Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: ryanjm on January 24, 2009, 10:43:38 PM
-
I just finished the first two Mistborn books and really liked them. I especially enjoyed the first one's incredible fast pace and Kelsier as a central male character. But back to the topic: Did anyone else notice a lack of sexuality in the books? There is a mention of prostitute here, rape there, but the actual main characters themselves never discuss sex or mention women/men sexually. It's all *blush* *giggle* stuff, and for a 22yr old male, Elend has a remarkable ability to keep his eyes always on Vin's face, with nary a hint of sexual desire, appreciation of her athletic body, etc... the same goes for the other men in the crew. Everyone is a white shining knight who would never dare sneak a peak at a low cut dress, or admire the shape of a well formed behind.
I think I only notice this because of its conspicuous absence, because I've never noticed a lack of sexual energy in a book before, and I've read more than a few. It's almost as if being a 'good man' is associated with chastity and chaste thoughts as well. Anyone who openly has sex is a deviant ala Straff Venture.
I went through a few hundred pages of the second book wondering if Vin and Elend were just friends or lovers. And it didn't appear they did more than kiss until they were married...two years after they met. Really? In a medieval society with no religious teachings/guilt holding them back?
I did a quick search for 'sex' before posting this to see if it's been discussed before, and ended up coming across some postings of Brandon Sanderson's talking about his Mormon faith and related issues. I'm actually pretty impressed that he is able to believe in that faith and write Sazed's character so well, acknowledging the existence of many faiths all proclaiming to be correct and others to be wrong, and the birth and death of those religions as time passes. Anyway, that got me to thinking that perhaps his religious views have influenced this area of his writing. Any thoughts? If he can write about religion well without the need to show his characters as deeply devout, then I think he can step outside of the box when it comes to separating Mormon views on sex with how a character in a medieval'ish world without any organized religion would behave. What do you all think?
-
I didn't notice it's absence. At least, I didn't take it in a bad light. I liked the fact that it was a clean book. The main characters were GOOD people. Morally good, not just actions-good.
It's all *blush* *giggle* stuff
Just because sex isn't mentioned doesn't mean it's all *blush* *giggle stuff. I don't really know many people who talk about sex openly. That doesn't mean when it's brought up sometime that it's embarrassing, it just means that there are more important things in life than talking about sex. I think the same goes for the crew. It also helps that they were such good men, and some of them were tied down (Kell (even if Mare was dead), Ham, and in a way Dox), so during their down-time when they weren't talking about planning, they would talk about other things.
That doesn't mean that sex didn't exist for any of them. I think Breeze is probably the crewmember who saw the most of it, and that's because of Allriane. I got the impression that she had no qualms in that area--just based on the way she dressed, and the fact that she seduced Breeze, and a few other qualities of her person.
I'm actually pretty impressed that he is able to believe in that faith and write Sazed's character so well, acknowledging the existence of many faiths all proclaiming to be correct and others to be wrong, and the birth and death of those religions as time passes.
Wow. Really? You really think Mormons are that close-minded? He's an author. This is fiction. There's nothing contrary to his beliefs, it's not hurting anyone's spirituality talking about other faiths in a fictional world. And anyway, Sazed is probably the character that religious people would be able to identify the MOST with--simply because of his search for the truth in HoA.
Anyway, that got me to thinking that perhaps his religious views have influenced this area of his writing. Any thoughts?
Religion influencing Brandon's writing? Yeah. I think so. Obviously, he's not trying to convert his readers, but I do think that his morals keep his books clean. You can tell that the most by the sex. It doesn't have even a remotely prominent place in the books (unlike other books by other contemporary authors). Another thing is swearing. The characters don't really curse, at least not much that I can recall. The biggest curse phrase is 'Lord Ruler' (and on a sidenote, now I have a craving to replace my curse word 'blast' with 'Rashek'....).
If he can write about religion well without the need to show his characters as deeply devout, then I think he can step outside of the box when it comes to separating Mormon views on sex with how a character in a medieval'ish world without any organized religion would behave.
I'm sure Brandon is able to step out of the box on a lot of things, but I don't see him changing his views on sex in his literature. I really hope that he doesn't. Sex is an incredibly spiritual thing and it's really not something that should be taken lightly. When it is, it degrades the spirit. Literature that degrades can hardly be referred to as 'good' literature.
-
I think there just wasn't a need to write about the sex. It just really didn't come up. Weather Elend and Vin were having sex before being married (I guess not) didn't effect their feelings for each other. Maybe he did it just to show the last few walls between them, maybe it was a vestige of his personal feelings on that matter, conscious or not. Elend is described as being attracted to her a few times, and she's described as being good looking. It's enough for the reader to get the idea. It's just not a story for that aspect. Personally I kind of enjoyed it that way, in that the two of them were together without that tension, implying they were comfortable enough with each other not to become smoldering blobs of hormones.
Truthfully I think you're reading to much into this area of the novel. Straff was definitely a deviant, and a terrible man, but I'd hardly call the only character shown to treat sex thusly enough to call it a trend or an ethical ruling on how the world worked as a whole. After all, when you get down to it he, Elend and Vin were the only ones in anyway expressly said to have had sex.
Also, to be frank reading a sex scene makes me feel uncomfortable and a bit voyeristic. Especially if I'm reading in a public place. It rarelly adds enough to a story to make it worth the rest as far as I'm concerned.
As for religion, he discussed before how important he felt it was to write characters who's views conflicted with his own, and to make sure they came off as truthful in order to give things variety and to keep the characters from being mouthpieces for his views. At least something to that effect.
Personally I'm an atheist and I'd rather see characters of various and conflicting faiths, and/or the lack thereof in order to make things more realistic and interesting. I know if I were to write anything, I'd mix things up. I wouldn't make my views the only ones worthy of notice unless I was trying to push a singular message, which I doubt I would want too. That would just get overly preachy. I'd rather relate my own conflicts on what's right and wrong rather than show everything through the lens of my personal resolution. Also the challenge of showing somebody ELSE as right interests me greatly.
Wow. Really? You really think Mormons are that close-minded? He's an author. This is fiction. There's nothing contrary to his beliefs, it's not hurting anyone's spirituality talking about other faiths in a fictional world. And anyway, Sazed is probably the character that religious people would be able to identify the MOST with--simply because of his search for the truth in HoA.
Oddly enough considering I just said I'm an atheist myself, I feel the same way about Sazed. He came to conclusions different from mine, yet his path to it and how the resolution made him feel about it really jived with me. I think I liked how (I think) Breeze said it: "You're just not meant to be an atheist." Different people have different ways of thinking which make them work the best as people and give them the most peace with the world, and Sazed found the path for him, which I think is really the most important aspect of things.
PS: Somebody really needs to add "Elend" and other Sanderson invented names to the spellcheck.
-
PS: Somebody really needs to add "Elend" and other Sanderson invented names to the spellcheck.
Haha.....
And I totally agree (with your whole post, not just that one particular quoted section).
-
Ryanjm, I noticed the absence of sex and sexuality too... and I really, really appreciated it.
Would more innuendo/sexual references have added another layer of depth to the Elend/Vin relationship? Or to others? Possibly. But it didn't come up, I guess; it wasn't needed for the story, and like RedMars said, I'd rather not feel like a voyeur.
-
I'd just like to add that Mormons aren't the only ones who prefer not too much sex in lit/movies. I've talked to many other Christians who feel the same way, and I'm sure other religions as well. Besides, why would I want to read about sex when I've got my husband? ;)
-
Thanks for the responses. I was hoping to provoke some good discussion :)
To clarify: I do not mean scenes where sex is graphically depicted. I don't really care for that either. What I mean is 'sexuality' in the characters' thoughts and actions. To quote myself: "Elend has a remarkable ability to keep his eyes always on Vin's face, with nary a hint of sexual desire, appreciation of her athletic body, etc... the same goes for the other men in the crew. Everyone is a white shining knight who would never dare sneak a peak at a low cut dress, or admire the shape of a well formed behind." That is not a graphic depiction of sex, just a realistic portrayal of men. I feel like one (sexuality) is almost a requirement in order to write a realistic adult male, and the other (sex) is a stylistic choice on how graphic you want to be.
There are tons of things you can pick on in any author's choice of how to portray characters, but this one just stuck out the most for me. Lots of other things I can overlook (like no one bothering to carefully investigate the lord ruler's private room until months/years later, etc...) but I think this one area could loosen up a bit and it would improve the realism and depth of the characters.
-
Go read Warbreaker; that has plenty of noticing physical attributes. And discussion of sex when it's necessary to the story.
But it's not graphic; he says what the story needs.
I think Mistborn just didn't need it. But a story that does, like Warbreaker, will be treated differently.
-
Good point about Warbeaker.... I loved that book. Can't wait for it to be published (June?).
-
I personally can't really see Vin having sex (I'm only on the Well of Ascension, so I don't know if she does in HoA or not). Having sex involves truly giving yourself up in a way, and to her mind, I'm sure all she would be able to think of is how easy it would be for her to be killed while having sex. I just can't see her having sex for at least a few years after she's been able to tamp down her 'instincts' a little bit.
-
Vin was a sixteen year old when the first book starts... :-[
-
:-[Hehe…ummm…right. Awkward.
I know, but later on in the series, I guess.…Also, considering how so many of the women are treated in the books, sixteen wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE.
-
I could see Elden getting a little bugeyed when checking out Vin (of course the times he would've done this were probably during Vin's POV), but honestly If Kelsier, or one of the older men did I would've been a bit creeped out. I don't think too much "dddaaang!" would've helped the novel.
-
Vin was a sixteen year old when the first book starts... :-[
That's the age of consent in a majority of states, and many countries...but she's also 18 in Well of Ascension. But regardless of her age, all the other characters are older than her.
-
I've been reading Goodkind and just got done with a Game of Thrones, and those books overly use sex and... well... it distracts from a plot that is barely there in the first place (IMO). I really appreciate the lack of it in Mistborn.
-
I don't know about Goodkind, but whatever else GRRM may be its not a lack of plot. There is so much going on in his books and so many character arcs that sometimes it really gets confusing. I don't really know where he is going with the main 'undead invasion' plot, which moves very slowly throughout the series so far, but all the various manipulations of the courts and various factions and how the throne has changed hands provides focus and plot for the entire series. I do agree with you about the overuse of sex, though.
-
So how much sexuality do you think there will be in A Memory of Light? Jordan never wrote sex scenes (he just talked about them afterwards, like with Rand and Aviendha, or by saying that Rand felt a burning flame of passion) but he did have a lot of ogling, especially with Mat.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a scene in Well of Ascension that takes place directly after Vin and Elend have sex?
-
I've been reading Goodkind and just got done with a Game of Thrones, and those books overly use sex and... well... it distracts from a plot that is barely there in the first place (IMO). I really appreciate the lack of it in Mistborn.
I'll give you Goodkind, he puts a lot of junk in his books that just doesn't fit. But George RR Martian uses sex as a way to farther the plot (rape, incest,...just plain sex, it's all used for character development). There isn't any sexual overtones in Mistborn because it isn't apart of the story, it wouldn't fit. If Sanderson had put a sex scene, or whatever, in Mistborn it would've felt as unnecessary as it does in the Sword of Truth.
ryamjm, I don't care what the legal age is, I don't want to read about a sixteen year old having sex (especially when my little sister is a month away from turning sixteen). (Spoiler warning for those who haven't read book two) Also, it's obvious that she and Elend have been having sex since they've married... I honestly don't know what you're looking for :-\
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a scene in Well of Ascension that takes place directly after Vin and Elend have sex?
You just beat me to it :)
-
I don't care to read about that kind of stuff. They could just mention it in passing, without the dirty details, and it would still work fine. When it describes that kind of stuff... Jordan did it right in WoT. He mentioned it briefly, no details, and life went on. You know what happened and it didn't distract or whatnot. I've only read a Game of Thrones but I've heard that GRRM is the worst of anyone in that kind of crap. As for Goodkind it seemed that the the first few books revolved around Richard and Kahlan finally being able to get down and dirty. Maybe I was just bitter about how much he took from Jordan but that's how I read them. You don't need to go into great detail about how they were having sex, just mentioning is enough.
-
I don't care to read about that kind of stuff. They could just mention it in passing, without the dirty details, and it would still work fine. When it describes that kind of stuff... Jordan did it right in WoT. He mentioned it briefly, no details, and life went on. You know what happened and it didn't distract or whatnot. I've only read a Game of Thrones but I've heard that GRRM is the worst of anyone in that kind of crap.
Song of Fire and Ice is all about the dirty facts of live plus magic. There isn't near as much sex, killing, and violence in his books as people think, the problem is that George RR Martian a really good writer. He makes each one of those "controversial" scenes stand out, he makes each hurt because you get so close to the characters. That is good writing, even when its depicting something you don't like. (Of course if it is a scene that someone doesn't like I wouldn't expect them to admit that he got his point across.)
-
I'll agree, the lack of sex scenes in mistborn was refreshing. Especially after reading Song of Ice and Fire for a while. I'll agree, some of the sex is necessary to the plot, but other scenes were just sex for the sake of putting sex in. It was a bit much for me. Hence, I've taken a momentary break from SOIAF. I also couldn't get into Feast for Crows, but that's an entirely different discussion.
As someone else mentioned, I think Robert Jordan did it best. Briefly mention that something happened and move on. Or do the scene leading up to it and then fade out before anything actually happens. That way you know what happened between the characters and therefore understand their actions, but you also don't get the "Oh, I really didn't need to know that," reaction.
-
Ok, I agree that there doesnt need to be sex/sexuality in a book to make it good. So you can call me crazy(or a pervert i guess) but I believe Martin did well SOIAF and it sex sense. It show the true under belly of how it was in midevil ends. Another note is... one can agrue that sex can be an expression of one's self. I dont know what im tring to get at here(it seem i rarely do haha). I just wanted to post in this topic :D
-
Something important to consider in the relationship between Vin and Elend is how Vin felt about the way noblemen slept with skaa women. Were I Elend, after the scene in the first book where Vin asks him if he had ever bedded skaa women, I'd sure as crap wanna treat her with a lot more respect, no matter how attractive I found her. To me, the fact that you never saw Elend "checkin' her out" showed how strong their relationship was. The books also put a large emphasis on the trust in their relationship.
I thought the amount of sexuality in the book was just right. You were aware that Breeze and Allriane had been sleeping together (Brandon even confirms that in his annotations of WoA), and there is a scene that happens after the (newlywed) Vin and Elend have been having sex. It doesn't dwell on those things, just mentions them in passing.
Also, whoever pointed out that a lot of the others were tied up (I'm too lazy to look through this small thread and quote it), had a point. Ham was married, Kelsier had once been married, and perhaps wanted to leave it at that.
Spook, though. I think he's a realistically portrayed male. When he's younger, you've got the awkward teen with a crush on Vin. In HoA, there's that one girl in the one place that he obviously is attracted to. . . I don't remember her name and am too lazy to look it up. You know who I'm talkin about. It was made clear that Spook was very attracted to the girl in HoA, but you never heard him thinking "would you look at that booty, I'd like to . . . ". Even a teenage boy whose hormones are probably raging just as much as every other teenage boy's isn't automatically start thinkin sexual things about a girl he is attracted to. There's nothing unrealistic about the way men were depicted in Mistborn.
-
For me I was glad to read a book that didn't have sex scenes in it. I think that fantasy is about exploring a strange new world, meeting different characters of different races, good versus evil, and other stuff like that. It's kind of refreshing to come across a writer who concentrates on telling a good story, without feeling the need to add a sex scene here, and there.
As far as sexuality goes, I felt that there was something missing in the relationship between Vin and Elend. Obviously there are people who'll disagree with me, but it didn't feel like this was a girlfriend/boyfriend or husband/wife relationship to me. It felt more like two best friends or at best brother/sister, so when I'd come across a scene of affection it seemed odd to me. Is sexuality the part that is missing? I don't know maybe I just needed more scenes of affection for this relationship to feel real.
For the record, sexuality doesn't have to be:
"would you look at that booty, I'd like to . . . "
If you watch sitcoms or comedians from the '70s, they were very good about talking about sex without actually talking about sex. They just skillfully danced around the subject, and everyone knew what they were talking about. Johnny Carson was a master at this!
I never would've mentioned any of this because I think the series as a whole was a home run, as far as what I'm looking for in a fantasy novel. However, since it was here I thought I'd voice my opinion. Every book of Brandon Sanderson's that I have read has been better than the last one, so I see no reason why he won't keep getting better.
-
[...]To me, the fact that you never saw Elend "checkin' her out" showed how strong their relationship was. The books also put a large emphasis on the trust in their relationship.[...]
I check my girlfriend out whenever I get the chance. Does that mean we don't have a strong relationship?
P.S. I strongly believe she checks me out just as much (okay, maybe a tad lass).
-
Note: sex is not bad, evil, or dirty. We have a silly culture that says it is, so leaving it out of a book is just fine for sales, but I find it very hard to believe a "gratuitous sex scene" is worse than the bloody, gory mess Vin leaves in her wake.
-
Note: sex is not bad, evil, or dirty. We have a silly culture that says it is, so leaving it out of a book is just fine for sales, but I find it very hard to believe a "gratuitous sex scene" is worse than the bloody, gory mess Vin leaves in her wake.
I disagree.
OK, my approach is really somewhat more nuanced than that, but did you want to discuss anything or just lay down moral fiats?
-
I've been reading Badkind...
fix'd
Sex and sexuality have places in any and every culture. This involves the high degree of, or lack thereof. My personal opinion is that there had better be a reason for it. Authors such as Steve Berry and Verry Badkind throw it in there for shock value. Many horror authors do the same. The point is, is there a reason for it presence or absence? I dont feel that much would have been added in the Mistborn series with more of it. There was very little swearing in the Mistborn series, but I dont think any more would have added anything. See what I'm saying? On the other side, R Scott Bakker's novels would have lost quite a bit of power if you take out the sex and sexuality. It had a purpose (even though is crossed the line at times). If things such as sex, violence, religion or language are there just for shock value, then perhaps they are not needed. However, if those particulars further the characters or themes of the novel in a way impossible without them, then I say they are ok. That's my opinion.
-
As far as sexuality goes, I felt that there was something missing in the relationship between Vin and Elend. Obviously there are people who'll disagree with me, but it didn't feel like this was a girlfriend/boyfriend or husband/wife relationship to me. It felt more like two best friends or at best brother/sister, so when I'd come across a scene of affection it seemed odd to me. Is sexuality the part that is missing? I don't know maybe I just needed more scenes of affection for this relationship to feel real.
I felt the same way. And I also agree with you that I think this series is really, really good, and want to emphasize that this is just a very small part of the series that I thought could have used a little spice. But it's kinda boring to make a thread saying "omg I love this series, don't you?"
I also agree with you TMan. I kinda chuckled at DangerButton's "Even a teenage boy whose hormones are probably raging just as much as every other teenage boy's isn't automatically start thinkin sexual things about a girl he is attracted to." As one of 5 brothers, let me assure you that that view is a very, ah, 'interesting.' :D
-
Note: sex is not bad, evil, or dirty. We have a silly culture that says it is, so leaving it out of a book is just fine for sales, but I find it very hard to believe a "gratuitous sex scene" is worse than the bloody, gory mess Vin leaves in her wake.
I disagree.
OK, my approach is really somewhat more nuanced than that, but did you want to discuss anything or just lay down moral fiats?
I also completely disagree. With both of you.
I believe sex is amazing. I believe its a gift from God specifically for a married husband and wife.
As for Algorithm, I think you'd be hard-pressed to give evidence that our culture thinks sex is bad or evil...
-
I suppose it's up to the individual author to decide if it's relevant to the story or a distraction. Brandon did a good job describing Vin and Elend's relationship and maybe a sex scene would have stopped the story cold in it's tracks. Who knows?? I could go either way. Some book I've read have some pretty graphic sex scenes, like a couple of Stephen King's books do. They fit the story and served their purpose. Not all books are alike. So, I don't necessarily think it was "missing" from Mistborn. More that it just didn't belong.
-
I agree with JoeC. Each book or series has a kind of "feel" to it, and certain things (sex in some cases, violence in others (!)) disrupt the atmosphere.
-
I kinda chuckled at DangerButton's "Even a teenage boy whose hormones are probably raging just as much as every other teenage boy's isn't automatically start thinkin sexual things about a girl he is attracted to." As one of 5 brothers, let me assure you that that view is a very, ah, 'interesting.' :D
Just because you and your brothers may automatically have sexual thoughts about girls you're attracted to doesn't make it the same for every guy. I'm not a guy, and I don't talk about this stuff with my friends who ARE guys, but I know them well enough that they DON'T have sexual thoughts about girls they're attracted to. Well, they may have a couple but it's FAR from all the time, or even every time they see the girl.
And for TMan....I believe Dangerbutton's comment on Vin and Elend's strong relationship was pretty much solely for those two. It's different for another couple. Obviously your girlfriend is okay with you checking her out. I don't think Vin would necessarily appreciate Elend checking her out or having sexual thoughts about her, or at least Elend has a very good reason to THINK she wouldn't appreciate that (ie, her reaction in FE that Dangerbutton already mentioned).
-
This is a discussion that could easily get out of hand, so I'm going to try not to put down my opinion too strongly. Moreover, I want to stress that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions on this.
little_wilson, I think it's very naive to believe that your male friends don't have sexual thoughts about girls they are attracted to. There may be guys who don't, but I think the majority does. On the other hand, it's probably better if most girls believe guys don't do that sort of thing ;)
I agree with ryanjm on the sexuality thing between Elend & Vin. I personally would be quite disappointed if my girlfriend never "checked me out", or let's say "looked at me appreciatively". I did mis this sort of tension between them, the magic just wasn't there. However, I don't think a graphic sex-scene would have fit in the Mistborn novels.
