the reasons I chose to become a Christian as a mature adult.
originally posted by Hunter
Arithon had a mutual dalliance with Dalwyn - fact (in the WoLaS world), not conjecture. One wonders what that did for his aura. Thankfully he was not in Rathain or parked on an activated flux line at the time.
That Lysaer is married to Ellaine is critically importantly - the ceremony, sanctity and blessing purportedly conveyed on the couple to live in mutual bliss for ever anon and therefore participate in loving, consensual relations was what both Ellaine and Lysaer allegedly whole heartedly agreed to - and many mentions in the above posts have stipulated a view that only with the bounds of this sanctity is such intimacy permissible and acceptable. Fat lot of good it did Ellaine. As a complete contrast, the intimately written scene that prompted this entire thread was, until Kharadmon and Dakar stepped in to forestall disaster, a description of a perfect union of two committed people, properly blessed and in tune with the land around them and having no need whatsover of any blessing or other ceremonial requirement to legitimize or otherwise sanctify their union.
I'm not sure how to respond to the supposition of God creating Neanderthals… the image of the large dollops of clay seems highly amusing. I'll leave aside the dating of this extinct race to many millennia prior to the scriptural starting date of our existence.
originally posted by Clansman
Lysaer's alleged "marriage" to Ellaine was anything but. It is not the ceremony, but the commitment of the heart that makes a marriage. The ceremony, which has tremendous differences across the Christian faith, not to mention other faiths, is simply a public declaration made for the purposes of law and to allow for a family celebration. I would consider Arithon and Elaira to be married, as they are committed to each other exclusively. They are much more "married" than are Lysaer and Ellaine.
I believe that I am correct that in the eyes of God, a marriage can occur when the couple commits to each other for life and exclusively, whether or not a priest/pastor/minister is present. That marriage has been and continues to be abused is not debatable, it is a truism.
I don't believe that I used the word "marriage" in my posts above, for this very reason, as it creates confusion. I used the term "loving and committed relationship", which is what marriage should be. Clearly not all of them are, which is why I did not use the word "marriage".
originally posted by motley
A few responses:
I've always found the possessive phrase 'My God' a little weird.
Dakar uses drinking and sex to supress his prophetic talent, which I keep forgetting, and then will be reminded of as at Alestron. Yes, he could try master it, but then it would not be the character foil to Arithon's learning to face things head on.
I think it's true that Lysaer's marriages were not sanctioned by Ath's brotherhood in both cases?
A general ramble after reading all the viewpoints:
I've observed that institutions tend to sanitise their original figureheads. These characters lives were about going AGAINST common, harmful and restrictive beliefs, and usually to restore balance to a restrictive society. Most were geniuses and rebels who eoncouraged free thought love, BUT NOT DOCTRINE. Anything else is created by founders and social architects of organisations that eventually lead to social control, however good the initial intention. Then further revolution.
So often the discussion about marriage, or not marrying, or sex before or after, etc… is following the conditioning of doctrine, or reacting against it because of (another set of) beliefs in science or post-modernism.
I like that in COTM that the introduction leaves it up to us to determine. There's just no wrong or right. I like that Hunter points out Dalwyn, and that Lysaer REALLY LOVED TALITH, so much that Sulfin is able to use that. You can never finalise a judgement. I end up just seeing the whole continuum and admiring the pattern.
originally posted by Hunter
Clansman - you can't have it both ways, either the ceremony itself requires Church blessing for "legitimacy" in the eyes of the Church or the Church is irrelevant in the whole process. Weddings are held in Churches so believers are married in the presence of their deity - or at the very least those appointed as representatives thereof - to give legitimacy to the union beyond the purposes of earthly law. To deny that this symbolism is critical to marriage means you're opening advocating "living in sin"… cohabitation without the formalized approval of your Church.
originally posted by Brittani
Acutally I was the one that went so far as to say that sex should be in the confines of marriage.
I would like to point out that there really are two very different discussions here.
One involving the sexual relations of WOLAS and another involving the sexual relations of our world.
I believe that in our present world that yes you should actually be married, legally or in a church, before having sex.
WOLAS is not the same because they do not have the same structure of faith as Christians in our world do. I think that in this case we have to look at it with a moral point of view. The way Lysaer treats Ellaine is wrong, Arithon and Elaira's relationship is perfectly fine.