And I did very much like the books, so I don't think its that bad after all :)
-
I thought that their relationship was just right for them. It was a little odd, but then they were not the most normal couple or in the most normal of situations. I thought it mirrored their personalities and circumstances quite well the way it was.
Btw, I am a guy and didn't have sexual thoughts as a teen. I appreciated form, but never thought about sex. I'm serious. Looking and kissing were the ONLY remotely sexual things on my mind as a teen. Mostly looking.
The sad thing is that most guys are 'trained' through pop culture to think otherwise. I avoided 'pop' culture for the most part in my teens and probably missed out on that subtle conditioning.
-
As a guy I think it's a tad outrageous to say that you did not EVER have any sexual thoughts as teen. You're either not human or not a guy in that case. The human male has hormones that force those thoughts into your mind, to procreate is the one thing that drives any and all species. Now, thats not to say all males have porn sequences running through there minds 24-7 but by way of science there was some type of urge there that lead to certain thoughts. I can concede that some are better than others at limiting them but to say you never had ANY of those thoughts....no... I really can't see that.
-
before this get entirely derailed and it devolves into "no, you should think this" let's cut a few things out of these comments:
1. stop with the generalizations. just cause 1 person does something does not make it the same across an entire genre, gender, religion, etc (you get the picture).
2. telling a person that you doubt they think how they do isn't helpful to the discussion. if someone says they dont think that way, then they don't. its not up to you to question their character.
I didn't think of every girl sexually, am i gonna get called a liar too? different people are different. period.
as far as all of this relates to novels, each author has their own comfort-zone. some have no probs putting sexuality in in any form. some prefer that it all have meaning. some throw it in for shock value. to each his (or her) own. I tend to agree with prior posters who said that I don't think the lack (or the very subtle nature of it) did harm to the novels. I just dont think it would have fit in Mistborn. That being said, I dont doubt that if Brandon decided to put some more detailed scenes in, that they would be tasteful and have a strong reason for their presence. :D
-
If you grew up regularly attending a Christian church, you can probably relate to this next bit. ;)
"When I was a teenager I heard that every time you have a inappropriate thought you should sing a hymn in your head to help you think of something else. Well, now every time I hear a church hymn I have a dirty thought."
Hehe.
OK, now to try and bring this back to the original topic. For me, Vin and Elend's relationship could have used a little more flirting. It seems natural for Elend's POV to notice Vin's attractive features (eyes, smile, curves, etc..) almost every time he sees her.
I really enjoyed Mistborn, but I'm expecting Brandon will get better at this each book he writes. People have mentioned there's more "noticing physical attractions" in Warbreaker, but I haven't read it yet. (Need to do that soon!)
I really like how sexuality is treated in WoT. The characters thoughts about the opposite sex seem realistic to me, but the actual sex scenes are all off screen. I think that's how I prefer it in MOST of the fantasy I read.
-
I didn't think of every girl sexually, am i gonna get called a liar too? different people are different. period.
Well, I never called anyone a liar and I never said that all guys think of EVERY girl sexually. Nothing even remotely close to that actually. People are different but, in general, human beings all work the same way. That is not just some generalization but scientific fact. People may vary in a variety of areas but when looking at one of the most primal of instincts, to procreate, there is little wiggle room. There are anomalies, of course, but all human beings, male or female, have the drive to procreate.
Also, of course I can't say for 100% fact that one person thinks the way they do. You're right only that person knows EXACTY just what they themselves think. All I can go off of is the evidence laid out before me and the evidence before me is in direct contradiction with what was said.
-
I didn't notice breasts in an "oh my goodness, there are girls walking all around me who have breasts" sort of way until I was 22 years old. Idiosyncratic sexual development does not surprise me in the least.
As for Vin and Elend, I just don't think we're in their heads at the moments when they have certain trains of thought, and I don't think it detracts from the novel at all.
-
I have to agree with Ookla on this one. They clearly *do* think about each other that way sometimes (context is important), but not all the time. After they get married, for instance, they have something of a honeymoon, and seem to enjoy it. Brandon just had no particular reason to make a big point of it.
I would also like to add that attraction and thinking can and do vary even in the same human over time. At its most basic level (I've experienced this myself) it is quite possible to be attracted to somebody in a social setting without thinking what are generally known as "dirty thoughts". There's an entire spectrum of interaction and behavior, with complete disinterest at one end and sex at the other. Societal norms of behavior, especially in company, play a big role here. Most of the places we see Vin and Elend interacting are public (Book 1) or with an emotional barrier between them (Book 2).
Oh, and Elend wanted to kiss Vin, and Vin was disappointed when he didn't (Book 1). Once again, it's all a matter focus and interpretation. Spook apparently went through a phase where he was ogling every girl he met. Breeze was strongly, physically attracted to Arriane (sp?), an attraction in which she was actively complicit (an advantage of being a Rioter), and which it seems is safe to assume was reciprocal . Kelsier, on the other hand, was not interested in Vin, probably because he was still emotionally attached to Mare. These relationships are part of the normal spectrum of human behavior; just because Brandon took them for granted rather than going into detail and going hog-wild hollywood style doesn't mean he's doing a bad job or that they don't fit into the book. It just means that it's not what the book is about.
-
Just because you and your brothers may automatically have sexual thoughts about girls you're attracted to doesn't make it the same for every guy. I'm not a guy, and I don't talk about this stuff with my friends who ARE guys, but I know them well enough that they DON'T have sexual thoughts about girls they're attracted to. Well, they may have a couple but it's FAR from all the time, or even every time they see the girl.
Not to belabor the point, but I agree with you that it's not the same for every guy. As a male, who definitely discusses this with his male friends/relatives, it only applies to the vast majority of us and anyone I've ever spoken to about it in person. Just for future reference, you refuted what I said by saying "Well first of all, I'm not a guy and I don't really talk to other guys about it, so I really don't know what I'm talking about, BUT here's what I think anyway." This is not the best way to begin an argument.
"Hey guys, I'm not a doctor, and I never talk to other doctors, but I think we should amputate." ???
Just to throw down the gauntlet and let anyone who's interested in facts and scientific studies instead of all these random strange opinions, etc...
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html
That site is basically the bible of sexual research. An excerpt:
"54% of men think about sex everyday or several times a day, 43% a few times per month or a few times per week, and 4% less than once a month"
And that's just sex. I couldn't even find a study there that asked how often men look at attractive women's bodyparts. It must be such an incredibly high number that it's off the charts.
Getting back closer to the topic: Yes I can see that people are picking out the handful of times that Vin and Elend show affection towards each other, like the honeymoon...2 years after they met. I would hope these scenes exist somewhere within the 2,000+ pages of text (paperback) otherwise there would be little evidence of any type of physical attraction/relationship. It's the fact that everyone looks to the same handful of scenes that demonstrates the point that there wasn't much there.
Ultimately it comes down to whether you noticed the lack of sexuality in the series and whether you thought it could use a bit more to add to the depth of the characters. Even outside of Vin and Elend, the other characters you mentioned never talked about the opposite sex or 'had thoughts' beyond "He/She is beautiful, has shiny hair, is smart, I love him/her." It's definitely a very high-minded view of attraction and love, so if that's what Sanderson was trying to accomplish on purpose, I'll give him that. It just wasn't the most realistic or interesting angle he could have chosen. A very minor complaint.
-
Not to belabor the point, but I agree with you that it's not the same for every guy. As a male, who definitely discusses this with his male friends/relatives, it only applies to the vast majority of us and anyone I've ever spoken to about it in person. Just for future reference, you refuted what I said by saying "Well first of all, I'm not a guy and I don't really talk to other guys about it, so I really don't know what I'm talking about, BUT here's what I think anyway." This is not the best way to begin an argument.
this sounds pretty rude, and insulting. she was just stating that she doesn't feel her guy-friends are so extreme in their thoughts about wanting sex from every attractive woman they look at. there's really no need to sound so condescending.
That said, your statistics do bring up an interesting point. They show there is a lot of gray area. a lot of room for interpretation. do i think about sex several times a month (this doesn't even fit in the 43% mentioned in the study)? sure. with my wife. do I think about it with other women? no. that's just a fact, and i doubt that i'm a HUGE minority among my married kind.
I think the key issue is that people are combining attraction and sex. yes, one leads to the other (well...not all the time but thats a whole different issue), but Joe Schmoe saying, "huh, that girl is attractive" doesnt always mean "geeze i wanna have sex with her!!!"
Brandon is pretty mild on the attraction issue, but like Ookla said, it IS there. And who's to say in THAT society and THAT culture it is absolutely normal? last i checked none of us are from there... (i could have used a tad more though, but only a tad).
-
In my opinion, ryanjm was not rude or insulting at all. Little-wilson was not, in fact, stating that she does not feel her "guy-friends" are "so extreme in their thoughts about wanting sex from an attractive woman they look at". She was categorically stating that she knows for a fact that they do not have sexual thoughts about girls they are attracted to. Which, clearly, is ridiculous. When someone is attracted to someone else, that attraction is inevitably sexual in nature. One cannot say that one finds someone "attractive but not sexually attractive" in the context discussed here. Merely noting that someone is pretty is sexually motivated. Still, to find someone attractive does not, like some Americans believe, equal to having a, tacit or otherwise, desire to immediately sodomize the person in question. I must say that I am surprised at the level to which some here associate sexuality with shame and sin.
It should also be pointed out that sexuality is not the same as participating in sexual acts. One can very well be sexually attracted to someone, and not have sex with them. In that vein, Joe Schmoe saying "huh, that girl is attractive" usually means "geeze, if conditions were right, I could definitely have sex with her". For some of you, that probably translates as "if I were married to her, I could definitely have sex with her".
-
I didn't think of every girl sexually, am i gonna get called a liar too? different people are different. period.
Well, I never called anyone a liar and [..]
Neither did I, and that's the last I want to say about this topic, since I think it's a discussion that's would be hard enough with a group of people in real life, let alone on a forum on the interwebs. Oh, but cheers to bookstore guy for pointing out that the definition of "sex" is quite broad. And I do agree with cynewulf. Ah blast, maybe it's not the last I'm going to say about it anyway.
Back on topic, I personally really like the style of WoT on this, although I tend to have no problem with explicit descriptions of sex in books. It's part of a character description when you're in the mind of char A thinking something about char B, which can point out that char B has a sexual influence on members of the gender of char A. Or maybe just A personally.
In my mind, it's natural to do this. So yes, it is something I kinda missed in the mistborn novels. Still think they're great though :)
-
Cynewulf, to say that all interpersonal attraction is inevitably sexual in nature shows that you have bought into the lies of today's society.
-
If I have bough into anything, it is science, psychology and anthropology. Your views on today's society and its lies have little to do with it. What I can say I have not bought into, on the other hand, is the tenets and dogmae of two millennia ago.
Now, of course it is polemic on your hand to twist my argument like that, Ookla. I was of course referring to the context of the current discussion, which to my knowledge deals with romantic attraction. Unless you want to claim that it was fraternal or familial love between Elend and Vin?
-
When someone is attracted to someone else, that attraction is inevitably sexual in nature. One cannot say that one finds someone "attractive but not sexually attractive" in the context discussed here. Merely noting that someone is pretty is sexually motivated.
Can't you think that members of your family are attractive? That doesn't mean you want to have sex with them. What if you think friends of your same sex are attractive? That doesn't mean you're homosexual. Don't you distinguish between cute kids and not so cute kids? Let's start calling everyone pedophiliacs.
Saying that someone is pretty isn't always sexually motivated.
That being said, I think the reason for Vin and Elend's lack of sexual thoughts are affected by their past experiences. When Elend's father tried to make him have sex with a skaa, that made sexual thoughts disgusting to him. Vin was beaten by her brother and probably many other male members of the thieving crews. When looking at a man, she is more likely to look at him as potential hurt than as a sex object.
That doesn't mean Elend and Vin won't have sexual feelings. It just means they only have them towards people that they love and they know loves them back. (Yes, loving someone can come before thinking of them sexually.)
We aren't in Elend and Vin's heads 24/7 so we aren't going to know every sexual thought they have. Most of the times we are in their heads, they are focused on the heist, the war, the mist spirit, and all the other problems of the world. Thinking about sex wasn't something they had time to do every day. They had the weight of the world on their shoulders and I'm sure that can take away some of the natural drives pretty quickly.
-
I would like to second everything jjb just said.
-
And I would like to thank him for proving my point exactly. I am pressed for time at the moment, so I have to leave it at that, for now. A better response must wait for tomorrow, I think.
Let it just be said that he and others are again erroneously equating sexuality with sexual actions.
-
Cynewulf, I'm not sure why you used the word polemic, as the dictionary definition doesn't seem to apply to this circumstance.
However, here's a small sampling of reasons people may find someone else attractive that are not directly related to sex. Likemindedness, shared experiences, shared goals, familiarity/similarity to one's own relatives, similarity to one's internal vision of an ideal partner, perception that the other person would fill a hole in one's life, safety/security, money, peer esteem, ability to care for children (who may or may not already exist)... Any one of these could provide initial impetus for a romantic attraction and could form the ultimate foundation of the relationship (some deeper than others). Your contention that every attraction is inevitably sexual in nature makes it sound like everything can be traced back to and stems from sex, and I would say that a lot of those criteria just don't trace back to sex. Whereas if you're simply saying that the sexual side of things is something that does without fail ("inevitably") get considered sometime in the development of the romantic relationship, that's not something I would dispute in most cases, though there are outlying individuals to whom sex is just not very important and is way, way down the list of factors to value in a relationship.
-
Cynewulf, to say that all interpersonal attraction is inevitably sexual in nature shows that you have bought into the lies of today's society.
Ookla, I totally get what you're saying. I actually mostly agree with you. But, just to play the devil's advocate here, can you really call them 'lies' of today's society? Isn't it just another, different way of life? What is a lie to you, may be a truth to the next man.
-
"Hey guys, I'm not a doctor, and I never talk to other doctors, but I think we should amputate." ???
Lets not bring amputation and sex into the same paragraph. Not even into the same room. It scares me. I don't want anything to get amputated.
-
In my opinion, ryanjm was not rude or insulting at all. Little-wilson was not, in fact, stating that she does not feel her "guy-friends" are "so extreme in their thoughts about wanting sex from an attractive woman they look at". She was categorically stating that she knows for a fact that they do not have sexual thoughts about girls they are attracted to. Which, clearly, is ridiculous.
Actually, I wasn't. I did at first, but within that SAME post, I qualified it, and said they may have them occasionally, but far from every time they see the attractive girl in question....Since I'm not a guy, I can't say that I KNOW what they're (not) thinking.
Ryanjm, comparing my statement to that of an amputation is pretty idiotic. I associate with guys VERY regularly. I know quite a few of them well. I have 3 older brothers, all of whom I also know VERY well. Just because I don't talk to them about their sexual thoughts (seriously, if you were a girl would YOU talk to your guy-friends about how often they think sexual thoughts about a chick?...I doubt it), doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea about them. I know them well enough that I honestly don't think sex takes up that much of a portion of their thoughts. That's not saying they don't have sexual thoughts. Not at all. If there's anything I've learned about all the church lessons taught to females about modesty and guy's thoughts, it's that.
-
Cynewulf, to say that all interpersonal attraction is inevitably sexual in nature shows that you have bought into the lies of today's society.
Ookla, I totally get what you're saying. I actually mostly agree with you. But, just to play the devil's advocate here, can you really call them 'lies' of today's society? Isn't it just another, different way of life? What is a lie to you, may be a truth to the next man.
I like this line...
Hey firstly id like to say 1st post! :P
Big fan who reads these forums alot, but never posted, but this thread got to me!
Can you realy say thousands years of conditioning to seek out partners and procreate is part of todays society?
Its not at all, the only difference is now it is done in a more casual way, due to ability to prevent procreation, yet still satisfy the physical drive.
Im not terribly religious but come form a family that is, father trained to be a priest etc...
I dont understant the way people on this forum seem to treat "sex" do, it isnt a sin, its 100% natural. to assume that vin and elend wouldnt likely of slept together... well actually its believeable in their case because they are above the norm, but in a society where sex clearly has no value...
There is no church that vin knows of bar through sazed, and elends own "god" was ok with raping skaa once they were murdered after...
To assume it wasnt a pretty common thing in such a society is imo rediculous, in fact, i dont recall anywhere where Elend sys he regrets sleeping wiht her because he had sex wiht her, but rather it seems its only because she was killed for such an act(this might say he wudnt be to rushed into it again but the norm wudnt feel this way or of been exposed to it so).
The lack of attraction to me always bugged me, it seemed so... unreal! Now i rarely focused on it, but when its pointed out to em like in this thread its hard to ignore how outside the norm this all is!
My girlfriend who i love to bits etc,, i would almost think be offended if thought i wudnt think of her sexually, i damn well would be annoyed if she wasnt attracted to me that way!
Its not like one day you get married and discover all these sexual feelings, they are there all along, you can deny that you felt them for randomers all you want(i wont believe you), but to imply that you only have had sexual feelings for your partner and only since married is a blatant lie. You can even develop these feelings over time with an appreciation of a persons personality, but as we all know the more you "care" for someone the better they look in our eyes, again leading onto sexuality for those who think that way.
I myself dont look at girls and always thing "daaamn"
But id be talling lies to say i never have, and to deny such thoughts is to deny instints etc... after all thats more or less what religion teaches us, to control such instincts, not to deny we have them.
That we now believe sex to be so terrible is in itself a conditioning of todays society!
Jesus was born in the time of the romans, do you know what the romans got up to?
hell, go back to the renaissance, what happened there?
That sex is a sin is wrong i think, that it shouldnt be had frequently with randomers etc is again a conditioning!
(one i believe btw) but conditioning all the same!
We are all the product of some society, so who are you to realy judge any other? born dif place, diff timeyou wouldnt be the same person.
in summary, i think some people need to get over the idea that these thoughts are unnatural, else we wudnt be having them...
reality check states that vin and elend likely had these thoughts, or at least other characters would of! Even Sazed has a level of more attraction shown then Vin or Elend, and he cant have sex! their relationship is lacking!
That aside, i love this book, read the trilogy about 8 times so far, and even ordered all the books from america(cant buy them where im from)
muboop
-
I doubt that anyone was saying that sex itself is a sin. It's not. Immorality is the sin, and immorality is the improper use of sex.
But this brings religion into the argument. Although, I personally don't think you can really talk about sex, and sexual thoughts without having religion brought up eventually....
-
I doubt that anyone was saying that sex itself is a sin. It's not. Immorality is the sin, and immorality is the improper use of sex.
But this brings religion into the argument. Although, I personally don't think you can really talk about sex, and sexual thoughts without having religion brought up eventually....
i know i wrote the most on sex etc, however it was not my main point. I think they should of had some form of attraction sexualy towards eachother, They never had to act on it or we didnt have to hear about the sex scenes etc...
i just thought i would of liked something to shw a physical attraction other then a few what i felt to be impersonal and generalised remarks by Elend about her beauty or Vin when in MB3, mentions hse liked Elend before he was handsome and warriors body or something like that.
All i would of needed was a single thought, not inheritantly didty, something about as simple as the beauty of her eyes that i felt was believeable! This wasnt provided to me i feel!
As for what thsi topic has trned into, sex. I dont think religion has to be brought into it at all! i realise it will however.
nature dictates we have a mate, its rare in any life form for it to be totaly monogomous(sp?). (although i will admit in certain animals etc it is such)
It is even rare today in christian world to find people who in their whole lives have only slept wiht their husband or wife. Assuming they believe in such a marriage in first place!
i think that the reaso religion put out that this is a suposed sin was to stop the fighting between people. after all what is religions main purpose but to teach tolerance and give everyone a better and more fair life(opinion dont debate me on this).
Animals fight and kill over mates, even when they have others to "spare". so would man, as so many other religions practice!
Monogomy is something that although is main stream today wasnt always so!
The biggest and strongest person always got the girl as he would provide the better sons for the DNA to be passed on to put it bluntly!
The church imo say a need to stop the fighting and end bloodshed. This is why it became a sin. After all it isnt even in the ten commandments. a mix of that and the need to end the gluttonous lifestyle people had as it was getting out of control.
So its immoral to sleep with soemone to whom you are not wed? i disagree! I personally dont sleep around etc, however i have slept with past girl friends! does this make me immoral? even do i loved them?
My belief in the sancaty(sp?) of sex doesnt lie in religious belief or whether god will punish me etc(btw i do believe in god just amnt great at practing christian views) my belife in this sancatity is more down to me thinking its something unique, and that i only want to share it with people i love!
but thats me! people who dont think like me, who am i to judge or say they have sinned?
nobody! as are you, the bibel was written with the sole reason to make god seem divine and tok all humanity out of it. do you think jesus never had sexual thoughts?
it also says nowhere if he had sex or not!
never once is he or his father called a virgin!
so christs father was a sinner? sure...
so christ was a potential sinner?
no!
he was after all human and as likely to give into urges as any of us!
my2cents
-
It is even rare today in christian world to find people who in their whole lives have only slept wiht their husband or wife. Assuming they believe in such a marriage in first place!