And I am still not convinced that Arithon actually had sexual relations with Dalwyn. I thought it was implied that the two thought about it but that it never actually happened. I will go read it again but I never got the idea that anything beyond comforting conversation ever really took place.
originally posted by Hunter
One of the key points here is that we're all bringing our real world view to the happenings in WoLaS. These conversations are intermingled, not separated. Lysaer's upbringing on Dascen Elur and his Westlands kingdom are certainly far closer to conservative western societies than Arithon's piratical and clan views. In the cases of both Talith and Ellaine, Lysaer observed the proprietaries of marriage first. The societal structure that he lived in required that marriage occur first which is a similar societal structure those in Christian communities.
originally posted by Clansman
I would amend your last comment, Hunter, to say European/Western Christian communities. The Middle-Eastern and African church (particularly in Ethiopia) was quite a bit different. The church in Europe was drastically changed over time by the societal ideas of the invading barbarian tribes, just as much as those tribes were changed by the church. The church has changed so much and is now is so widely varying that no particular description of it can be said to be universally applicable.
I agree that Lysaer would have been particularly hide-bound about marriage in a conservative, catholic sense, as succession to the throne is very closely tied to legal and contractual marriage (bastards don't inherit). Even the birth of children had to be properly witnessed in royal families in Europe to legitimize succession.
I have never been able to find a spot in the Bible that says a priest has to waive his hands and say "you're married". As a result, I do not believe that the church has divine authority to monopolize the sanctioning of marriage. The state, on the other hand, has delegated legal authority to religious institutions. So I don't think that I am "having it both ways". I am merely saying that marriage as a religious institution is not necessary for people to be married.
The common law of the British Commonwealth and the United States supports this view (hence the term "common-law marriage"). In most countries, it is the government that requires some sort of solemnization, whether in front of a religious officer or an officer of the state (a justice of the peace, a mayor, a judge, or a ship's captain).
However, your other point in your last post is well taken. Imposing our real world view, or discussing it in the context of Athera, creates distortion.
I still do not believe that the Church has the monopoly on marriage. There is, even inside the Christian faith, historical and biblical precedent for two adults marrying themselves in the eyes of God (simply saying "you're my wife" and "you're my husband" and "for the rest of our lives" etc. and so on would do it). Witnesses were added later when inheritance and property issues started to arise, and it all became overly legal as marriage became more than a commitment between two people. Also, the state had to get its finger in the pie (and it is still firmly planted there, too!).
After all, the ancients had to give us lawyers something to do to justify our existence:smiley:!
originally posted by Julie
I have enjoyed reading this great discussion- there is so much to comment on! Here are my several 2 cents- I have read only bits and pieces of the Old and New Testaments and never found reference to priests or for that matter God sanctifying the marriages of the main players (Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Esther, Ruth,Mary, Joseph)it seemed they "took to wife", so marrying in the eyes of God seems to have been another contrivance of the mideaval church to control the lives of the people. Modern day people of faith have an obligation to understand where the tenets of "morality" come from.In other words is sex between a married couple forced into that union(i.e. arranged marriage)less of a sin before God than sex between two unmarried people in love? I think a loving and merciful God would not condemn responsible sex within a loving relationship.
As far as educating our young: open, frank discussions, access to real information and birth control including in the schools works much better than abstinence only. I live in the US where the abstinence only sex education has been an absolute disaster. Personally I am prouder of my kids not becomming teenage parents than of what colleges they have attended!
originally posted by Lyssabits
If you think about it, Elliane and Lysaer have a *very* traditional royal marriage. Marriages, until fairly recent history, weren't so much love matches as they were legal contracts between two people for the purpose of joining finances and to establish the paternity of children so they could inherit property in the patriarchal societies where paternity determines your legal rights. Royal marriages, as is clearly the case for Lysaer and Elliane, were to formalize alliances. Almost like hostage taking, you couldn't attack the kingdom your daughter married into without damaging your grandchildren. Lysaer's treatment is pretty reprehensible by modern standards, and by Atheran standards, but not so much in the days when women had no legal standing.