Really? Hmm. Now, this is another thing I don't talk about with the people I know who are married (many friends, my parents, 2 of my brothers, etc), but I'm pretty sure none of them (male or female) have slept with anyone other than their spouse. After they were married. (that's not saying they slept with people beforehand. That's saying they didn't have sex until after they were married and only with their spouse)
i think that the reaso religion put out that this is a suposed sin was to stop the fighting between people.
after all what is religions main purpose but to teach tolerance and give everyone a better and more fair life(opinion dont debate me on this).
The only beef I have with this is that I don't believe that ANY religion preaches that sex is a sin. I could be wrong about that. I do believe that many religions, like I've already stated, preach that immorality is a sin.
After all it isnt even in the ten commandments. a mix of that and the need to end the gluttonous lifestyle people had as it was getting out of control.
Whoa. It's not in the 10 commandments? Really? What about 7? Thou shalt not commit adultery?....
So its immoral to sleep with soemone to whom you are not wed? i disagree! I personally dont sleep around etc, however i have slept with past girl friends! does this make me immoral? even do i loved them?
In my opinion, yes, it's immoral. Sex is supposed to be about procreation. Not about fulfilling your wants/desires/passions/whatever. Sex isn't the only way to show your love.
the bibel was written with the sole reason to make god seem divine and tok all humanity out of it.
God seem divine? God IS divine. He's God. God=divine. You seem to be under the impression that the Bible is just a story. I think differently. Yes, there are stories IN it (parables), but not everything is story. Moses, Abraham, Joseph (sold into Egypt), Christ. All real people.
do you think jesus never had sexual thoughts?
I believe Christ was perfect. "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28). Since I believe adultery was already stated in the 10 Commandments, and I really don't think Christ broke those, basically, no. I don't think Christ had sexual thoughts.
it also says nowhere if he had sex or not!
If he did, they were only with his wife....assuming he was married (I'm inclined to believe he was, and I know I'm not alone in this line of thought, but there's no proof of it)
never once is he or his father called a virgin!
so christs father was a sinner? sure...
was it really necessary to the story of the Bible for them to be labelled as virgins? No. And by "father" I'm assuming you mean Joseph (although, technically, God is Christ's father). Joseph was married. To Mary. So I'm pretty darn sure he wasn't a virgin.....
he was after all human and as likely to give into urges as any of us!
Um....Human, yes. Mortal? Half. Yes, he had urges that come with being mortal. He suppressed them. Hence why he is perfect.
-
I agree with some of what you are saying, muboop. As in, sex is not a sin. But there are a lot of things I simply cannot agree with.
The church imo say a need to stop the fighting and end bloodshed. This is why it became a sin. After all it isnt even in the ten commandments. a mix of that and the need to end the gluttonous lifestyle people had as it was getting out of control.
The church does not get to decide what is a sin or not. That's God's prerogative. If a church tells you something is a sin, obviously you are under their authority. But don't stop there. Look at what the Bible says. All throughout Scripture it says that having sex with someone whom you are not married to is wrong. 1 Corinthians 5-7 are full of specific commandments against sexual immorality, as just one example among many, many others.
Monogamy is mainstream today, and you are right it wasn't always so. David, "a man after God's own heart" had many wives, as did his son Solomon. Does that mean it is how marriage should be practiced today? No.
Jesus was fully human and fully God. I've actually never heard anyone bring that up, that nowhere does it say Jesus is a virgin, but since I can't think of anything that says he was I'll give you that. However, logically that does not prove or even suggest he wasn't a virgin.
Jesus did face all the temptations that we face. Does that mean he is as likely to give in to sinful urges as we are? I really hope everyone considers that as a rhetorical question.
-
"Hey guys, I'm not a doctor, and I never talk to other doctors, but I think we should amputate." ???
Lets not bring amputation and sex into the same paragraph. Not even into the same room. It scares me. I don't want anything to get amputated.
LOL. I will honor your request.
These responses are all great. It's refreshing to see intelligent argument. I'll just say that I agree with Cynewolf and will leave over any heavy moralistic arguments to others since I've found them to be unproductive based on past experience. Arguing anything to do with sex when it comes to religion is like trying to swim up a waterfall. You cannot argue with someone who's main reason for not having pre-marital sex is because their god said so...and then they build up a network of rationalizations to support that core reason.
little_w: "Just because I don't talk to them about their sexual thoughts doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea about them. I know them well enough that I honestly don't think sex takes up that much of a portion of their thoughts."
That's a much better statement than what I quoted, but it still doesn't overcome the facts that A) You are not a guy, and B) You do not talk to guys about how often they think about that so you have no real facts other than what you think your brothers/friends 'may' think about. If you think they would answer you honestly, ask your brothers what they think about and where their eyes look when they're at the gym and a girl walks in wearing black leggings/spandex pants (common in my gym) and she's in really good shape. You may be surprised, but if they're straight then it's a pretty universal reaction. There are lots of books on this subject.
-
The thing is, the guys I associate with are guys who don't like it when girls dress in immodest ways--ie, super tight pants, shirts that show stomach/cleavage.....I've actually been around more than a couple guys who when a girl walks by wearing stuff like what you said (whether it's in a gym or not), they make comments indicated they think she's a slut.....or some other derogatory remark.
-
I think it's important to consider how long they would look at the girl with tight, revealing pants. There's a big difference between glancing quickly and letting your eyes linger a while.
I've heard it said that the first look at someone's body can be in a good way. A guy can look at a girl with tight pants and think. "She keeps in good shape", or something like that. Is that thought automatically tied to sexual thoughts? I think not. Can it be? Yes. If the guy keeps staring at miss tightpants he's likely to start thinking more about that good shape, and well, we know where it goes from there. In some cases, though, that train of thought can move pretty quickly.
As far as sex and religion goes, I'm going to agree with ryanjm that arguing about it would be like swimming up a waterfall. Everyone has their own beliefs on the matter, whether based on religion or not, and, especially in on a forum like this, I don't see it going far. However, I commend little_wilson and reaves for defending their beliefs like that.
Anyhow, that's all I've got to say on the matter.
-
Little Wilson, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I will tell you that you shouldn't try to judge your guy friends thoughts just based on what you think. Most guys that I know, in my experience, will glance briefly at a girl who is dressed in *cough* *certain* ways. Then, several will look some more. It's not that they aren't good guys (they are almost all good, active LDS Members), it's just a natural reaction. While we may not find it attractive that the girl is dressed the way she is, we still associate the girl with sex. Well, not necessarily with sex directly, but in that general direction.
And I'm not even going to try to argue sex and it's morality. 1) It's off topic (this is about the sexuality in Mistborn, remember?) and 2) everyone's beliefs are so different from each other and interpret the same evidence in so many different ways that it's impossible to argue it without everyone just eventually getting annoyed that everyone else doesn't see it. Also, sex is one of those things that you can argue as much as you'd like, you won't change anyone's opinion on it. They've already decided what they believe, and are comfortable enough with that belief to argue it. So unless you've got some really convincing evidence.....
-
aaaaaaand derailed.
-
That often is the result when debating a topic with the irredeemably religious.
One of the things I enjoyed most in Mr. Sanderson's series was the way in which the author demonstrated how religions come into being, through the deification of Kelsier. I found it very insightful, and also very much in line with how the humanioras view the phenomenon of religion, viz. as a man-made social phenomenon. However, that insight into the truths about religion was incongruous with the way the author seemingly injected his own puritanical ideals into Vin and Elend's relationship. The tacit understanding seems to be that Elend and Vin have a somehow "higher", "purer" or more "worthy" relationship because sexuality very rarely seems to be entering into it. For an author who appears to be striving for some degree of realism - a relative term given the genre, certainly - this seems a gross oversight. It is very unlikely that Elend would not notice something about Vin's appearance that he appreciated as he grew to fall in love with her. Some of you say that Vin and Elend probably had those thoughts, but we were just not there to see them referred. That reeks of sanitation to me, and may be what occasionally gives this series a slight young adult factor.
Do not misunderstand - I enjoyed the series immensely, and wrote an email to Mr. Sanderson to that effect. I have every confidence in the man's skill and ability to finish The Wheel of Time satisfactorily. His plotting skills are wonderful, his characters are enjoyable and his prose has been steadily improving. What I would not like to see in the world of the Wheel, is this puritanism - because it has no place in that world, nor do I really think it is relevant in this one. Why should a God care who we have sex with, as long as nobody is hurt by it? It is preposterous.
In short, it is my hope that the sort of - sincere or otherwise - naïve faux-pious bourgeois American morality demonstrated by some here is not carried through into the works of this wonderful young author. Especially given how his insights into the nature of human's religious needs and the nature of religion itself are very accurate.
-
Quote
So its immoral to sleep with soemone to whom you are not wed? i disagree! I personally dont sleep around etc, however i have slept with past girl friends! does this make me immoral? even do i loved them?
In my opinion, yes, it's immoral. Sex is supposed to be about procreation. Not about fulfilling your wants/desires/passions/whatever. Sex isn't the only way to show your love.
Little Wil, I see what you mean. However, I rather disagree. You are saying that having sex with those who are not wedded to you is immoral, and that sex is for procreation and not having fun (to put it simply). But…why not? If two adults, who are fully capable of making their own decisions, both want to have sex with each other, while knowing that they don't necessarily 'love' each other, then what is wrong with that? It's about free will. Basically, (correct me if I am wrong) you're saying that pleasure sex is immoral, especially if it is between two unwedded people. But if they both want to, then why is it wrong? Who says it is wrong to take some pleasure in life?
-
I believe you are confusing "free will" with "do whatever you want without consequences". It just means we are free to make choices, not that all of those choices are good.
-----------------------------
Anyway. My previous post was simply made to elucidate the fact that one can be physically attracted to someone without thinking about or desiring sex. The attraction=sex is a social construct, not a hormonal one.
In fact, the statistics that we mentioned rather prove my point. Only 50% of men think about sex on a daily basis. So only 50% of men see attractive women daily? And those 50% only see attractive women once a day? No. So therefore, half of men do not immediate have sexual thoughts about attractive women upon seeing them. And I'm sure that the 50% that do think of sex on a daily basis do not think of it every time they see an attractive woman. Some, sure. But to say that ALL men, MUST equate attractiveness with sex is patently untrue.
---------------------------
Now, I don't really care whether you think sex is good or bad. What matters in the case of this story is that in the condensed time-scale of this book, there just was not opportunity to highlight every little thing. Brandon already stated a couple of times that the publishers were worried about the length of Well of Ascension as it was, without adding superfluous material that didn't move the plot forward.
I hold to the opinion (yes, because that is what we've all been expressing, and all we really have here) that their relationship was well done. There were little hints and clues sprinkled throughout the books that showed Vin and Elend's feelings toward eachother. I was in no way disapointed by it. It seemed JUST right for their circumstances. They were in the middle of a war. There is not much time for hanky panky, or for even thinking about it.
I don't think it is fair to call it sanitized. I thought it was just right for this particular series of books and for this particular pair of characters. They both had hang-ups.
The fact that they were able to develop a relationship at ALL in the middle of all that happened is marvelous! And yes, there was a large section of time that passed between book 1 and book 2. They could have (and probably) developed their relationship quite a bit during that time. Possibly even including sexually. However, that was not the point of the books and therefore it did not focus on that aspect.
It is not a romance novel. It is a novel that happened to have a romance between two characters. It was not the main plot, not even a subplot. There were much more important things happening. Which is why all of us enjoyed the books. Because the important things happened, and they were described well.
I might as well wish that Brandon had included more pink unicorns, because I felt a distinct lack of them in the series (I didn't, really :D ). But they wouldn't have made the story itself any better, nor would there have been room to talk about them. Brandon states in the Annotations that they were often looking to cut any fluff from the story, so if it didn't help him get to the ending, it didn't make the final cut.
-
But the people that make those decisions are aware of the possible consequences of their actions. If they want to take that risk, isn't it their right to do so?
-
Of course people can take risks. That's what free will is. The ability to do whatever you want. But what right are you talking about?
-
I might as well wish that Brandon had included more pink unicorns, because I felt a distinct lack of them in the series
i too felt the lack. i cry every night into my blanky embroidered with those same pink unicorns because of the lack of them in Mistborn. I'm making Brandon promise to include them in an additional Mistborn trilogy. And yes, they will be attracted to each other without only thinking of sex. It's not like unicorns are all horny buggers...geez.
-
It is amusing to hear something as mundane as pre- or extramarital sex being referenced as a "risk".
-
It is amusing to hear something as mundane as pre- or extramarital sex being referenced as a "risk".
saying that sex is mundane is a very desensitized view of something that many consider sacred. opening yourself up to the degree that you are willing to share that level of intimacy with someone is definitely a risk.
besides, this has nothing to do with Pink Unicorns. lets get back on topic.
-
It is amusing to hear something as mundane as pre- or extramarital sex being referenced as a "risk".
STD's duh! no one wants gonnahersyphlaidsitus! do you? (I mean, you don't know who that person has been with!)
I agree, there should have been more pink unicorns in here, after I finished HoA I cuddled with my life-size stuffed pink unicorn (replication, not a real one) for hours, comforting him. I do look forward to seeing them in the next Mistborn series. :D
-
STDs are easy to protect against, do not let anyone tell you otherwise. And, unless visiting a prostitute, your chances of encountering anyone infected are rather low. This is especially true if you actually know the person you are about to get into bed with, which I would wholeheartedly recommend.
And of course, there are "risks" in opening yourself up to any form of intimacy. However, my feeling was that Reaves and others were referring to risks of a more catastrophic variety, viz. Divine Retribution. Please, note the context of "free will", "bad choices", "consequences" and "risks".
-
Uh, "divine retribution?" As in lightning bolts? Please don't put words in my mouth.
I fully intend to get married one day. Having sex with another girl is giving away something special that should be my wife's alone.
When I was talking about risks I was not referring specifically to risks of sex, safe or otherwise, just risks of life. As in, actions have consequences.
-
My only point was that I don't think pre-marital sex is immoral–if both persons want to partake in it, then there's nothing wrong with having sex for reasons other than reproduction.
This is getting kind of off-topic, though.
I fully intend to get married one day. Having sex with another girl is giving away something special that should be my wife's alone.
But as you don't yet have a wife, would it be bad if you didn't reserve something 'special' for someone who, as of now, doesn't exist? When you're married, of course. But before?…
-
I'll try to bring it back to topic... Sex is O.K. if it helps move the plot along, I believe someone said that that is how GRRM used it in A Game of Thrones. I disagree. How does describing Daenerys (or whatever her name is) different sexual encounters with her husband in rich detail move the plot along at all? It does not! I feel the same way with Badkind, it's, more or less, completely useless in his books. I've read a bunch of people saying Jordan did it best, and I said this earlier and I stand by it. Writing about sex just to write about is no good, it really distracts from the main plot (I'll correct myself and say GRRM did have a plot in A Game of Thrones :P).
-
I personally find it most bearable when they just say a few lines to make sure we know they're having sex and then go on the next scene or 'in the morning.'
-
I feel the same way with Badkind, it's, more or less, completely useless in his books.
I approve of the use of my coined phrase in this sentence.
Sex is O.K. if it helps move the plot along, I believe someone said that that is how GRRM used it in A Game of Thrones. I disagree. How does describing Daenerys (or whatever her name is) different sexual encounters with her husband in rich detail move the plot along at all?
So do you disagree that sex is ok if it is integral to the plot? or do you just disagree with Martin's use of it (specifically the Daenerys...encounters)? I think that Martin tends to go a bit overboard even if i do love his stuff. They same can be said of R Scott Bakker, though his uses are almost all essential to the plot. Badkind? He's just terribad...wow, that word perfectly describes him while using his name...
Since im pretty sure our various religions have nothing to do with how Vin and Elend interacted in Mistborn, I say we stop bludgeoning the dead horse. This is worse than asking people to agree on the "best" pizza topping.
-
Though really, we all know that sausage and mushrooms is the way to go. Sausage can also be substituted for bacon.
-
Though really, we all know that sausage and mushrooms is the way to go. Sausage can also be substituted for bacon.
bacon is full of win. Dan Wells would agree.
-
[...]This is especially true if you actually know the person you are about to get into bed with, which I would wholeheartedly recommend. [...]
I lol'd at that :D
Oh, and I prefer tuna on my pizza. Or shoarma. Or anything else, just no mushrooms. Mushrooms feel funny in your mouth, really disgusting.
-
I like sausage on my pizza. With a Blueberry IZZE. I love those things. ;D
-
Pink Unicorn Sausage ;)
-
HAHAHA
Wait I think I missed something–what's with the Pink Unicorns?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Pink Unicorn Sausage ;)
You are my hero.
HAHAHA
Wait I think I missed something–what's with the Pink Unicorns?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
its ok Shaggy, nobody seems to want to respond to my earlier Pink Unicorn comment. im a sad panda. just scroll back a tad.
-
Cynewulf, I see you're ignoring substantive replies to your claims. If you're going to do that, you should just stop posting in the thread. No one here is interested in you using it as a pulpit instead of a discussion thread.
-
Oh I get it! HAHA :D
-
Cynewulf, I see you're ignoring substantive replies to your claims. If you're going to do that, you should just stop posting in the thread. No one here is interested in you using it as a pulpit instead of a discussion thread.
yes, yes, Ookla, but what pizza toppings do you favor? i dont think you and I went out for pizza in Denver, or i'd already know.
-
Anyone ever been to Fat Cat in Norwlk, Connecticut?
-
i bet the cats are fat there because they make their sausage out of them instead of USDA Approved Pink Unicorn Sausage.
-
Heehee actually it's just ONE Fat Cat…so I doubt their sausage is made from cats be— *GASP* they say their sausage is HOMEMADE~!!! *GASP*
-
dont worry, dogs and cats dont taste bad, and i never died from it.
-
Haha good. So now I know I'm no–…-t g-g-going to… *MASSIVE INTAKE OF BREATH* d-di—*FALLS TO FLOOR*
R.I.P.
-
R.I.P.
and that ends this thread perfectly.
The end.
-
HAHA
I'm bringing this thread back from Hell for a bit 'cause I have a comment. R.I.P. stands for 'Rest In Peace,' right? Well, the Latin for 'Rest In Peace' is 'In Pace Requiescat,' and if you look at the intials of those two phrases, they both have an I, an R and a P as the first letters. Coincidence?? Or conspiracy?!?!? Bookstore Guy, I think the Pink Unicorns may be plotting against us. *GASP*
-
Actually R.I.P stands for Requiescat In Pace.
Steve, we DID go out for pizza at Worldcon. Or at least we ate pizza simultaneously at the same location. And I like pepperoni, but as it was one of THOSE types of pizza places where it's easier to eat quickly if you just order plain cheese, that's what I got.
-
Cynewulf, I see you're ignoring substantive replies to your claims. If you're going to do that, you should just stop posting in the thread. No one here is interested in you using it as a pulpit instead of a discussion thread.
If you're going to bash Cynewulf, spread the love. Plenty of other comments definately had the feel of the "holier than thou" attitude.
-
Cynewulf, I see you're ignoring substantive replies to your claims. If you're going to do that, you should just stop posting in the thread. No one here is interested in you using it as a pulpit instead of a discussion thread.
If you're going to bash Cynewulf, spread the love. Plenty of other comments definately had the feel of the "holier than thou" attitude.
my Pink Unicorn is holier than thou, and he (yes, he) says that a cheese pizza is permissible since that's the kind my wife will often eat.
-
Well, it's clear a lot of people here think their ideas are better than others', but most of the posts I noticed from other people still allowed for back-and-forth discussion. Cynewulf's "discussion" was the only one I was personally involved in though.
-
my Pink Unicorn's thoughts are better than yours Ookla.
there, i leveled up.
-
Well MY Pink Unicorn says that pepperoni is really the only way to go....but since Pepperoni requires cheese....well. She (because my Pink Unicorn is a she...we don't want to get sexist here against our lovely, conspicuously-left-out-of-Mistborn, Pink Unicorns) says plain cheese is okay. But ANY other toppings are just preposterous.
-
Steve, we DID go out for pizza at Worldcon. Or at least we ate pizza simultaneously at the same location. And I like pepperoni, but as it was one of THOSE types of pizza places where it's easier to eat quickly if you just order plain cheese, that's what I got.
that's right, you were with us at the hole-in-the-wall-utterly-awesome-place.
/high-five
...just preposterous.
oh yeah?! well, as they say in Scrubs, "So is your face." (Works every time...heh).
(good job on the Female Pink Unicorn, by the way. lets not be sexist here.)
-
Actually R.I.P stands for Requiescat In Pace.
Whatever. My point goes both ways.
-
Cynewulf, I see you're ignoring substantive replies to your claims. If you're going to do that, you should just stop posting in the thread. No one here is interested in you using it as a pulpit instead of a discussion thread.
You are right, of course, and that was bad form. Apologies. As for people not being interested in my using this thread as a pulpit, that may certainly be the case. This thread was, however, in dire need of some balancing of the preachers present here. There does not seem to be much room for the discussion you want in an environment filled with people who can categorically state that Abraham is a historical person, and that the Exodus from Egypt happened as described. I do not think people are interested in a debate over the facts behind the stories and legends of the Jewish people, but I will certainly take that discussion, too, as I find it much more interesting than this one.
Now, for your points:
Cynewulf, I'm not sure why you used the word polemic, as the dictionary definition doesn't seem to apply to this circumstance.