What role does Ath's Brotherhood play in this situation anyways? I've never been clear on that, because they're not an organized religious institute in the way that the Christian Church is. I never got the impression that Ath's Brotherhood on Athera worked the way the Christian faith does with regards to legitimizing relationships. I mean, doesn't that make sense in a way? A relationship is what a relationship is. The Law of the Major Balance shouldn't require public/religious sanction, so I don't think the Brotherhood would play any role other than a symbolic one. Sanctioning Princes is another matter as clearly that process forges some sort of bond between land and man that can't form without an intervention from the Fellowship… but the Fellowship aren't exactly arbiters of Ath's Law, either. They can't do anything to alter the Law of the Major Balance either, they can only act within it's bounds and the whole Sanctioned Kings thing seems to be a sort of… artificial (sort of) construct built within that system. (And by artificial I don't mean forced, I just mean that Athera would get along just fine without the Kings, they're there to help mediate between the foreign humans and the native Paravians. They're necessary as the humans are a sort of unnatural incursion on the normal functioning of the system.) Marriage seems to be mostly a legal contract that tends to go along with feelings but… I mean, you look at the Ships of Merior and Elaira's fear that the fisherman would lose his wife because her parents would nullify the marriage because he lost his livelihood. The grounds on which they would end the marriage were purely practical and completely disregarded the feelings of the two people in the relationship.
originally posted by Sundancer
Whooo! I've been missing out on a doozy of a conversation, the price of not getting the messages emailed to me, but there's no way I'd be able to keep up during the week. I'm really impressed with the people listing here. It's wonderful when people can express such diverse views with respect. So much to comment on!
Marriage was only added as a sacrament in the church some time in the middle ages. I think before then people got married how and when they wished (often on the steps of the church, not inside). I gather some people wanted to make the sacraments up to a nice holy number like seven, so they added a few. Having just finished a very heavy Lenten study I'm really conscious of the difference between faith and institutional religion, and how much the law of the major balance reflects my image of how God has given this world and us free will.
I did love the image of the Neanderthals being shaped from lumps of clay by some mythical being.
Just thought I'd also add in a bit about Ath's brotherhood. I'd gathered that they do traditionally attend and bless marriages. Given that en masse they are capable of channelling Ath's love and power into the world, and individually capable of travelling through space in ways I'm not sure even the Fellowship can, I'm sure a blessing from one of them on a marriage would be a wonderful gift. That said, the nature of the marriage depends on the two people in it - no blessing is going to prevent a marriage being awful if the individuals don't work at it, but like so much in human society, a community of support makes a massive difference.
I've never been sure how far Arithon and Dalwyn went, it is left very deliberately vague. I can't believe (given his mage training and exposure to a brothel) that he would have had sex without love, even for mutual comfort. There are a multitude of ways that men and women can express care for and comfort each other in need and grief without that extreme mingling of auras. Remember Dalwyn is untouchable in her society - even being hugged would have been a forbidden blessing for her.
Someone also talked about the Law of the Major Balance almost as though it was a physical law?
I thought it was just a principle to which the Fellowship voluntarily subscribe - because they are so painfully aware that meddling/taking free will away has worse consequences in the long run?
Question is, DO they really follow the law? They do interfere a lot, is it just in service to the land? Look at Dakar's service, is that not Fellowship intervention in Arithon's life?
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Spoiler 1
The Fellowship and Sethvir really seem to be manipulating things to get a child who carries on Rathain's crown bloodline. I know everything was 'free will' but there was an awful lot of other stuff going on behind the scenes. I mean, Kharadmon is sent to chase the Koriathain away from Alestron, but it is months before Asandir is sent to put a halt to the hostilities. Why couldn't Kharadmon or Luhaine have done it earlier? Was it really just because they needed a corporate sorcerer to intervene?
Spoiler 2
Gotta say that I fully agree that the violence in the series is much more distressing than the sex (as it is meant to be), but I still found myself uncomfortable with the power ascribed to sex in Stormed Fortress - maybe because it was almost like it was a cure-all for a number of woes. Perhaps I've been celibate too long and forgotten how much it is a cure-all Perhaps it is just that our society accepts/celebrates violence and cheapens sex, and in spite of everything I'm absorbing society's values. sad sad sad sad sad.