Dictionary definitions should never be taken too seriously. They are hopelessly insufficient, and can not be said to provide anything other than guidelines to the extralinguistic phenomena in the real world that words signify. If you want, I can give you a brief explanation of what I meant. You willfully distorted my argument in order to make it easier to respond to, as well as lend your argument increased credence. That relates closely enough to the dictionaty definiton of "polemic" to be a valid usage, as I see it. Some might disagree, however.
As to your list of reasons why someone might find another person attractive: They are all fair. Still, in the context of a romantic and sexual relationship they seem like fringe factors. However, that is not the point. I never claimed that all interpersonal attraction is sexually grounded. My initial claim was in response to an obviously very young girl's claim that none of her male friends had sexual thoughts and associations toward girls to whom they were attracted. Now, please do correct me if I am wrong, but is it not common in the United States to understand "attraction" as romantic attraction in the case of a youngster referring to males being attracted to females? Is it not common usage in the United States, and indeed in the rest of the English speaking world, to understand "attracted to" as a somewhat weaker form of "in love with", in contexts such as this? Because this is the context to which I responded. Of course other forms of attraction are possible, which are not sexual in nature. However, romantic attraction is deeply rooted in the sexual, even though other, less visceral "reasons" for attraction are possible at later stages. That does not mean, as I tried to point out in my initial post, that sexual acts are a necessary and unavoidable result. If they are, however, there is nothing wrong or "dirty" or "sinful" with that, either. In my opinion.
Can't you think that members of your family are attractive? That doesn't mean you want to have sex with them. What if you think friends of your same sex are attractive? That doesn't mean you're homosexual. Don't you distinguish between cute kids and not so cute kids? Let's start calling everyone pedophiliacs.
What you are talking about is having a cognitive realisation that certain people "are" attractive. That is by no means the same as being attracted to them, in the usage of the word specified here. It is possible to "know" that one's mother is attractive. If you are attracted to her, however, (again, for the slow of understanding, in the meaning of the word I have clarified in this context) then you are probably in some sort of trouble.
-
Actually R.I.P stands for Requiescat In Pace.
Whatever. My point goes both ways.
Also, Latin is a synthetic language, which makes word order near-irrelevant.
-
Thank you, Cyne! For those who have never taken Latin, here's an example:
Shaggius ex agris et in villam currit. That means, 'Shaggy runs out of the fields and into the country house.'
If I put rearranged the letters a bit, like this, 'Currit Shaggius ex agris et in villam. It would still mean the same thing. Although it's pretty standard to put the verb at the end and the noun at the beginning. But still.
-
My initial claim was in response to an obviously very young girl's claim that none of her male friends had sexual thoughts and associations toward girls to whom they were attracted.
Obviously very young? I'm 21. Almost 22....When did that translate into "obviously very young"? Sure, I'm younger than the 30 year olds here, but....I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others my age....And again, I never said that my friends NEVER have sexual thoughts. I said it didn't take up much of their thoughts, and that they didn't have them every time they see the girl. Granted, I'm not inside their heads so I can't be positive, but many of these guys I know very well since I've grown up around them and I can guess fairly accurately about their train of thought.
Also, I might as well distinguish that the guys I'm referring to are single, as in never married.
And those stats that were posted before I don't think ever differentiated between married and single men. Maybe a decent portion of that 53% was a daily sexual thought about their wife....
You were right in your assumption about the definition of attraction for youth....But I'm not exactly young (I'm assuming you thought I was what? 14? 15?) and I know very well that there are other forms of attraction. I was using that idea, along with a mild usage of the attracted to as in "a lesser form of love"....
-
Ummm…very young would probably refer to me. I'm 12. Which is like ten years younger than Little Wil. So if I'm very young, then she's…well, not. Yeah.
-
once again, what does all this have to do with the price of food in China? This thread has turned into a thread of constant bickering and "i'm more correct than you" with a good measure of word twisting thrown in.
This thread's title says "Sex and sexuality in the Mistborn Series...missing?" The only thing missing is the actual discussion on that topic. I purposely threw the pizza bull crap in there because it has as much relevance to Elend and Vin's fake world and culture as do the last 4 pages of conversation.
If people want to use the same repetitive arguments to endlessly tell others how wrong they are, then move the thread somewhere else other than Brandon's forum.
for frak's sake...
-
I am a bit surprised that you are only twelve, Shaggy. Well done to have the dedication and interest to learn Latin at that tender age. Cheers!
Wilson, I am a bit confused now. When you said "I know them well enough that they DON'T have sexual thoughts about girls they're attracted to", what did you mean by "attracted to"? I have explained what I meant, and I will stand by the claim that sexuality is integral to attraction in the sense discussed here, viz. a weaker form of "in love with". That means that if your friends are attracted to someone in the sense discussed above, they will inevitably have sexual thoughts about them. It is also important to keep in mind that thoughts are not the same as silent speech. Our thought processes do not work that way. Given that, I would say that it is completely impossible for you to know their trains of thought, no matter how long you have known them. Additionally, I do not think there is much grounds to claim that the cognitive processes of married men are any different to their unmarried fellows.
-
Pepperoni, Bacon (breakfast bacon, not canadian bacon) and either banana peppers or chopped garlic.
However, if you're ordering pizza for a pink unicorn (male or female), they like magical goblinberries with fairy dust on their pizza.
-
Thanks, Cyne. But…it's actually required for 7th and 8th graders at my school. Not that I wouldn't have taken it otherwise. 8)
-
Come now, your boss wanted a response from me to some substantive points made against my position, and I have made one. Please take your discussions relating to Italian foodstuffs elsewhere.
On a serious note, I doubt Mr. Sanderson minds a little tangent. It must be a desire of many Fantasy authors to have recognised the relevance of their work to the real world, and have it spark a discussion.
-
And I'm sure if we all tried really, really hard, we could all connect the pizza thing back to 'Sex and sexuality in the Mistborn series…missing?'
-
Cyne, I see what you're saying. And the "attracted to" that I meant was referring to either someone they find attractive, OR someone that they are attracted to--lesser form of love....
And yeah, silent speech isn't the same as thoughts....Hmm. I also think I was partially basing the attracted to non-sexual thoughts off my own personal experience. I can be attracted to someone and not think about it sexually....And I understand well that guys don't think the same as girls, and as much as I can use the fact that I am more like a guy than I am a girl (my gender is pretty much the only thing that ties to me to femininity/whatever...), I doubt that argument works in this case. :P
And since I've been off-topic. Mistborn. I don't think the lack of sexuality in the book detracted at all from the experience reading it. I don't think it makes the books sensored if the POV was somewhere else when the sexual thoughts were going on. It's probably better that way, because like others have said, having the sexuality in the book would've detracted from the plot. At least for me. The trilogy wasn't about romance, and sex, or anything like that. It was about the heist, and the seige, and the destruction of Ruin.
And thanks, Shaggy. Now you've got me thinking of some way to tie pizza toppings back to it....Geez. As if I wasn't already wasting enough time as it is....
-
Guys may think differently from girls but guys think differently from guys and girls think differently from girls so if you think about it everyone thinks differently from everyone.
-
Ookla isnt my boss, and i doubt he wants to torture himself by working where I do...it's...awful... /cry
Oh i think some tangentially related material is ok, but we are to the point where we are arguing religion and sex - two subjects that people can never agree on - just like pizza toppings. The thing that bothers me is a perceived tone to some of your responses. They can seem condescending and rude. this just seems like endless bickering using reworded arguments. I participated, so im just as guilty as the rest, but there's no point to it anymore.
Shaggy - that's crazy they teach Latin there. Of course, I came from Sacramento where the education system doesnt really exist...
Marsh likes marshmallow pizza, and he thinks the aroma is sexy. See. I'm totally fine.
-
Yeah, it's a pretty neat place. They offer advanced Latin courses up through 12th grade. There's also a bunch of other classics languages and modern languages like Russian, Spanish, French, Italian, Greek, Chinese, and some others that I know I'm forgetting. It's great for us language guys. 8)
-
The trilogy wasn't about romance, and sex, or anything like that. It was about the heist, and the seige, and the destruction of Ruin.
well, lets not get carried away. Book 2 has an amazing romantic tension to it. Sazed's sections in this regard were great, and that bit carried his entire plotline into book 3. But yes, the main themes are the heist, martyrdom, and "bad guy won." The romantic themes were pretty mellow. I mean, who cares if if Elend thinks Vin has sexy legs every 3rd chapter when they have Inquisitors trying to hack them to bits. I just dont think this was the right story for much more romance.
-
If you check closely enough, there is some sexuality in there, or have you all forgotten the look on Spook's face when Vin comes back from a ball wearing only her shift? As for the older men, when they first find Vin, she is a scrawny waif, and they all begin to think of her as a daughter or niece. They just didn't see her that way. Besides, they were all anti-noble, and it isn't a long leap to accept that they were all fairly pious as another way to be different from the deviant nobility.
-
I think that's more appreciation (and an accident) than active sexuality…I think. But what do I know?
-
well, lets not get carried away.
Oh, obviously there was romance in it, but that wasn't one of the main points of the whole trilogy. WoA is no doubt the one with the most romance/sexual tension. But even in that one, the siege itself and the politics of the whole thing was MUCH more important.
I just dont think this was the right story for much more romance.
Precisely. The sexuality is more prevalent in Warbreaker, which is a story where it definitely had its place.
-
The sexuality is more prevalent in Warbreaker, which is a story where it definitely had its place.
And in WoT.
-
I haven't finished WoT. I got to I think it was Fires of Heaven a couple years ago and I stopped reading. For a lame reason....Haven't really got back to them. And since BS is just finishing the last book, I'm not really going to use the WoT to show that he knows how to use sexual tension, and when it has a place and when it just doesn't fit in the book as well...
-
The thing that bothers me is a perceived tone to some of your responses. They can seem condescending and rude. this just seems like endless bickering using reworded arguments. I participated, so im just as guilty as the rest, but there's no point to it anymore.
It is probably due to my lack of contractions and abbreviation. I have a deeply ingrained fear that if I start writing in conversational styles in places such as this, I will start doing so in my written work, as well. Some people, I have found, tend to perceive it as condescension or pompousness when others write with some small measure of formality. Why, I do not know.
On the other hand, a bit of nerve or edge is always a way to make a discussion more interesting, as one of the moral chieftains of this board, Ookla, also knows very well. If I use this board as a pulpit, I am certainly not the only one. I seem to remember him rather provocatively saying something quite categorical about "buying into the lies of present-day society", or some such. There is a lot of essentialism and axiological load in those few words.
As to the literary work in question here, I certainly think Elend with some advantage could have noticed the shape of one of Vin's body parts in a chapter where he was not doing anything perilous. Again, it seems like an oversight not to have Elend - or Vin, for that matter - reflect on these things in a work that spans more than fifteen hundred pages. I guess Elend does at times think to himself that Vin looks "stunning" in one of her dresses, and that is something. We all know what is meant by it, but the way it is expressed in the books seems to innocent and "young adult" to me.
Still, it is good to see that themes such as these are more prevalent in other works by Mr. Sanderson. I feared for some time that this sanitation was somehow related to his personal beliefs, to some idea that it was sinful (what do I know?) to put such things on paper for others to read. I hope he knows that internal observations about various people's calves, bosoms and shoulders is an important part of Robert Jordan's narrative style.
-
Shoulders? Really? I never noticed that.…
-
Cyne, I highly recommend you read Warbreaker. Go to Brandon's website and you'll be able to download one of the versions of it.....Lightsong. That's all I'm going to say....:D
-
Is Warbreaker a series?
-
I think I heard Brandon will probably write a sequel to it later, but right now it's just one book. I'm pretty sure it's being published this year. June I think, but you can find a bunch of different versions of it on his site. It's deliciously good.
-
Thanks I'll have to check it out if my English teacher ever lets me. ;D
-
You can get it right now....Brandon's got downloadable versions of it on his site. The highest version is 6.1 I think (maybe 6.0)...I haven't read that one. I've got it on my laptop, but the one I read was version 4.2....(there are different versions because he wanted to show the development of the work as he wrote it, so you can see the different drafts).
-
Still, it is good to see that themes such as these are more prevalent in other works by Mr. Sanderson. I feared for some time that this sanitation was somehow related to his personal beliefs, to some idea that it was sinful (what do I know?) to put such things on paper for others to read. I hope he knows that internal observations about various people's calves, bosoms and shoulders is an important part of Robert Jordan's narrative style.
oh they most definitely are. Brandon's big thing is that he want everything to be helping the plot and story along. In Mistborn, I just dont think it would have added much. It doesnt have to do with his personal religion, its more of a "does this actually fit here?" kind of thing. Just remember, more sexuality (in any form) doesn't make a story better or more realistic just because it is there. I still maintain there needs to be a plot-centric point to it all.
As for the YA feel, I 'm not sure I completely agree. I mean, YA isnt tame. In fact it is often way worse than adult stuff. It's all in the context.
As for WoT, of course he will be faithful to the Jordan-style observations. He has mentioned it before, and he actually mentioned it to be over dinner once (we have general discussions on the place of sex in novels periodically). Have no fear.
-
Who is that quote from??
-
That's not a quote from anyone. The inside quote is Cyne....the other quote is him (Bookstore Guy). Formatting messed it up.
-
fixed - thx Shaggy and wilson
Another thing to point out from my bookstore managing experience is that most people like it pretty mellow on the romance side, especially when written by a male author. im not saying i get it, but that's how things went, and other managers from around the nation agreed with me. It makes the books appeal to a much larger audience. This isnt a Harlequin Romance novel after all, and as people can see, many tend to call the sexuality in books by guys like Martin, Bakker, Gaiman, and Mieville a turn off at times.
-
Oh. That's weird.…
-
Ummm…why is it still messed up?
-
The first one isn't anymore. The one he JUST quoted, he fixed by adding me in with the thanks....
-
I hope he knows that internal observations about various people's calves, bosoms and shoulders is an important part of Robert Jordan's narrative style.
and ankles! Don't forget the sexy sexy ankles. In fact I think for the first half of the series Matt noticed ankles more than bottoms or bosoms combined! :D
Which is itself a nice window into a culture where the women are mostly covered up. You find interesting things attractive.
-
Yeah he was always talking about some maid with 'nice ankles' or something and Min and Elayne were always talking about guys' 'finely curved calfs' or something like that. [Is the plural of 'calf' calfs or calves??]
-
sorry about the weird formatting - it wont fix like i wants. I deleted the duplicate.
of course bosoms will be mentioned. otherwise Mat wont have any parts in the story. nobody should have any worries in this area.
-
Tuon might mean the end of his 'looks-and-more-at-everyone' reign, though.…
-
sorry about the weird formatting - it wont fix like i wants. I deleted the duplicate.
of course bosoms will be mentioned. otherwise Mat wont have any parts in the story. nobody should have any worries in this area.
Also,no mentioning bosoms equals no Berelain and, contrary to popular opinion, she is one of my favorite non-main characters!
-
I can imagine why, Madness. ;D
-
Also,no mentioning bosoms equals no Berelain and, contrary to popular opinion, she is one of my favorite non-main characters!
Not going to happen, she still has to fall in love with Galad (I think that's one of Min's viewings, though she couldn't identify the white-clad man).
-
Cynewulf, your internal definition of "polemic" just doesn't match the way it's used in the real world or the dictionary or Wikipedia or any relevant source. Specifically, polemics have nothing to do with distorting other people's arguments. Also, my single-sentence post was simply too short to be a polemic. I believe you're thinking of a completely different example of debating terminology, but I'm not sure what term that might be.
But the question of what "polemic" means does not much matter to the actual discussion, so instead I'll respond to your claims.
I did not wilfully distort your argument. Now, if my interpretation of your phrase "When someone is attracted to someone else, that attraction is inevitably sexual in nature" to refer to all interpersonal relationships was in error, it was not a willful misinterpretation.
You say "Still, in the context of a romantic and sexual relationship they seem like fringe factors. However, that is not the point. I never claimed that all interpersonal attraction is sexually grounded." Perhaps you misread my statement: Any one of these could provide initial impetus for a romantic attraction and could form the ultimate foundation of the relationship
Clearly I was referring to a romantic attraction, just as you were. And I'm saying they are far from fringe factors, and for some people sex could be a fringe factor in a romantic attraction.
Perhaps we should define our terms. When I say romantic attraction, I mean "view someone as a potential marriage partner," which marriage would by definition include sex. Is this what you mean as well, or do you mean "view someone as a potential sex partner," which sex may not include anything else such as marriage? The latter definition would by nature prompt many more sexual thoughts than the former definition. Also, with the latter definition, it is by nature sexually grounded. But the former definition is not.
Also let's be clear on the meaning of "inevitable." You did not respond to my statement:Your contention that every attraction is inevitably sexual in nature makes it sound like everything can be traced back to and stems from sex, and I would say that a lot of those criteria just don't trace back to sex. Whereas if you're simply saying that the sexual side of things is something that does without fail ("inevitably") get considered sometime in the development of the romantic relationship, that's not something I would dispute in most cases
Do you mean that it's something that will get thought about eventually, or do you mean it's something that will be thought about immediately due to unavoidable factors?
Little wilson may respond to this herself, but I suspect she was denying the latter about her friends, not necessarily the former. If you view someone as a potential marriage partner, you're going to eventually, if not often, think about sex with that person—I doubt little wilson would dispute that; as she says, she did not say they never had sexual thoughts. But if you just notice that someone is pleasant to look upon, I believe she and I would not say that the pleasure gained from looking upon that person is necessarily sexual in nature.
Anyway, all of these things in which a former-definition attraction may be grounded are non-sexual: Likemindedness, shared experiences, shared goals, familiarity/similarity to one's own relatives, similarity to one's internal vision of an ideal partner, perception that the other person would fill a hole in one's life, safety/security, money, peer esteem, ability to care for children. For example, two people may know each other for years as friends or business acquaintances, during which no particular sexual attraction is felt, then go through some kind of stressful experience together after which each suddenly notices the other is a potential marriage partner. The shared experience thus forms the initial impetus for the attraction. They may, then, in futher discussion, discover that they are likeminded on many topics and have shared goals. This then may form a more lasting foundation for their romantic relationship. Neither of these are grounded in sex. Sex would be part of the marriage relationship, but it may not be a part that takes up a large percentage of their thoughts, and will likely not take up a large percentage of their time.
Now, I'll step away from the argument and just give some of my thoughts.
Sex is a natural part of being human, whether you believe it's God-given or non-God-given. I don't automatically think everything natural should be celebrated and focused upon. There's only so much sex you can have per day on a regular basis. It contributes to the health of the relationship, so that's an important factor, but I think the most important and permanent result of sex is children. This is a discussion for another topic: What's most important about being human/what sets humans apart from any other particular life form inhabiting this planet. I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it, but coached elephants aside, I don't know of any non-human that produces art such as novels like Brandon Sanderson's. Lasting contributions-to-history like books interest me more than sex does.
Anyway, I think it's been put forward by others in this thread that sex/sexuality are not missing from the Mistborn books. They are there. Their amount may not mesh with the desires of what any one particular individual looks for in a book, but it's impossible to please everyone all the time and that's not what Brandon sets out to do. Some people who have read Brandon's books so far are going to pick up Warbreaker and find that it focuses on sex too much for their tastes. Other people will find that Warbreaker's sexual content doesn't go as far as they think it should for an appropriate treatment of the subject as far as some of the characters' emotional development is concerned. Sex is a subject that not everyone is going to agree on and that is going to cause contention. That's just the reality of the situation.
-
It is even rare today in christian world to find people who in their whole lives have only slept wiht their husband or wife. Assuming they believe in such a marriage in first place!
Really? Hmm. Now, this is another thing I don't talk about with the people I know who are married (many friends, my parents, 2 of my brothers, etc), but I'm pretty sure none of them (male or female) have slept with anyone other than their spouse. After they were married. (that's not saying they slept with people beforehand. That's saying they didn't have sex until after they were married and only with their spouse)
where do you live? i hate to say it but im going to have to assume states right? and the inner states at that from a very christian community? i may be wrong you just sound so stereotypical... and iv been there, its like that...(im well travelled, iv never been anywhere like some inner american states, they genuinely scare me they are so different, note i dont say wrong but just different! :)
look, im in university, in fact i barely know anyone guy or girl who hasn't had sex, its just the way it is! people where im from marry very late-average is like late 20's earl 30's. under these circumstances they are likely to have many relationships which can last years each, so these people have slept together because they were comfortable with it, and it felt right to share themselves with someone they love!
is this immoral? hell no! if you think it is i honesly think you need to rethink your outlook on life-*edited out profanity*
this is the question i realy want you to answer, is it immoral for a couple who are in love and married after a few months to have sex? even do they might not last, barely know eachother etc?
now, is it immoral for a couple who are together for years and know they are strong and will survive anything but due to jobs or whatever in their lives they havent gotten married? thats like saying its immoral to live with eachother... some people just cant live with eachother, better they find out before they get married and have a sh**e life due to it!
i think that the reason religion put out that this is a suposed sin was to stop the fighting between people.
after all what is religions main purpose but to teach tolerance and give everyone a better and more fair life(opinion dont debate me on this).
The only beef I have with this is that I don't believe that ANY religion preaches that sex is a sin. I could be wrong about that. I do believe that many religions, like I've already stated, preach that immorality is a sin.
i dont care, they make it a stigma which has in turn affected so many people, people have been killed stoned etc for having sex and even for some married couples of tens of years, the stigma created by the church has made it all but impossible for a shy person to approach someone about sexual help. sex is a important part of any relationship, to say that its only for people married is poo, and i blame the church for the stigma!
After all it isnt even in the ten commandments. a mix of that and the need to end the gluttonous lifestyle people had as it was getting out of control.
Whoa. It's not in the 10 commandments? Really? What about 7? Thou shalt not commit adultery?....
use your dictoionary more often,
definition of adultery...
Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse.
so adultery is basically cheating... where is the cheating in two unmarried people having sex?
So its immoral to sleep with soemone to whom you are not wed? i disagree! I personally dont sleep around etc, however i have slept with past girl friends! does this make me immoral? even do i loved them?
In my opinion, yes, it's immoral. Sex is supposed to be about procreation. Not about fulfilling your wants/desires/passions/whatever. Sex isn't the only way to show your love.
bull crap... sex is about that yes, but its not only, if sex is only about procreation as you say it, then why is it a big deal if we have it once we check not to "knock up" the girl?
sex is somehting between a man and a woman, it can be emotionless or totaly emotinal, its about sharing yourself with someone and hopefully if you are lucky enough sharing your love!
again no its not the only way to share love, but it is a way! deny that and you are a very close minded individual -*edited due to profanity*
the bibel was written with the sole reason to make god seem divine and tok all humanity out of it.
God seem divine? God IS divine. He's God. God=divine. You seem to be under the impression that the Bible is just a story. I think differently. Yes, there are stories IN it (parables), but not everything is story. Moses, Abraham, Joseph (sold into Egypt), Christ. All real people.
ha ha i mis wrote there, i ment jesus not god. i never doubt the people were alive etc, as i said i actually know a shed load about the bible(dad studied 7 years to be a priest and dropped out cos he fell in love with my mum and roman catholic means he would never be able to marry-i have a better teacher in this subject them most do!)
but yes, the bible is stories!
they have proven the bible wasnt constructed when it was said to be, the bibel of matthew etc, are believed to of beed written hundreds of years later in fact just for an example, possibly 10th hand information!
i believe in all the good teachings of the church, however its hardly without flaw. the crusades etc... just look at the popes during the renaissance!
do you think jesus never had sexual thoughts?
I believe Christ was perfect. "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28). Since I believe adultery was already stated in the 10 Commandments, and I really don't think Christ broke those, basically, no. I don't think Christ had sexual thoughts.
read what i said about adultery... if he never married he could of never committed it!
he could of slept with every unmarried woman in the world and still not committed adultery...
as for matthews direct memories of what christ said hundreds of years later... dont get me started!
it also says nowhere if he had sex or not!
If he did, they were only with his wife....assuming he was married (I'm inclined to believe he was, and I know I'm not alone in this line of thought, but there's no proof of it)
never disputing this! however i dispute that you think he had no sexual thoughts! his genes decide he will!
never once is he or his father called a virgin!
so christs father was a sinner? sure...
was it really necessary to the story of the Bible for them to be labelled as virgins? No. And by "father" I'm assuming you mean Joseph (although, technically, God is Christ's father). Joseph was married. To Mary. So I'm pretty darn sure he wasn't a virgin.....
but this goes against the bible?
he was after all human and as likely to give into urges as any of us!
Um....Human, yes. Mortal? Half. Yes, he had urges that come with being mortal. He suppressed them. Hence why he is perfect.
nobody is perfect, on the cross he had his doubts etc, look to the dead sea scrolls, which are thought to predate most of the supposed bibles by the apoltles! they are older and show humanity!
even the apolstles admitted his humanity,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17). They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).
Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).
In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28).
also have you ever heard of Council of Nicaea?
give that a look...
they decided there that jesus was going to be shown divine, and subsequently destroyed all works that showed his humanity!
including a number of unaccounted for years as a result of this destruction! what happened during those years?
did he marry have children etc? who knows! the church made sure we would never know! any heritage has been hidden and forgotten if ti exsists etc...
either way, you need to learn more of the way the world works and how the church is, i suggest you travel or something, you havent seen enough of the world to make the calls you are... you are believing what is set in front of you
your niaverty(sp?) is scary! that your male friends dont have sexual thoughts? ha. iv had sexual thoughts about every girl i know! i suppress them but most guys have had said thoughts! to say every guy you know doesnt... well thats just stupid, and again its likely due to the damn stigma about it!
guys want to procreate, procreation requires sex, we think about sex. end of!
and back to the story, i think it would of shown more humanity and depth to their relationship, i dont want to see them having sex etc, but knowing they were properly physically atracted to eachother wouldnt of taken away from the book! and would of made the relationship realistic!
-
Please edit your post so it's not visually painful to read. The bold does not work. Just unquote before your response and quote after.
-
Thanks, Ookla. The bold makes an already difficult post nearly impossible.
-
id also ask that you tone down the hostility a tad. many of those sentences feel like direct attacks on people. the profanity doesnt help much either. it seems like you are getting a bit riled up over some pretty mild comments. Come on people, lets keep the discussion mature and not result to blatantly insulting people's comments and beliefs.
-
id also ask that you tone down the hostility a tad. many of those sentences feel like direct attacks on people. the profanity doesnt help much either. it seems like you are getting a bit riled up over some pretty mild comments. Come on people, lets keep the discussion mature and not result to blatantly insulting people's comments and beliefs.
i just fixed the stuff,
as for profanity if it offends i apologise, i genuinely was riled up!
i dont judge people for how they live, yet i dont know i felt while i was reading thsi that i was being called a sinner etc, it got to me, i havent time now to tone down profanity, as i have to go help my bro with homework. ill do it late if i get a chance!
-
Honestly though, I didn't even finish reading your post because of the bold. If you could go back and fix that too that would be good.
-
fixed all asked to fix! :)
-
Muboop, I wasn't trying to call you a sinner. I was simply stating my personal beliefs, because that's what it seemed to me you were asking.
As for my supposed naivety. I'm not that naive. Sheltered, yes. Naive, no. And yes, there IS a difference. The difference being experience as opposed to knowledge. So I'm "sheltered" because I really haven't experienced a whole lot. But I'm not naive, because I actually know quite a bit.
I'm not even going to answer your questions about the immorality. You know my opinions on that. They haven't changed since I wrote that, and I really doubt that they're going to change.
Where do I live? Southern Idaho. I wasn't trying to be stereotypical when I said the people I know who are married have only slept with each other. That was a statement of fact. I was debating you saying it was "rare" to find people who hadn't. It's only rare depending on where you look. Yes, there are PLENTY of places were it is rare to find those like you said. But there are other places where it's incredibly easy. I live in a place like the latter.
I kind of take offense to the whole "use a dictionary more often" statement. I know the dictionary definition of adultery. To me, though, it's more than what's just in the dictionary. It's more than cheating on your spouse. To me, it's immorality in general.
Yes, I have heard of the Council of Niccea. I actually did a project for a Religion class on it a little over a year ago. What you said is nothing new to me. I believe the Council was a horrible idea. A bunch of people getting together to decide and vote about God and Christ? That's just dumb.
As for learning more. No problems there. I'm also a university student, and I can always learn more. Love learning more. And you're right. I do need to travel more. But traveling requires money, which I'm just a little short on right now....Although, I am planning on going to Britain and France in May through BYU-I, but....again. Money.
I'm not making any "calls". Pretty much every statement that I have made so far on here, I've qualified in some way that this is as it is in my own life. The people that I know. My personal experience. I know there are other views that exist. I have a good idea what most of those views entail. But I do not share some of those, and so I was simply stating my own opinions. Take them for what you will.
Oh, and Ook, you pegged my opinions perfectly in your post. Thank you.
-
No problem. See, it wasn't that hard to tell what you meant. :)
-
So long as you are in the club, I suppose.
I am pressed for time, once again, so I will try to find time to make a reply at a later stage. One quick mention that "polemic" is derived from a Greek word meaning "hostile", which certainly fits your initial one-sentence post. While my description may have been closer to an argument of the strawman variety, I still hold to my adjectival usage of "polemic". Your post was both hostile and derogatory.
-
The Council of Nicea was necessary because of the Arius heresy. I realize I am quite likely not in the majority with that statement.
-
Mod hat on:
I would like to point out an important section from our FAQ:
http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=11.0
FOURTH ITEM: Be polite.
I can't stress this enough. Being insensitive to others' opinions is a failing of both newcomers and long-time posters. Try not to contribute to this atmosphere. It is good to have strong opinions, and it's even better to have opinions that are different from those of other posters. The forum experience is about discussion and disagreement. However, you can disagree with someone without calling them names or otherwise insulting them. Be nice and respect people's differences.
Threads like this are bound to take twists and turns and get a little heated when they move from dealing with the specific topic (whether sex and sexuality are missing within the text of the Mistborn series) to more general (the role of sex and sexuality in our real life society--good, bad, moral, immoral, etc).
However, you can have a discussion or debate without name calling, without being condescending (from any viewpoint), and without being hostile.
If the thread continues to degenerate into bickering instead of debate I will have to lock the thread. I don't want to do that, as I like to see the board hopping with discussion and debate! So, to recap, polite disagreements = good, hostile and rude comments directed at other posters = bad. :P
/mod hat
-
*shrug* Derogatory? Well, inasmuch as it's "detracting from the character or standing of something" and "expressive of a low opinion," I guess my remark fits the definition. The connotation of "with intent to hurt feelings," though, was not there.
Hostile? By the various definitions of hostile, "openly opposed or resisisting" or "antagonistic" (where "antagonism" means "opposition of a conflicting force, tendency, or principle" or "actively expressed opposition") are definitions I would say apply, but not any of the other definitions. And if we are not allowed to be "hostile" in this way, then there is no point to even having a discussion of anything remotely controversial.
(And if all you mean is "hostile" without the standard connotations of "polemic" then just say "hostile," for goodness' sake.)
I don't think that telling someone they've bought into the lies of today's society is rude. Do you think implying someone else has bought into the tenets and dogmae of two millennia ago is rude? They're both statements based on evidence from the other person's writings. (And yes, I have fully bought into certain tenets and dogmae of two millennia ago, though not all 2000-year-old tenets and dogmae.)
-
To be clearer, statements like "Use your dictionary more often" or implying that where a person lives obviously negates their ability to understand something are what I'd consider hostile and rude (picking on those specifically because they're the most recent and I needed a quick example, not because I'm calling out the poster in question).
-
Muboop, I wasn't trying to call you a sinner. I was simply stating my personal beliefs, because that's what it seemed to me you were asking.
fair enough however its the only way i could take what you said!
As for my supposed naivety. I'm not that naive. Sheltered, yes. Naive, no. And yes, there IS a difference. The difference being experience as opposed to knowledge. So I'm "sheltered" because I really haven't experienced a whole lot. But I'm not naive, because I actually know quite a bit.
mabey but mabey it is an unbringing of where you are from or soemthing, but when im from its common at my age. im only 20 btw. and although i dont condone people who sleep around, i think perfectly aceptable between two people who are in love and mature enough to understand and appreciate it. i think a marriage title shouldn't have a place in it.
I'm not even going to answer your questions about the immorality. You know my opinions on that. They haven't changed since I wrote that, and I really doubt that they're going to change.
i ask this out of curiousity mabey, and of form of debate. do you think a couple together for half a year and married, that they are ok to sleep together. are a couple together for say 6 years living together whom fuly intend to get married in the future but dont want to make a full committment yet. are they immoral?
can you explain to why they would be if you think they are and the married couple are?
i genuinely believe marriage is only a title, and one that seems to mean less and less every day with the high rate of divorce.
Where do I live? Southern Idaho. I wasn't trying to be stereotypical when I said the people I know who are married have only slept with each other. That was a statement of fact. I was debating you saying it was "rare" to find people who hadn't. It's only rare depending on where you look. Yes, there are PLENTY of places were it is rare to find those like you said. But there are other places where it's incredibly easy. I live in a place like the latter.
you have to agree do that where you are from has a minority in in views, very few places in the christian world are as zealous as your area. i think you take the word of "God" to the unecessar extreme for the most part. Ireland is where im from and we are by no means not a religious country, but yet we dont try to think to hold others to our own standards, but rather hold ourselves to our own! and let others do as they will.
we are a rather tolerant people!
I kind of take offense to the whole "use a dictionary more often" statement. I know the dictionary definition of adultery. To me, though, it's more than what's just in the dictionary. It's more than cheating on your spouse. To me, it's immorality in general.
see thats you imo taking more from the bible then it is giving, it isnt worded there so why create it so?
also i feel totaly justified in my comment, as i am right in what i am saying.
you cannot turn around to me and basically call me stupid for saying sex before marriage isnt in the commandments then say oh but i dont realy take the words at their actual meanings... because that is what i said! i gave their meanings. end of!
Yes, I have heard of the Council of Niccea. I actually did a project for a Religion class on it a little over a year ago. What you said is nothing new to me. I believe the Council was a horrible idea. A bunch of people getting together to decide and vote about God and Christ? That's just dumb.
i totaly agree! and due to this the bible hs been distorted!
we dont actually know about christs humanity at all! something which i think is way more important. to see how he acted when faced with situations we would face everyday!
we can speculate as you do that he was the perfect person, but all we know of are his greatness! he was beaten etc everything to do with his death and his greatness before it. but did he ever give into temptatiosn of any sort whether to fight back etc?
sure we were given pleanty of important stuff, but not everything! if jesus was so perfect why not let us see his flaws? let us see how he got past them, how he conquered his fears and made up for any mistakes!
As for learning more. No problems there. I'm also a university student, and I can always learn more. Love learning more. And you're right. I do need to travel more. But traveling requires money, which I'm just a little short on right now....Although, I am planning on going to Britain and France in May through BYU-I, but....again. Money.
travelling does require money! i have paid for every trip myself i have ever been on all the while getting a chemical engineering degree in the most prestigeous university in ireland. it can be done if you want! iv travelled to the states for 3 months, been to asia, australia and about 80% of europe! not that im saying im great or anything, but im more trying to say, its worth it! give it a shot! broadens your mind! seriously so! and the experiences you get are worth it
I'm not making any "calls". Pretty much every statement that I have made so far on here, I've qualified in some way that this is as it is in my own life. The people that I know. My personal experience. I know there are other views that exist. I have a good idea what most of those views entail. But I do not share some of those, and so I was simply stating my own opinions. Take them for what you will.
i do, and i respectively disagree with most of them.
-
To be clearer, statements like "Use your dictionary more often" or implying that where a person lives obviously negates their ability to understand something are what I'd consider hostile and rude (picking on those specifically because they're the most recent and I needed a quick example, not because I'm calling out the poster in question).
i feel totaly justified in what i said!
the poster i was talking to about the dictionary told me i was wrong in something i said, even though if you actually read the words i was fully correct!
telling someone they are wrong without checking the facts is just bad imo!
if you are going to accume me of being wrong check the source!
and as for where from, i wasnt being derogatory, not at all! and i was right to!
i merely said that the person had the attributes of a certain area! and i hit the nail on the head!
i think people need to travel and see the world before they set their ideals in stone! how can they judge anothers situation or life when they havent seen or experienced anything about it!
-
There are ways to say things that get your point across while still being respectful and polite. For example, back to the dictionary example, instead of saying "try using your dictionary more often!" you can say "I disagree with your use of "adultery" in that context. I'd define it as such and such, which doesn't affect such and such (filling in the relevant information where needed).
It's more the tone and presentation of the arguments I'm talking about--not the content.
-
fair enough however its the only way i could take what you said!
I doubt that, but...oh well. Doesn't even matter right now.
mabey but mabey it is an unbringing of where you are from or soemthing, but when im from its common at my age. im only 20 btw. and although i dont condone people who sleep around, i think perfectly aceptable between two people who are in love and mature enough to understand and appreciate it. i think a marriage title shouldn't have a place in it.
Where I'm from has nothing to do with it. It's how I've been raised, and the morals my parents have helped instill in me. If you must know, I'm LDS, and the city I live is actually pretty darn Anti-Mormon. We have a temple here (very recently) and we almost weren't even able to get that because of the huge public outcry against it. Plus, I spend so much of my time online that where I'm from is irrelevant to this argument.
i ask this out of curiousity mabey, and of form of debate. do you think a couple together for half a year and married, that they are ok to sleep together. are a couple together for say 6 years living together whom fuly intend to get married in the future but dont want to make a full committment yet. are they immoral?
can you explain to why they would be if you think they are and the married couple are?
I would rather not answer this, because I have a strong feeling you're going to take offense to it. I'm not trying to give offense. But since you seem to REALLY want to know my opinions, fine. IN MY OPINION, sex in marriage is not immoral, even if that marriage doesn't last. Sex outside of marriage is immoral. Heck, I personally don't think members of the opposite sex should even be living together if they're not married and not family....But again, that's just my opinion, and my personal beliefs. I'm not saying anyone's evil for doing it. I'm just saying I wouldn't. I'm also not saying that I look down upon people who live together. That's their lifestyle. They don't share my beliefs. I'm fine with that. I have my opinions and beliefs. They have theirs. I don't like it when people say my opinion and beliefs are wrong, and so I'm not going to do that others. Simple as that.
i genuinely believe marriage is only a title, and one that seems to mean less and less every day with the high rate of divorce.
And I believe that marriage is much more than just a title. I have to agree with you, though, that the world seems to be thinking less and less of it. And that's sad.
you have to agree do that where you are from has a minority in in views, very few places in the christian world are as zealous as your area. i think you take the word of "God" to the unecessar extreme for the most part. Ireland is where im from and we are by no means not a religious country, but yet we dont try to think to hold others to our own standards, but rather hold ourselves to our own! and let others do as they will.
we are a rather tolerant people!
I actually think Utah is much more zealous than my area, but....that's just me. And I think I've already shown that I agree with you about not holding others to my standards, and just sticking to my own. I'm not going to judge you if you don't live up to MY standards. They are mine. Not yours.
see thats you imo taking more from the bible then it is giving, it isnt worded there so why create it so?
also i feel totaly justified in my comment, as i am right in what i am saying.
Go ahead and feel justified. Just also know that it was rude. And why create something from what wasn't there in the Bible? Because they're my standards, and if I want to think that the adultery mentioned in the 10 Commandments also applies to any sexual sin, than I can. Just like I can think that the taking God's name in vain in the 3rd Commandment can also apply to swearing in general. It's my own prerogative. As long as I don't hold you to the same, it shouldn't matter.
you cannot turn around to me and basically call me stupid for saying sex before marriage isnt in the commandments then say oh but i dont realy take the words at their actual meanings... because that is what i said! i gave their meanings. end of!
I never called you stupid, or even implied that. You can infer what you want though. That's your prerogative.
if jesus was so perfect why not let us see his flaws?
I personally don't think He had any flaws. He made no mistakes. This is what makes Him perfect. In my opinion.
travelling does require money! i have paid for every trip myself i have ever been on all the while getting a chemical engineering degree in the most prestigeous university in ireland. it can be done if you want! iv travelled to the states for 3 months, been to asia, australia and about 80% of europe!
.....congratulations?
not that im saying im great or anything, but im more trying to say, its worth it! give it a shot! broadens your mind! seriously so! and the experiences you get are worth it
Oh, trust me, I know that it's worth it. I haven't even gone, but just from what I've thought and imagined, I know for a fact that it will broaden my mind. (and on a related sidenote: My passport came today! YES! ;D)
i do, and i respectively disagree with most of them.
Respectfully? (since I'm guessing that's what you meant)....I wouldn't really call everything you said respectful, but again....what do I know?
And Ookla, I was busting up all through your post. It's hilarious. (And I'm referring to the multitude of definitions in it....:D)
-
Still, it is good to see that themes such as these are more prevalent in other works by Mr. Sanderson. I feared for some time that this sanitation was somehow related to his personal beliefs, to some idea that it was sinful (what do I know?) to put such things on paper for others to read. I hope he knows that internal observations about various people's calves, bosoms and shoulders is an important part of Robert Jordan's narrative style.
oh they most definitely are. Brandon's big thing is that he want everything to be helping the plot and story along. In Mistborn, I just dont think it would have added much. It doesnt have to do with his personal religion, its more of a "does this actually fit here?" kind of thing. Just remember, more sexuality (in any form) doesn't make a story better or more realistic just because it is there. I still maintain there needs to be a plot-centric point to it all.
Cyne's views mirror my own and he/she writes better than me, so I'll just let him/her take care of any follow up stuff :) One thing I didn't know upon coming here was just how many people here are Mormons. That's an important point because it's such a tiny fraction of the general population, yet makes up a huge portion of this board apparently. When we discuss something like "what is normal for a male viewpoint," the responses will be waaaay skewed towards the most conservative viewpoint. That certainly heavily influenced the responses here towards a more conservative view of what is acceptable and whether any sexuality was missing in Mistborn. It's almost like if you went on Al Jazeera television and took a poll asking what everyone thinks about Americans...nowhere near representative of the world as a whole (or Brandon's readership I would think).
Brandon said one of his worst flaws as a writer is getting stuck in a character's head and writing a lot of internal dialogue. I think all I would ask him to take into consideration in future novels is that the internal dialogue of your average non-Mormon male has a lot more body-part watching/considering/judging/ogling/whatever than what his male characters displayed in Mistborn. At least get it up to a Robert Jordan level as some of you said.
I don't want to come off as insulting or derogatory but the simplest way I can say this is: If you're Mormon, you at least should recognize that some of your views of male/female relationships would not be considered 'normal' by the majority of the U.S. population (especially anyone 16-40 yrs old). Someone even mentioned that all the guys she knows don't have pre-marital sex...that's not normal for 21yr old males in 99% of U.S. universities. I'm not judging whether it's right/wrong, smart/dumb, or whatever. Just recognize that it's not normal and that if you're trying to write good, realistic characters, you have to recognize how your own view of the world is skewed and how a realistic character would act according to the other 99% of the population.
Some of you mentioned that Warbreaker has more sexuality in it. I'll have to check it out once I finish the Mistborn trilogy. Thanks again for all the responses, pizza or not.
-
And I'm sure if we all tried really, really hard, we could all connect the pizza thing back to 'Sex and sexuality in the Mistborn series…missing?'
Once I saw a slogan for a pizza place that said something like this: "Pizza is like sex; even if it's bad, it's still really good". And that's all I have to say about that. :)
-
And I'm sure if we all tried really, really hard, we could all connect the pizza thing back to 'Sex and sexuality in the Mistborn series…missing?'
Make sure you only eat homemade pizza. Eating out is not only more expensive, you can never be quite sure what they put in it.
-
And I'm sure if we all tried really, really hard, we could all connect the pizza thing back to 'Sex and sexuality in the Mistborn series…missing?'
Make sure you only eat homemade pizza. Eating out is not only more expensive, you can never be quite sure what they put in it.
pwn'd
Grow up in Utah, then you will know true naivety and what it really means to be sheltered. The most awkward class I had was sex-ed, because my bishop was the teacher. Utah is VERY zealous when it comes to this subject, sex is a hush-hush no speaky. It's funny to see how my Mormon friends react to hearing that a girl has had sex. Immediately she is a slut and is untouchable. I agree with ryanjm; the Mormon view is a minority view, and I even find it very weird and against the norm. Now I'm considered a sinner, its really fun living here!
-
The most awkward class I had was sex-ed, because my bishop was the teacher.
Heh. If my old bishop had been the teacher....well. It might've been awkward, but not for him. He had no problems talking about sex....In the middle of Sacrament Meeting....
Utah is VERY zealous when it comes to this subject, sex is a hush-hush no speaky.
Fortunately, we're nothing like this....at least where I'm from....
-
A lot of guys like to eat out because sometimes it's easier and more convenient to just grab a pizza at lunch or after work then to go home and make one yourself.
-
firstly im going to say this will be my last post in thsi particular topic devoted to this particular poster
fair enough however its the only way i could take what you said!
I doubt that, but...oh well. Doesn't even matter right now.
em i wudn't doubt it, im not perfect it annoyed me, i acted on impulse as i do most times!
mabey but mabey it is an unbringing of where you are from or soemthing, but when im from its common at my age. im only 20 btw. and although i dont condone people who sleep around, i think perfectly aceptable between two people who are in love and mature enough to understand and appreciate it. i think a marriage title shouldn't have a place in it.
Where I'm from has nothing to do with it. It's how I've been raised, and the morals my parents have helped instill in me. If you must know, I'm LDS, and the city I live is actually pretty darn Anti-Mormon. We have a temple here (very recently) and we almost weren't even able to get that because of the huge public outcry against it. Plus, I spend so much of my time online that where I'm from is irrelevant to this argument.
but see this again could be seen as to back up my points, your parents morals, put on them by their parents etc... its all due to upbringing, which is what im trying to get across! if you said yourself that you know basically few few if any ppl who have had sex before marriage, then you either live in completly sheltered life or its due to upbringing, the net gives ideas, but if you were to be insulted etc for acting on these ideas which im assuming you would consider area and background. then it would make you less open to the ideas! it seem to me to be a very judgemental downward spiral!
i ask this out of curiousity mabey, and of form of debate. do you think a couple together for half a year and married, that they are ok to sleep together. are a couple together for say 6 years living together whom fuly intend to get married in the future but dont want to make a full committment yet. are they immoral?
can you explain to why they would be if you think they are and the married couple are?
I would rather not answer this, because I have a strong feeling you're going to take offense to it. I'm not trying to give offense. But since you seem to REALLY want to know my opinions, fine. IN MY OPINION, sex in marriage is not immoral, even if that marriage doesn't last. Sex outside of marriage is immoral. Heck, I personally don't think members of the opposite sex should even be living together if they're not married and not family....But again, that's just my opinion, and my personal beliefs. I'm not saying anyone's evil for doing it. I'm just saying I wouldn't. I'm also not saying that I look down upon people who live together. That's their lifestyle. They don't share my beliefs. I'm fine with that. I have my opinions and beliefs. They have theirs. I don't like it when people say my opinion and beliefs are wrong, and so I'm not going to do that others. Simple as that.
I will never understand this. i feel the couple of six years have a much stronger relationship and are much better equipped to have sex and take what come wiht it, as well as more mature to not jump into things, if they have a kid, they are likely to be able to take it easier etc... so why should the married couple get preferance?(not a question to you just tryign to express opinion)
i genuinely believe marriage is only a title, and one that seems to mean less and less every day with the high rate of divorce.
And I believe that marriage is much more than just a title. I have to agree with you, though, that the world seems to be thinking less and less of it. And that's sad.
i cant agree with you, now a days marriage is taken to lightly, its ment to be some supreme commitment, but so long as people dont see it as that then it cannot be valued as that! getting married doenst mean you are a stronger couple or anything. long term love and caring is what i put emphesis on now!
you have to agree do that where you are from has a minority in in views, very few places in the christian world are as zealous as your area. i think you take the word of "God" to the unecessar extreme for the most part. Ireland is where im from and we are by no means not a religious country, but yet we dont try to think to hold others to our own standards, but rather hold ourselves to our own! and let others do as they will.
we are a rather tolerant people!
I actually think Utah is much more zealous than my area, but....that's just me. And I think I've already shown that I agree with you about not holding others to my standards, and just sticking to my own. I'm not going to judge you if you don't live up to MY standards. They are mine. Not yours.
ok, so you can name one more zealous state, i wouldnt know all the states individualy having not seen them all. but see, i commend you on saying that you wont judge me for not living up to your standards, but does that go for the rest of you? i can imagine(and i am posibly wrong) that if soemone where you live was to act in such ways as alot of the rest of the world then they would be shunned and judged? creating a stigma about it all and making it harder to live their life choices?
see thats you imo taking more from the bible then it is giving, it isnt worded there so why create it so?
also i feel totaly justified in my comment, as i am right in what i am saying.
Go ahead and feel justified. Just also know that it was rude. And why create something from what wasn't there in the Bible? Because they're my standards, and if I want to think that the adultery mentioned in the 10 Commandments also applies to any sexual sin, than I can. Just like I can think that the taking God's name in vain in the 3rd Commandment can also apply to swearing in general. It's my own prerogative. As long as I don't hold you to the same, it shouldn't matter.
i thought what you said was rude to! to twist the words of the bible to suit and support your moral standards and in the mean time to tell me im wrong when i say it exactly how is it dictionary perfect! i responded in like imo!
you cannot turn around to me and basically call me stupid for saying sex before marriage isnt in the commandments then say oh but i dont realy take the words at their actual meanings... because that is what i said! i gave their meanings. end of!
I never called you stupid, or even implied that. You can infer what you want though. That's your prerogative.
ah but the implications, to say im wrong is to imply im mistaken or didnt research it well enough or mabey to say you know more then me? doenst matter regardless! these things all lead o a deficit in my knowledge. i take this very personally as im a very intelligent person!
if jesus was so perfect why not let us see his flaws?
I personally don't think He had any flaws. He made no mistakes. This is what makes Him perfect. In my opinion.
now here is where i think we have our main problem. i disagree! as i stated about nicea earlier! he most definately had flaws! else why would the church have to decide if divine or not and destroy material? if he had no flaws then he would of had nothign of humanity in him bar a face. and he could be seen doing no wrong.
the truth was hidden form you by the church! i personally think it would be a much better guideline if we cold see jesus shortcomings! after all nobody was perfect, even jesus!
to quote alexander pope "To err is human, to forgive divine." he was called human by his apostles, by god etc... he was human meaning he could make mistakes, meaning he had flaws. i believe they were minor compared to most people, but nobody is perfect!
travelling does require money! i have paid for every trip myself i have ever been on all the while getting a chemical engineering degree in the most prestigeous university in ireland. it can be done if you want! iv travelled to the states for 3 months, been to asia, australia and about 80% of europe!
.....congratulations?
kinda putting me down no? especially since my next line. rather childish
not that im saying im great or anything, but im more trying to say, its worth it! give it a shot! broadens your mind! seriously so! and the experiences you get are worth it
Oh, trust me, I know that it's worth it. I haven't even gone, but just from what I've thought and imagined, I know for a fact that it will broaden my mind. (and on a related sidenote: My passport came today! YES! ;D)
im glad you got your passport! i cannot for life of me actually wonder why such a huge amount of american population dont have one! i think it is part of the close-mindness!
if you cna come back form a year or so of travelling through the world including europe etc and still believe as you do now i will be shocked...
i do, and i respectively disagree with most of them.
Respectfully? (since I'm guessing that's what you meant)....I wouldn't really call everything you said respectful, but again....what do I know?
in that last post i made a point of not saying anything insulting..
-
geez, i stop looking at this thread for a few hours and it degenerates into name calling and belief bashing. Suddenly because people posting are mormon their arguments have less relevance because they are a supposed minority view? when a mormon person is responding to what look like insults they are just being zealous? in a world where violent crimes increase, homicides remain unsolved at at an ever growing rate (nearly 40%), and where the unity of marriage is considered an afterthought by so many, I would have thought that people would be a little more courteous of people's "conservative" views.
it disturbs me that any mormon, or any person in general, is being labeled as sheltered or zealous due to the state they live in, or due to the miles they've traveled. really, this is just silly. it is considered wrong to judge all people of one race based off one of their members. it is considered wrong to say an entire family is messed up because one of their members is making poor decisions. it is considered wrong for all the residents of one nation to be judged based on the actions of a few. how is religion any different? there are a few comments ive seen that could be taken as religious bigotry, and i dont think there is EVER any room for that type of behavior in ANY setting. Utah, Idaho, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama...all have zealous people living in them regardless of religion or backround. The same can be said of Israel, Ireland, the USA, Brazil, Egypt, and Russia.
here's a little bit of perspective. I happen to agree that there are some mormons in Utah that are a bit over the top. I also feel that there are similar types in every state in the union, and in every country in the world. however I have met and associated with FAR more mormons that were just normal people. no over-zealousness. not over-bearing. not sheltered (the former CEO of AT&T Japan comes to mind). just down to earth "normal" people. how is believing in morality not normal? everyone seems so keen on definitions, so define normal. there is a huge measure of perspective involved there.
Here's a good rule for these threads, and for life: be courteous. I dont care if you are mormon, hindu, atheist, white, black, mexican, or irish. leave insulting and inflaming comments out of all of it.
the type of contention im seeing here doesnt do anybody any good, and it sickens me to see what started out as an interesting topic spiral into name calling, intelligence insulting, and religious insensitivity (from all angles, not just towards "mormons"). disgusting.
-
Muboop, try using fewer exclamation points so it doesn't look like you're shouting all the time. Also, this forum has standards for grammar and capitalization. Please check the rules.
I will never understand this. i feel the couple of six years have a much stronger relationship and are much better equipped to have sex and take what come wiht it, as well as more mature to not jump into things, if they have a kid, they are likely to be able to take it easier etc... so why should the married couple get preferance?
Marriage is a sign of a willingness to take responsibility. Not getting married is a sign of a willingness to leave whenever the going gets tough. You said the couple who lives together for 6 years doesn't want to make the commitment; exactly so. So why do you think they would take responsibility for children, if they're not committed? That's a contradiction.
-
I'm inclined to agree with Bookstore Guy. This is an interesting topic, but it's not nearly as much fun when it degenerates into what it is right now--word-twisting and name-calling. I hope that I'm not one of those doing that, but since I'm not sure, and I can't control how others take my responses, I apologize for any misunderstandings and any offense I may have given from any of my posts.
-
if you cna come back form a year or so of travelling through the world including europe etc and still believe as you do now i will be shocked...
I've been restraining myself from getting involved in this argument, partly because it was getting so vitriolic and off-topic, and partly because I was annoyed by some posters' neglect of punctuation and spell-check.
However, I now wish to offer my own experience as an example of one who:
1) Is not Mormon, never has been, whose parents are not Mormon, and has never lived in a predominantly LDS community,
2) Has lived for extended periods of time (at least 6 months) in Zaire, Cameroon, and Belgium, as well as in Kansas, Illinois, and Massachusetts, in addition to travel throughout other regions,
3) Is well-educated regarding the Bible and the history of the Christian church, and
4) Agrees with most of the main points made by Wilson, Reaves, and Ookla, specifically:
a) That extramarital sex is immoral
b) That I've personally known many people, male and female, who have chosen to refrain from extramarital sex
c) That Jesus was without sin or flaw, that he was divine as well as human
While a person's upbringing and cultural surroundings certainly tend to influence that person's beliefs, those beliefs are not thereby invalid - that is, the person would not necessarily change those beliefs if exposed to a different environment.
As to the lack of sexuality in Mistborn, it wasn't something that occurred to me as a problem but now that it's been mentioned, I agree that the trilogy wouldn't have been hurt by just a little more evidence of physical attraction between Elend and Vin. As others have said, it wasn't utterly absent. (One of my favorite examples that I haven't seen mentioned is at the end of The Final Empire, after the fight in Kredik Shaw, when Elend says, "Valette? Do you think you could go put your clothes on? This is ... kind of distracting.") But a few more hints that they appreciated each other's bodies would not have been amiss.
That said, I believe that characters can be realistic and believable without conforming to the majority on any particular characteristic. Even if muboop is correct in estimating that 99% of the world's population engages in extramarital sex (although I would contend that the percentage is considerably lower), I think an author has the right to write his characters from within that other 1%. This is all the more true when, as in Sanderson's case, the author himself, and many of his close associates, fall within that 1%. After all, authors write stories about princesses, movie stars, defense attorneys, assassins, and many other groups that comprise far less than 1% of the general population. If they do it well, readers are not left thinking, "How unrealistic! Nobody I know is a defense attorney!" Rather, they enjoy the vicarious experience of a world and an outlook different from their own.
As for pizza, I love sausage, pepperoni, and mushrooms. And maybe some extra mushrooms. They're about the only vegetable topping I like, I can't stand onions, peppers, or olives.
And my pink unicorn is named Jewel, and he's an excellent warrior against both koloss and Calormenes.
-
Sarah--I loved that part at the end of FE! I was laughing so hard at that comment. And that's another example of the sexuality going on, but we're not in Elend's head, so we don't know WHAT he finds distracted (although we have a pretty darn good idea....), and HOW distracting, and what it is that he's thinking...but I don't think those things are necessary. Just the simple knowledge of knowing that it's going on is enough. For me.
-
very well put Sarah. i agree whole-heatedly with your views on the 1% and the 99%.
I also believe strongly that mushrooms are a great addition to any pizza. i am actually quite surprised how many people here dig pepperoni, sausage and mushroom. we should totally have a party. my personal preferences lean towards specialty pizzas like the ones served at California Pizza Kitchen. Chipotle Chicken/Steak. BBQ chicken. this one with ranch dressing, lettuce, bacon, tomato and avocado (especially great in the summer). However, my wife like simplicity, so i dig pepperoni and mushroom.
Personally, Mistborn and the like aside, I would be curious to see how the themes of attraction and sex are treated in Brandon's next series, Way of Kings. It is a much broader scope, so knowing Brandon, I wouldn't be shocked at all to see these type of things much more prevalent. All I ask is that he doesnt go all Mercedes Lackey on us. Now THERE is a lady with a pink unicorn obsession. you think we are bad...sheesh.
-
I'd have to agree with most of Bookstore Guy's post about name calling and belief bashing as well.
Furthermore, I think it is vital to this discussion if people could just agree to disagree on certain points. For instance, the immorality of extramarital sex. Some say it is, some say it isn't. I think we've got that clear now, as we have that neither side is going to be persuaded in this.
Another point is the "boys have sexual thoughts" - or not - discussion. I can confirm that I do, multiple times a day, on seeing women I both know or don't. I personally think most men do. However, there are some who say they do not, and they are not suddenly going to say something different if someone else says they don't believe that. So, there's no point to be discussed now is there?
One other thing I'd like to mention is the whole dictionary/definition discussion. Although I agree that this discussion didn't start out very polite, I do believe that one can not have a good discussion if both (or more) sides do not use the same definition of words. Usually, people tend to use the definition that's in the dictionary, so if someone else misunderstands your argument because you believe adultery means something different than that's in the dictionary, you shouldn't feel offended. It might just help discussion if you described what you meant in this case, which I believe was "extramarital intercourse". (Note, I used adultery as an example, there were more I believe, nothing personal).
Personally, I've been raised by Christian parents and consider myself one, although most others probably don't. I know people who waited with sex until marriage and I know people who've slept with tens of people without ever being married so far. Myself, I'm somewhere in the middle. I do not think that people who wait with sex are stupid or anything (although I do think they're missing something), and neither do I think the ones who've slept around are sluts (although I do think they're missing something as well).
I really can't and don't want to judge Mormons in any way, as I don't think I personally know anyone who is one. Even if I did, I still wouldn't want to. Personally I think that if you can't make your point without an argument like "because God says so in the bible" or "because He is divine", you should really scratch yourself behind your ears and start thinking about your beliefs. However, if that's enough for you I have nothing against that.
I do hope my English is at least correct enough for people to read this post. I'm not a native speaker so it probably isn't perfect, but I do try.
-
pssh. Your English is better than mine. Though, we've already accepted that fact that the education system in Sacramento isn't anything special. I rely on spell-check and smart people to fix my grammar in my novel.
-
I saw no problems TMan. Would never have known you weren't a native speaker personally.
And I agree about the definitions. If we're going to use a definition other than in the dictionary, we should specify what our personal definition is, so others don't get confused.
And something in your post reminded me of someone I know. Muboop mentioned something in his post about the possible shunning of someone who's slept with others without being married. I actually have a friend who's slept around a fair amount. I graduated with her (almost 4 years ago) and back then she was a "good" girl....I worked with her about 2 years ago and that's where I'd found out that she'd been sleeping around. Did I shun her? Heck no. She actually became one of my best friends at that point in time, simply because our personalities were really similar and she was hilarious--despite the fact that she'd slept around.
And after a certain point in debates, agreeing to disagree is wise. Then the debate can progress further because you turn to other topics within the overall debate topic....or something....
-
I would like to direct you all to the last few posts (second to last page, I think) of the 'A Memory of Light' post, started by Shaggy. We actually get into a small discussion of Laws vs. Morality, in which several sides are represented. I think it holds some small relevance to the pre-marital sex debate.
-
Marriage is a sign of a willingness to take responsibility. Not getting married is a sign of a willingness to leave whenever the going gets tough. You said the couple who lives together for 6 years doesn't want to make the commitment; exactly so. So why do you think they would take responsibility for children, if they're not committed? That's a contradiction.
I disagree. It seems a prevalent trait of the religious to be married at an early age, for the sole purpose of having sex. They cannot have sex unless married, thus they should be married. Granted, that is an amusing deconstruction of the practise of matrimony, yet it does seem to defy its intent. I would be very surprised if the high divorce-rate in Western Society was not to a large extent caused by young people being bound by Hymen's chains too soon. Incompatibilty issues tend to crop up if you do not know your becoming spouse well enough. Heaven forbid you to already have had children by the time you discover such incompatibility. I always say that there is nothing wrong with trying a pair of trousers on before you buy them. In my view, marriage for many does not signal a willingness to responsibility, but rather a need to get laid.
And someone mentioned that they viewed sex outside of marriage as immoral. Why? Why on earth should that be immoral, when no one are hurt by it?
-
Cynewulf, your speculations repeat the justifications put forward by others holding your views, but statistics go against your claim. An example quote:
The survey, released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that 70 percent of those who lived together for at least five years did eventually walk down the aisle.
But these marriages are also more likely to break up. After 10 years, 40 percent of couples that had lived together before marriage had broken up. That compares with 31 percent of those who did not live together first.
Also: Would you support the idea that religious people are more likely to wait for sex until after marriage than non-religious people? Yet:
Non-religious people. Of those who don't affiliate with any religious group, 46 percent were divorced within 10 years.
Quotes from here (http://www.adherents.com/misc/marriage.html). But if you look it up, the info is widespread.
(People who meet and then get married the next day, Vegas-style, probably do do so because they feel they should before getting laid. In my view, though, most people who wait for sex until marriage get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives with their spouse.)
Now, to answer your last question: Why on earth should it be immoral, when no one is hurt by it? First, you have submitted no evidence that no one is hurt by it. How about the divorce evidence? In addition, this: Children of divorce. Women whose parents were divorced are significantly more likely to divorce themselves, with 43 percent splitting after 10 years. Among those whose parents stayed together, the divorce rate was just 29 percent.
Living together before marriage makes divorce more likely, which makes the children that came from that marriage more likely to get divorced, etc. Now, if you believe divorce causes no problems for children, go start another thread about the wonders of divorce, but that example of harm is evident to me. (Also, "compatibility" is overblown. Couples can largely be as compatible as they want to be. As long as both partners are honest and willing, any truly unworkable problems can be discovered during the getting-to-know-you phase before marriage. And after marriage, if each partner gives 100% and wants the marriage to work, it's highly likely to work. If each partner constantly looks for faults in the other, the marriage is not likely to last long. )
But the foundational reason is:
God claims sole authority over the power over life and death. Thou shalt not kill (except when God allows it) and thou shalt not mess with procreation (except when God allows it). Messing around with creating life is similar in seriousness to messing around with ending life. God has instituted specific guidelines to follow.
-
Another aspect of the faulty "compatibility argument" is the fact that those who wait to have sex until they are married have no experience to compare against when it comes to sex. There is no " she is better than so and so" or "not as good as so and so".
Compatibility is quite simple because each partner is receiving the best experience that they've had. There is no comparison to cheapen it, or make you second guess, or feel disappointed.
Also, I wholeheartedly dispute the "get married just so they can have sex" argument. That had NOTHING to do with why I married my wife. I love her and wanted to be with her forever. And by "with her" I do not mean sexually. She is a beacon of light in my life and beautiful as well, but primarily I love her for who she is.
I got married at an early age, because I wanted to share my WHOLE life with the one I loved.
As for why it is immoral. It is. For many reasons. Ookla mentioned some. But also, sex creates a spiritual/emotional bond between people. It is the single most powerful experience that two people can share. But each time the number of people that are slept with increases, that bond frays and is cheapened. It breaks the people a little bit more on the inside.
Before you dispute that right out, let me tell you, I've seen it. People who feel like they've lost something intangible, who regret being so free with something so special. It is like anything good. If you overuse it, or use it for the wrong purpose it is ruined.
I find your misunderstanding of marriage and sex a bit sad, but I can't blame you for touting society's favorite message. Just understand that society has determined that good should be labeled bad, and bad good. It wants sex to be glorified and promotes lies about chastity and marriage to protect itself.
Research however, has proven society wrong, like Ookla has shared. Extramarital sex not only has physical risks (disease etc.) but emotional and social risks. It is not just blind "God told me so" obedience, it is good sense.
-
Well, it's not society that is "protected" by free love—it's certain individuals' ability to pursue hedonistic pleasure free of responsibility. That's destroying society, not protecting it. The basic unit of society is the family, not the individual. Elevation of the importance of the individual denies the "soc" ("partner") part of the word "society."
-
Im not going to lie, im finding it very hard to not respond to alot of these comments. but i already said i would not. if anyone wants to take up the convo/debate wiht me please pm me or soemthing, as i dont want to have it here.
as for my spelling mistakes i apologise, im used to using my safari browser, which automatically underlines any spelling mistakes, my laptop is in for repairs, so using home pc, which means firefox
So instead ill respond only to the topic at hand:
Can i ask the people who are opposed to more sexuality in the book(now my defining of sexuality may not include the actual act or any details, just more evidence of say elends attractiveness towards Vin),
can i ask you people, why?
do you not think it would make the story more realistic for a couple who have no moral obligations against it?
sex is never a source of uncomfort for these people to my knowledge and mix that with the prevaliency of brothels and some of the nobles "habits" it clearly is natural in their setting. So would it not be more relaistic int heir world and time and setting for them to be a tad more physical even in just if they kiss more, or a thought from elend or vin thining they would love to kiss or soemthing?
-
muboop it's already been mentioned in this thread that both Elend and Vin have reasons to have moral issues with sex.
However I would have no objection to some more overt evidence of their attraction, such as what Elend thought was stunning about Vin in certain dresses, or wanting to kiss like you say. I'm just not sure it was necessary for the story.
-
Muboop, I don't see why there would be any problem with you posting further here. The only advice I would give is try not to take posts personally. All we're doing is having an intelligent discussion/debate on sex and sexuality and our own personal opinions on it. Expanding our minds and understanding other peoples opinions never hurt anyone. You only get hurt when you take others' opinions personally, especially when they're not meaning to insult you. Also, you don't necessarily have to focus on one person's comments per post....Or even try to refute everything in one person's long posts (like mine). I know that I was the one who started that with you, but....if you do still want to debate here (which again, I see no problem with), address others and don't focus on just one person....
And good old Firefox. That's actually what I use, and I've got it set up to underline when something's misspelled. I believe you can set it up by going into Tools and then Options and then the Advanced Tab....And it should be that you check the box next to "check my spelling as I type"...at least that's the way it is on mine. Plus, there's a spell check in the "post reply" page on TWG. So you can always use that too.
And the question on Vin and Elend. Ookla already answered it, and I agree with him....He worded it better than I would've (not the first time), and...yeah. I don't really have anything to add to it. There could've been more. I don't see the necessity of it, though.
-
Cynewulf, your speculations repeat the justifications put forward by others holding your views, but statistics go against your claim. An example quote:
The survey, released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that 70 percent of those who lived together for at least five years did eventually walk down the aisle.
But these marriages are also more likely to break up. After 10 years, 40 percent of couples that had lived together before marriage had broken up. That compares with 31 percent of those who did not live together first.
Also: Would you support the idea that religious people are more likely to wait for sex until after marriage than non-religious people? Yet:
Non-religious people. Of those who don't affiliate with any religious group, 46 percent were divorced within 10 years.
Quotes from here (http://www.adherents.com/misc/marriage.html). But if you look it up, the info is widespread.
(People who meet and then get married the next day, Vegas-style, probably do do so because they feel they should before getting laid. In my view, though, most people who wait for sex until marriage get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives with their spouse.)
Now, to answer your last question: Why on earth should it be immoral, when no one is hurt by it? First, you have submitted no evidence that no one is hurt by it. How about the divorce evidence? In addition, this: Children of divorce. Women whose parents were divorced are significantly more likely to divorce themselves, with 43 percent splitting after 10 years. Among those whose parents stayed together, the divorce rate was just 29 percent.
Living together before marriage makes divorce more likely, which makes the children that came from that marriage more likely to get divorced, etc. Now, if you believe divorce causes no problems for children, go start another thread about the wonders of divorce, but that example of harm is evident to me. (Also, "compatibility" is overblown. Couples can largely be as compatible as they want to be. As long as both partners are honest and willing, any truly unworkable problems can be discovered during the getting-to-know-you phase before marriage. And after marriage, if each partner gives 100% and wants the marriage to work, it's highly likely to work. If each partner constantly looks for faults in the other, the marriage is not likely to last long. )
But the foundational reason is:
God claims sole authority over the power over life and death. Thou shalt not kill (except when God allows it) and thou shalt not mess with procreation (except when God allows it). Messing around with creating life is similar in seriousness to messing around with ending life. God has instituted specific guidelines to follow.
Ookla, I have some serious problems with your argumentation here. It looks to me like you try to use these numbers to proof that religious people tend to divorce less, and you subsequently use this fact to show that extramarital sex is immoral.
I've got a problem with your interpretation of the divorce numbers you used. I think we all know that such numbers can easily be interpreted in different ways. For instance, an explanation could be that people who've live together in general do not value marriage as much as others, leading to easier divorce once married.
Note that I'm not saying divorcing is good and should be done lightly, I'm merely pointing out that well, to quote Benjamin Disraeli: "There's lies, **** lies, and statistics".
I'm not really following your line of thought at the end. Are you saying that living together leads to more divorces, which in turn leads to sad kids who are more likely to divorce later on in their lives and so on and so on, and do you conclude from this that extramarital sex is immoral? I'm confused. Since when became living together the same as having sex? Yes, people who live together probably tend to have sex. The reverse is however definitely not true.
Your final "foundational" argument is not really open for discussion, unless we'd want to go into a religious discussion. Does not sound like a good idea to me.
I agree that compatibility problem can be overcome. However, I do think it best to spend your life with someone such that you won't have to overcome a lot of compatibility issues in the first place. I think we can all agree on that, otherwise we might all just randomly pick someone and put a lot of effort in overcoming all compatibility issues. That would make for a slapstick world :D
-
I agree, some of the connections made by that statistical "analysis" are odd, to say the least. I find it strange, Ookla, that you can conclude with such strength when the statistical divergence between couples that had previously lived together and those who had not is only nine percent.
Still, if one looks behind the numbers, I think it is easy to explain the fact that religious people divorce --- slightly ---less often. The pressure from the surroundings make it that much harder for a woman to leave an unfruitful marriage. The fear that she will be punished by God, the fear of losing her network, the comparatively weaker position of women in very religious environments. Highly religious societies lag behind in terms of essential values such as equality, and also in terms of education. Hell, Inner State and Mid-West religiosity is probably the single greatest reason that the United States is viewed as a loose cannot in parts of the rest of the world.
-
I personally don't pay to close attention to statistics because they can easily be obscured to show what a particular party wants to prove. NASA is probably the most prominent example I can make. NASA has been busted several times changing numbers to "prove" that the Earth is warming since the '90s. I live in Minnesota and I assure you that we've been getting colder not warmer. Our snow fall has been increasing every year, our sub zero temps have been increasing every year, and our '80-90 degree days during summer have also been decreasing every year. We used to get a lot of freezing rain and freezing fog about 7-8 years ago, and now it's too cold for freezing rain and fog. My point isn't to start a conversation on global warming, just to suggest not to rely to heavily on statistics.
As far as premarital sex goes, my views aren't quite as black and white as others. If two people are dating and are in love and have sex, I do not see that as being immoral. If two people hook up at the bar and have a one night stand I don't see that as being immoral as long as both understand what the other is looking for. My problem is when one side of the party lies or manipulates to get sex, or cheats on their wife/husband, girlfriend/boyfriend. Even then I wouldn't attach the immoral label because it's such a strong word and shouldn't be thrown around too casually. Though I would say that it says something about that persons character who would cheat.
My problem with premarital sex is this: people who want gratuitous premarital sex with no strings attached often leads to pregnant women who want no strings attached. Lets be honest, a solid foundation for a family generally isn't begun with a one night stand, or consuming one to many alcoholic beverages the night before. So even if the woman decides not to have an abortion,, the chances of her and the father making a happy home for one another and the child is a stretch. Not saying that it can't happen, but most likely it won't.
This is where I attach the immoral label.
Abortion has become more and more immoral over my lifetime. It used to be that it wasn't a baby just a cell mass. Now we have the technology where a baby can be born 4-5 months premature and can survive. It now isn't a baby until it's born. This is when partial birth abortion hit the main stream, and was banned by the Bush Administration. That ban was lifted by the Obama Administration. There is many ways to abort a baby, but partial birth abortion is just that they give partial birth to the baby....er large cell mass with fingers and toes. They then ram a large needle in the base of the skull of the baby, but the baby only squirms around for a little bit because the next step is to suck the brains out of the infant.
Nothing cruel and unusual about that! Actually think about that next time you read about a convicted rapist/murderer standing before a court of peers surrounded by lawyers arguing against the death penalty.
However, abortion doesn't stop there. It's like a baby in a way, it keeps getting growing and getting larger. There was a bill that was thankfully didn't pass not once but twice. That bill would refuse medical attention to a baby that survived an abortion. So now you have a baby born, no longer connected to the mothers body, no longer putting the mothers life at risk, needing medical attention, and still it's not going to be seen as a baby yet. That bill did not pass, but the person who voted for it twice is now President of the United States.
I'm Pro-Life not only because of my religious beliefs, but also because of my beliefs of the founding principles of this great country. I believe that regardless of race or sex we are all created equally. I believe that we have three inalienable rights, three rights given to us by God that no person or government has the right to take away. They are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We have all had the opportunity to be a small cell mass, we've all had the opportunity to roll around in our Mother's stomach, and we all have had the opportunity to enter into the light of day. That is the true purpose of sex. That is why I believe that marriage is one man one woman. That is why I believe marital sex is so important...
-
It's obvious I've entered this discussion far too late and I hope I don't repeat anyone, so here goes...
I agree that the level of (or lack of) sex, or sexuality, is all but non existent in this series, but I never gave it much thought. I cared more about whether or not Vin and Elend would BE together, which, in Vin's point of view, was frequently tossed back and forth. That's a believable characteristic for a young female character. I can believe that Vin is more concerned about "being together" over "having sex". It's not far fetched from the male perspective, which is the other way around, stereotypically speaking. You have lots of gender difference data to back that up.
I'll come out straight but saying, yes, I'm Mormon, grew up in Burbank California (close to WB and Disney Studios), now working/writing in Utah. I don't have any qualms talking about sex, if the subject of discussion calls for it. It would be random if I brought up the topic of sex in the middle of a conversation about a worm in an apple. If someone introduced the unconventional reproductive nature of worms, than I'm free to open up a "can-of-worms" so to speak :)
I recall a novel, Benford's In the Ocean of Night, where the protagonist is in a laboratory, a problem is introduced, page break, and the last page or so of that first/second chapter has a mildly descriptive course of physical actions (sex) taking place between three people. Wait... that was kinda randomly put there, I thought. I kept reading a little more and it turns out that scene did nothing for the characters, the plot, or resolving the problem. I ultimately put it down, and that's the only time I've ever put a book down. That's coming from a Mormon whose read Hannibal/Expendable/Lolita and enjoyed them. As a writer myself, not published but still young and learning, I wouldn't use sex or sexuality in a story unless it calls for it or if it helps develop character, plot, and resolution. As an extreme example, I really love the Terminator story. What appears to have been a random romp between Sarah and her protector from the future ultimately results in the consequence of Sarah becoming the mother of the child who grows up to lead a band of human survivors in a resistance against the machines. Very Messianic if you think about it...
Anyway, I didn't have a problem with a lack of sexuality in the story, and, as a student of Psychology, I can see some reasons for the character's lack of sexual interest, now that the topic's been brought to light. Granted, I'm halfway done with HoA , so this may not include everything...
Hammond: He's married, for one, so its very "noble" of him to be faithful to her and their children.
Breeze: He's practically a cradle-robber in WoA. That made me laugh for a while.
Sazed: Being a eunuch, he's frequently embarrassed by the fact that he can't do anything, though it was subtly noted that the desire was there, more so when Tindwyl was around.
Vin: her paranoia of betrayal is keeping her from opening herself up to the next step in the relationship.
Elend: His father forced him to "bed" a skaa woman at 13 and later found out she was killed. This trauma did a few things for him: 1) It disgusted him so much that he didn't want to do that again. 2) He respected women more than most, not seeing them as objects to be played with, however, he could not stand the women of the court because they shared similar views as his father, so he didn't "look" at them. The fact that he managed to single out Vin so quickly tells you how that bad experience matured him. 3) It caused him to think of his nobility differently, creating a desire to "make things better".
Spook: Always jealous of Elend because he likes Vin, which entails he thinks of her still, a lot, even though she has a "boyfriend", which implies desire (a very common young male attribute. Been there).
That's my undergrad psychoanalysis for ya :)
Overall: The scope of the problems they are facing. As a young man now, if I were in a position of power with three enemy armies around my city, I would be more concerned about being killed/running the city than engaging in sensual/sexual activities too, but that's me.
I find the series refreshing in that these subtleties are woven in the story, providing intrigue throughout, but the problems needing to be resolved are... unthinkable, unwishable. As a reader, I want to know what happens next, and soon. For this story, putting more sensual/sexual thoughts/themes into it is a distraction from the action to a different kind of "action". Some of my friends who are not Mormon, who've since read Mistborn, gave no thought that it was written by a Mormon author until I told them. Of course, the scholars that they are, like myself, they picked at it deeper to find moralistic consistencies that coincide with that faith. Mistborn is a moral story. Destroy immorality (Lord Ruler) and learn again what morals are, what faith is, what believing is. Though not yet published, I can already tell you that my adult age group novels have more sensual/sexual implications than Mistborn does, but not that much more, since I'd rather tell the story than get into heavy, less urgent details.
Fun question. Thanks for posting. Got my brain working for today :)
-
Wow, I wish I had time to read through all of these posts more closely. I did get the gist of most of it, though. Everybody sins, I wouldn't get so riled up because someone believes sex before marriage is wrong. There are loads of evidence that supports that promiscuity has bad consequences. Jealousy, anger, children who never know their father, disease, etc. If you look at history, as well as curret trends, every moral stance many religions take are based on the potential consequences. The fact that these organizations have taken a zero tolerance stance on these issues may be extreme, and may make it impossible to live up to, but there is still weight to the argument. I prefer to try my best (nobody's perfect, after all) to think about how my actions could affect others, and how I would feel if they were done to me. In the end, this is what the Bible (and many other spiritual teachings) tries to instill. For example; you are my neighbor, and your dog barks all night, every night. I repeatedly ask you about it, but you say you can't stop him from doing it. Now, because I think the dog is annoying, can I shoot it? It would certainly make the neighborhood quieter. What do you think?
-
darxbane - I'm actually living that "barking dog" scenario in real life and I REALLY want to say it's okay to kill the neighbor's dog. But I haven't actually done it yet, so I guess that means my sub-conscious says it's immoral. :(
-
For example; you are my neighbor, and your dog barks all night, every night. I repeatedly ask you about it, but you say you can't stop him from doing it. Now, because I think the dog is annoying, can I shoot it? It would certainly make the neighborhood quieter. What do you think?
thats when you get out your paintball gun and put a couple of well placed shots the dogs way. that will shut it up and you neighbor will be none the wiser.
-
There are two problems with that. First, why should the dog suffer because of the owner's flaw? The dog doesn't know it's not supposed to bark all night. Which leads to the second point, that the owner hasn't learned anything, and the next dog will bark all night until you shoot that one with paintballs. This is why religions adopt such a black and white stance on morality. It is impossible to live up to, but, as most people are well aware, no matter where the bar is, people will try to duck under it instead of go over it. What if I told you that I had no right to expect the owner to control the dog? That the dog could bark all night, simply because the owner wanted it to? I could just get earplugs.
-
it was really just a joke, i wouldn't really tresspass on my neighbors property just to shoot their dog. really the best way to deal with the said dog is to confront the neighbor, if that doesn't work the next step would be the authorities. maybe then the neighbor would get the picture. so instead of being a pacifist and just dealing with the barking you could deal with the real problem.
-
Hammond: He's married, for one, so its very "noble" of him to be faithful to her and their children.
Breeze: He's practically a cradle-robber in WoA. That made me laugh for a while.
Sazed: Being a eunuch, he's frequently embarrassed by the fact that he can't do anything, though it was subtly noted that the desire was there, more so when Tindwyl was around.
Vin: her paranoia of betrayal is keeping her from opening herself up to the next step in the relationship.
Elend: His father forced him to "bed" a skaa woman at 13 and later found out she was killed. This trauma did a few things for him: 1) It disgusted him so much that he didn't want to do that again. 2) He respected women more than most, not seeing them as objects to be played with, however, he could not stand the women of the court because they shared similar views as his father, so he didn't "look" at them. The fact that he managed to single out Vin so quickly tells you how that bad experience matured him. 3) It caused him to think of his nobility differently, creating a desire to "make things better".
Spook: Always jealous of Elend because he likes Vin, which entails he thinks of her still, a lot, even though she has a "boyfriend", which implies desire (a very common young male attribute. Been there).
That's my undergrad psychoanalysis for ya :)
Overall: The scope of the problems they are facing. As a young man now, if I were in a position of power with three enemy armies around my city, I would be more concerned about being killed/running the city than engaging in sensual/sexual activities too, but that's me.
to me, this is exactly it. this is why the story is just fine in regards to "realism." i mean seriously, sex wouldn't be my first concern if giant blue monsters and dude with spikes for eyes wanted my head.
-
The lack of sex and bad language is part of what i really enjoy about Brandons books. I probably wouldn't be nearly as thrilled to read them if i had moral issues with them. In the past I have actually stopped reading books because of the sex scenes in them, maybe its me but sex really should not be part of normal literature. Maybe it would even be a good idea to have a rating system on books so people don't go to try a new author and find out that the book is full of sex and bad language. That would really help me in the book picking process, I mean I choose not to watch rated R movies because there are things i would rather not see or hear it really helps in the weeding out process. Not to mention a rating would let me know what my kids are reading.
-
Hammond: He's married, for one, so its very "noble" of him to be faithful to her and their children.
Breeze: He's practically a cradle-robber in WoA. That made me laugh for a while.
Sazed: Being a eunuch, he's frequently embarrassed by the fact that he can't do anything, though it was subtly noted that the desire was there, more so when Tindwyl was around.
Vin: her paranoia of betrayal is keeping her from opening herself up to the next step in the relationship.
Elend: His father forced him to "bed" a skaa woman at 13 and later found out she was killed. This trauma did a few things for him: 1) It disgusted him so much that he didn't want to do that again. 2) He respected women more than most, not seeing them as objects to be played with, however, he could not stand the women of the court because they shared similar views as his father, so he didn't "look" at them. The fact that he managed to single out Vin so quickly tells you how that bad experience matured him. 3) It caused him to think of his nobility differently, creating a desire to "make things better".
Spook: Always jealous of Elend because he likes Vin, which entails he thinks of her still, a lot, even though she has a "boyfriend", which implies desire (a very common young male attribute. Been there).
That's my undergrad psychoanalysis for ya :)
Overall: The scope of the problems they are facing. As a young man now, if I were in a position of power with three enemy armies around my city, I would be more concerned about being killed/running the city than engaging in sensual/sexual activities too, but that's me.
to me, this is exactly it. this is why the story is just fine in regards to "realism." i mean seriously, sex wouldn't be my first concern if giant blue monsters and dude with spikes for eyes wanted my head.
Very well said. And I would again refer objectors to the fact that in both Elantris and Warbreaker, things are markedly less chaotic. Probably not coincidentally, references to physical attraction and distraction are more numerous, although they are perhaps somewhat more oblique than some of the posters here are used to. That, however, is as much a matter of style as it is a matter of realism.
-
Cynewulf, you said you wouldn't be surprised if Western society's high divorce rate was linked to a rush to get married in order to have sex. My post was meant to offer counterevidence to that idea, and I think it did it well enough. So since you didn't offer any evidence in support of your idea, I think we can say that for now that there's no reason to regard it as at all likely. (Also, a nine percent win is a command performance in any national election.)
TMan, when the word "morality" is involved, it's not easy to ignore God. Without God, ethics take the place of morality. Cynewulf asked how it could be seen as immoral, so I gave a reason someone who believes in the concept of "morality" would see it as immoral. Other people have mentioned some reasons a person who doesn't believe in God might find it unethical or otherwise detrimental to society.
Also, you're implying that I'm using "valuing marriage less" as an example of immorality. That's right. I am. It's immorality, or at least amorality.
You're right that not everyone who has premarital sex lives together. However, if a goal is happiness throughout life via a happy marriage, here's a quote from Wikipedia:Teachman’s study showed "women who are committed to one relationship, who have both premarital sex and cohabit only with the man they eventually marry, have no higher incidence of divorce than women who abstain from premarital sex and cohabitation. For women in this category, premarital sex and cohabitation with their eventual husband are just two more steps in developing a committed, long-term relationship." Teachman's findings report instead that "It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions."
My response to this is: If they're only going to have sex with one person ever in their lives anyway, what benefit did they gain from having sex before marriage? If the theory is "try before you buy" but the best way statistically to have a successful marriage is to buy the first one you try, that kind of defeats the point Cynewulf is trying to make: that living together lets you discover incompatibilities before marriage; if all that these people discover during the trying-out phase is compatibilities or incompatibilities that can be overcome, that could be done just as well within marriage as during cohabitation, or during dating without a sexual component. Using just this evidence, the practical advantage is nil either way, so which one to choose depends only on whether you believe in the concept of sin.
But what percentage of people who have sex before marriage only have it with one person? That quote doesn't say, but I'm guessing it's not very high. This depends on the other person as well wanting to have sex with no one else after you, which you can't control. So if your options are
1. Don't have sex before marriage
2. Have sex before marriage only with one person and end up with a divorce probability equivalent to #1's
3. Have sex before marriage with multiple people and end up with a divorce probability greater than #1 or #2 (and this group outnumbers #2)
What practical advantage, then, is there to having sex before marriage? None (except for the obvious, which is the obtaining of sexual pleasure without the responsibilities of marriage). It may give an equivalent divorce probability, but it's not going to decrease your divorce probability—and since you likely won't get lucky and stick with the first person you have sex with, the ultimate result is that it does increase your divorce probability. So you might as well not have sex before marriage, especially if you personally believe there are benefits to waiting, such as being in good standing with God.
Now, again, if you think divorce is A-OK and nothing to want to avoid, this line of reasoning will mean little to you. Same goes for if having immediate no-responsibility sexual pleasure is more important to you than having a lasting marriage. However, I believe strong families are the foundation of a strong society, and anything detrimental to our society is something to avoid.
(Note: I am not saying that divorce should not be an available option when it's necessary. For example, if the relationship is abusive. Or if a husband just plain gives up on making the marriage work and leaves his wife to pursue his own interests, the wife should not be stuck married to him forever.)
However, I do think it best to spend your life with someone such that you won't have to overcome a lot of compatibility issues in the first place. I think we can all agree on that
Yes, we do all agree on that. We just disagree on whether premarital sex and cohabitation help avoid compatibility issues down the line. I do believe in trying on several different shoes before I buy a pair of shoes. I didn't marry the first person I dated either, but the dating did not include sex. There's no long-term advantage to sex being a part of dating.
-
This is all getting a bit too much for me on an early Friday night after a busy week, although it's probably somewhere midday for most of you. I'm going to keep this post short, but there's somethings I'd like to say anyway.
First of, Ookla, I've looked up the wikipedia article you're quoting, and you fail to quote
Some people have claimed that those who live together before marriage can report having less satisfying marriages and have a higher chance of separating. A possible explanation for this trend could be that people who cohabit prior to marriage did so because of apprehension towards commitment, and when, following marriage, marital problems arose (or, for that matter, before marriage, when relationship problems arose during the cohabitation arrangement), this apprehension was more likely to translate into an eventual separation. It should be noted this model cites antecedent apprehension concerning commitment as the cause of increased break ups and cohabitation only as an indicator of such apprehension. Another explanation is that those who choose not to cohabit prior to marriage are often more conservative in their religious views, a mindset that might prevent them from divorcing for religious reasons despite experiencing marital problems no less severe than those encountered by former cohabitants. In addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult. The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest "there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills." (One important exception: cohabiting couples who are already planning to marry each other in the near future have just as good a chance at staying together as couples who don’t live together before marriage).[11]
I see here three possible explanations for the study, all three of which you fail to mention, instead giving your own one. Only the last of these three suggests something applying to your argument. Let's not forget that a relation does not imply causality.
Now, I think we'll find as much studies contradicting each other on this subject as we could find studies contradicting each other on say the influence of violence in video games (that's a joke, please, let's not go there ;)). On the other hand, you'll find as many contradicting tales of people being happy doing one or the other. I know I'm happy, and I don't regret I had sex with my previous girlfriend, nor do I regret having lived together with her. It was a marvelous time.
However, I'm having a marvelous time with my current girlfriend as well, and yes, I do hope to marry her some day.
I think we have to conclude that
a) there's people who wait with sex until marriage, are happy to do so and that's fine.
b) there's people who don't wait, are happy to do so, and that's fine as well.
What I'm trying to say is that we're all happy, and the one thing that would make others unhappy is forcing your way of life to them. I'm not saying anyone here does that, but I'm trying to say that neither side will ever be convinced of the other, so I really think further discussion is quite useless. It's going more in the direction of individual argument bashing anyway (of which I'm guilty as well). I think the only fruitful way to continue this is if we all listened with open mind and just gave our own opinions, trying to learn from each other instead of trying to convert. I do not think this is the place for that though.
I'd be happy to continue a discussion about sex and religion by PM or other means though, if anyone's genuinely interested.
-
That is as good a note as any on which to leave that particular discussion, I believe.
The lack of sex and bad language is part of what i really enjoy about Brandons books. I probably wouldn't be nearly as thrilled to read them if i had moral issues with them. In the past I have actually stopped reading books because of the sex scenes in them, maybe its me but sex really should not be part of normal literature. Maybe it would even be a good idea to have a rating system on books so people don't go to try a new author and find out that the book is full of sex and bad language. That would really help me in the book picking process, I mean I choose not to watch rated R movies because there are things i would rather not see or hear it really helps in the weeding out process. Not to mention a rating would let me know what my kids are reading.
This, however, is exactly the sort of attitude that I feared Mr. Sanderson himself might be having. I am thrilled to hear that is not the case. "Sex should not be part of normal literature"? I gather that kevinpii has probably not read many of the real quality works of the Western literary canon. Hamsun's "Hunger"? Dostoyevski's works? Kafka's? Hell, even "Don Quixote" or "The Odyssey" would probably offend this reader' sensibilities. Not to mention Flaubert's "Madame Bovary". To then think of having such artificial restrictions placed on literature - It is nothing short of stifling and ignorant. Unfortunately, there are powers in this culture who do all they can to achieve this. Your children will not be damaged by reading this literature, they will be enlightened by it.
-
That is as good a note as any on which to leave that particular discussion, I believe.
The lack of sex and bad language is part of what i really enjoy about Brandons books. I probably wouldn't be nearly as thrilled to read them if i had moral issues with them. In the past I have actually stopped reading books because of the sex scenes in them, maybe its me but sex really should not be part of normal literature. Maybe it would even be a good idea to have a rating system on books so people don't go to try a new author and find out that the book is full of sex and bad language. That would really help me in the book picking process, I mean I choose not to watch rated R movies because there are things i would rather not see or hear it really helps in the weeding out process. Not to mention a rating would let me know what my kids are reading.
This, however, is exactly the sort of attitude that I feared Mr. Sanderson himself might be having. I am thrilled to hear that is not the case. "Sex should not be part of normal literature"? I gather that kevinpii has probably not read many of the real quality works of the Western literary canon. Hamsun's "Hunger"? Dostoyevski's works? Kafka's? Hell, even "Don Quixote" or "The Odyssey" would probably offend this reader' sensibilities. Not to mention Flaubert's "Madame Bovary". To then think of having such artificial restrictions placed on literature - It is nothing short of stifling and ignorant. Unfortunately, there are powers in this culture who do all they can to achieve this. Your children will not be damaged by reading this literature, they will be enlightened by it.
can people just express their personal preferences without them being called "stifling and ignorant?" so he likes his leisure-time novels free of sex and language. there are a huge number of people who feel the same, and who also wouldnt mind an "advisory" of some sort on the books. it was brought up in the national meetings for Borders that I was a part of - not that we really had any say in it, it was more of a "customers want this thing" kind of a discussion and how to help them in its absence. Of course, proper help in that regard involves the bookstore people to be intelligent - that just doesnt happen much anymore. And I dont think you are qualified to make judgments about the things his children will or wont be affected by (positive or negative). Its not an insult (and i apologize a ton if it seems that way), you just have no idea as to his or his families needs or desires to qualify a statement like that.
people are just arguing to argue at this point.
-
Edit: Bookstore guy jumped in front of me. This is in response to Cynewulf's comments.
On the flip side, there are just as many people out there who are so self-centered and arrogant that they feel anything and everything should be allowed no matter how offensive, just so that they can avoid personal responsibility. Being too conservative is no worse than being too liberal.
One thing about divorce that hasn't really been touched upon in this thread: Do you not think that the liberation of women's rights had anything to do with it? It was easy for marriages to stay together when the woman was treated little better than a maid and baby maker. Now both sides must be happy, not just one. Now before all the major retorts come, let me add that my primary belief for high divorce rates is related to our culture's decrease in personal responsibility. We don't think anything is our fault. It always someone else who needs to change. We don't compromise anymore, and there is nothing more needed in marriage then compromise. The most ridiculus thing I've heard lately is advertisements for a website that caters to married people who are looking for affairs. It's like match.com for Adultery. People are profitting off of someone else's betrayal. Lovely.
-
darxbane, I definitely agree that a lot of good has come out of the recognition of women's rights. Anything negative that may have arisen such as legalized abortion or the prevalence of divorce is not something that would be improved upon by oppressing women.
Cynewulf, just as literature has a powerful ability to enlighten, that same power can also damage. There are some images that once you're exposed to them you just can't get out of your head. There are also some attitudes in literature that can be incredibly harmful to someone's self-esteem at an impressionable age. (For example, if a book reinforces the idea that when someone abuses you, it's just because you didn't love them enough, that is a horrible, horrible thing for a book to teach a child and any adult who knowingly gives such a book to a child should be ashamed of themselves.) Some books are simply not appropriate for children as certain levels of maturity. Responsible adults will carefully monitor what their children are exposed to in order to at least explain what's wrong with it when necessary. I'm not in favor of censorship, but I am all for age-appropriate entertainment. And if an adult chooses not to expose themselves to certain entertainment, that is also their own choice and they should not be looked down upon for it. There are enough examples of different types of entertainment and literature in the world to go around for people of all different tastes.
I think we have to conclude that
a) there's people who wait with sex until marriage, are happy to do so and that's fine.
b) there's people who don't wait, are happy to do so, and that's fine as well.
What I'm trying to say is that we're all happy, and the one thing that would make others unhappy is forcing your way of life to them. I'm not saying anyone here does that, but I'm trying to say that neither side will ever be convinced of the other
Or b) there's people who don't wait, are happy to do so at the time, and that's fine for them until eventually they or someone else gets hurt through their actions.
But anyway, agreeing to disagree on the issue is better than continuing to call the other side's view ignorant, naive, closed-minded, and amusing—or, I suppose, sinful and selfish, as long as the opinions have already been made known.
-
Now before all the major retorts come, let me add that my primary belief for high divorce rates is related to our culture's decrease in personal responsibility. We don't think anything is our fault. It always someone else who needs to change. We don't compromise anymore, and there is nothing more needed in marriage then compromise.
Yeah! There's finally a post I can agree with. I think most societies today teach very little personal responsibility, if any at all. I believe that to be one of the largest problems with society today. This (perceived) lack of personal responsibility not only contributes to divorce, but also ridiculous law suits, debt, bankruptcy, children misbehaving, crime, and practically every negative action I can think of.
Because society and government aren't going to teach our children personal responsibility, hopefully they will learn it at home in the family. I guess that kind of leads back to how important the family structure is to society.
-
I think we have to conclude that
a) there's people who wait with sex until marriage, are happy to do so and that's fine.
b) there's people who don't wait, are happy to do so, and that's fine as well.
What I'm trying to say is that we're all happy, and the one thing that would make others unhappy is forcing your way of life to them. I'm not saying anyone here does that, but I'm trying to say that neither side will ever be convinced of the other
Or b) there's people who don't wait, are happy to do so at the time, and that's fine for them until eventually they or someone else gets hurt through their actions.
Why do you do this? I've done my very best in all of my posts to consider everyones viewpoints and feelings and not hurt them, criticize them, or call my own moral superior. I've laid down my personal experience, I've told you I'm happy right now, why do you keep failing to believe or even acknowledge that this may be my own truth? You are in fact judging me by this, and I must say I'm very disappointed at that.
I'll try to leave it at this.
-
Because I don't believe in "personal truth," just universal truth. And I didn't deny that you may be happy at the moment.
Of course you're speaking from your own experience. I don't expect anything else of anyone else. Your experience is valid for you. But that doesn't mean you exist in isolation and that the personal choices you make will affect no one else.
It is my responsibility as a parent to help as much as possible to make the world a place where good choices are encouraged. If you want to make non-good choices, that is up to your responsibility, but you shouldn't expect me to sit back when poor choices are preached as perfectly acceptable.
I'm not for repressing choices, but I'm against the prohibition of recommending one choice over the other. For example, I think "abstinence-only" sex education in public schools is not practical and may lead to preventable harm to those who choose otherwise. But that doesn't mean I think it's foolish or should be forbidden to recommend abstinence in public-school sex education classes. Keep informed about other options that are out there, but recommend the best option and make sure the negatives of the other options are understood.
-
the dead horse has been beaten even more deader. any more, and it will be chum and glue.
Vin and Elend are even pissed - in their graves mind you - at how far far far off the road this has gone.
These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.
-
Universal truth? Do you say that with a straight face?
Anyway, as you can see, TMan, you might in your boundless ignorance think you are happy, but Ookla knows better. The fact that you decided to sleep with your former girlfriend might have untold, catastrophical consequences at any time now. Because what you did was so terribly, terribly wrong. Make no mistake about that.
Seriously, I do not yet see quite how someone would actually "get hurt" as a result of two consenting, legal adults parttaking in responsible sex?
-
Universal truth? Do you say that with a straight face?
Anyway, as you can see, TMan, you might in your boundless ignorance think you are happy, but Ookla knows better. The fact that you decided to sleep with your former girlfriend might have untold, catastrophical consequences at any time now. Because what you did was so terribly, terribly wrong. Make no mistake about that.
Seriously, I do not yet see quite how someone would actually "get hurt" as a result of two consenting, legal adults parttaking in responsible sex?
absurd. i dont think Ookla was right for his comment, but neither do I think this comment has any place on these forums. ridiculous. im done trying to keep things cool and mellow since the same 3 or 4 people dont seem to give a crap about the rest of the people wanting to move on from this bullcrap.
im taking an extended break from this garbage. argue away.
-
That is a bit spoiler-like, Bookstore!
It's not really the first spoiler to be had on here....It's just one of the first ones for HoA.
And as much as I think that people should probably be completely done with the trilogy to post knowledgeably on here--or at least in relation to the ORIGINAL topic--I'm pretty sure there were a few people who posted who said they were about halfway through with HoA....And therefore this would be HUGE spoiler for them....
So, Bookstore, you should probably edit that particular part out. As funny as I think it is, it should go. Which means that Cyne, you should edit YOUR post that incorporates his quote. If you want to edit it to whatever Bookstore changes his post to, go right ahead, but any modifying Bookstore does will be irrelevant if someone will just get the same spoiler in your post....
And we really should move on to something else. It's distinctly un-fun reading opinion-bashing....
-
Muboop, I don't see why there would be any problem with you posting further here. The only advice I would give is try not to take posts personally. All we're doing is having an intelligent discussion/debate on sex and sexuality and our own personal opinions on it. Expanding our minds and understanding other peoples opinions never hurt anyone. You only get hurt when you take others' opinions personally, especially when they're not meaning to insult you. Also, you don't necessarily have to focus on one person's comments per post....Or even try to refute everything in one person's long posts (like mine). I know that I was the one who started that with you, but....if you do still want to debate here (which again, I see no problem with), address others and don't focus on just one person....
And good old Firefox. That's actually what I use, and I've got it set up to underline when something's misspelled. I believe you can set it up by going into Tools and then Options and then the Advanced Tab....And it should be that you check the box next to "check my spelling as I type"...at least that's the way it is on mine. Plus, there's a spell check in the "post reply" page on TWG. So you can always use that too.
And the question on Vin and Elend. Ookla already answered it, and I agree with him....He worded it better than I would've (not the first time), and...yeah. I don't really have anything to add to it. There could've been more. I don't see the necessity of it, though.
im sorry, i dont mean to seem rude in saying this, i just cant hold this debate with someone who can see the world as in my opinion black and white!(not i say my opinion :) ) i cant change how i feel, and this fact leads me to get to involved and take it all personally! i just cannot seperate it. im honest enough to admit my flaw. so i will deal with it! i will step back or will say uncalled for stuff or take a side again, im doing me best not to! as i said if anyone wants to continuepm me, i will not address this again otherwise! :)
i wont go furthur into this as i see no need, if you go through my posts carefully i think iv made myself clear!
but in referance as to what you said about it being needed, em i agree and disagree at same time!
i dont think the story needed it. i thin however it would of given the characters more depth and reality? just making them seem more everyday human etc...(that last scentence isnt phrased well as i cannot figure out how to word it correctly, but i hope my meaning gets across. :)
-
I mean seriously, sex wouldn't be my first concern if giant blue monsters and dude with spikes for eyes wanted my head.
It would be for me. It would turn me on.
-
It would be for me. It would turn me on.
Heheh. Totally....
And Muboop, it might make them more regular humans, but they're not. They have psychological hang-ups, both of them, as someone else already pointed out. So the fact that there's so little fits, I think. Now, if they were normal--say, Vin didn't have her trust issues, and Elend was more like the other nobles--then yes, I would say more sexual stuff would be necessary. Not a whole lot (since the plot really doesn't center on that, but it would be more characteristic of the characters themselves), but more than there currently is.
And yes, you have made yourself clear on your opinions. I believe most of us have.
Oh, and about that travel thing. It's only 25 days, so it's not really all THAT long, but for me, it's quite a while. I've been out of the US once and that was about 8 years ago, to British Columbia, Canada (which I'm not entirely sure should even count as leaving the US... ::))...I haven't even been on an airplane in 10 or 11 years, since I went to DC....it's sad.
-
I mean seriously, sex wouldn't be my first concern if giant blue monsters and dude with spikes for eyes wanted my head.
It would be for me. It would turn me on.
heroic answer! :P
but think about it guys, when war is looming or in progress there is a boom in baby births as people feel the need to get their dna passed on, they might die so need baby now etc... i cannot find where i found the proof for this so if anyone else can provide much appreciated!
either way, chance of death increases child birht! as much as you say its last thing on mind... is it really?
poo i say! id definately go with my genes and give it a go with mt girlfriend! anything else would be just ignoring my instincts! plus im probably dead anyway :P
-
It would be for me. It would turn me on.
Heheh. Totally....
And Muboop, it might make them more regular humans, but they're not. They have psychological hang-ups, both of them, as someone else already pointed out. So the fact that there's so little fits, I think. Now, if they were normal--say, Vin didn't have her trust issues, and Elend was more like the other nobles--then yes, I would say more sexual stuff would be necessary. Not a whole lot (since the plot really doesn't center on that, but it would be more characteristic of the characters themselves), but more than there currently is.
And yes, you have made yourself clear on your opinions. I believe most of us have.
Oh, and about that travel thing. It's only 25 days, so it's not really all THAT long, but for me, it's quite a while. I've been out of the US once and that was about 8 years ago, to British Columbia, Canada (which I'm not entirely sure should even count as leaving the US... ::))...I haven't even been on an airplane in 10 or 11 years, since I went to DC....it's sad.
I'm sorry to hear you don't get to travel as much! :) i really am! i believe it is something to really be experienced! oddly enough Canada is one of the few places i have not travelled to.
BTW i don't mean to seem condescending on this issue, however i do feel the need to state, i haven't been pampered at the same time! mum is a nurse and dad a teacher, we aren't rich. i have worked for everything i have gotten and every holiday iv gone on.
i know about the hang ups etc... but i don't know! i don't thin its the same still! :) regardless about the hangups the urges would still be there. i say this out of knowledge about people with hangups. my ex was a rape victim. this was sad, (for record i never pushed anything on her ) she once told me she has the same urges and wants as everyone else, just she cannot follow through!
if this was the case, i think the would of been an excellent area for brandon to explore!
Vin and elend getting over these blocks to fully let themselves fall in love etc... i realise he may not have time and would possibly detract form story but i cannot help but wonder! :)
(also i need to say i realise everyone react to bad experience different ways, but who's to say they wouldn't act this way)
-
Birth rates.....
Site I used:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
Live births in 1930(before WWII)--2.6 mil
1935 --2.3 mil
1940--2.5 mil
1945--2.8 mil
1950--3.6 mil
1955--4.1 mil
Here's a graph:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SamuelBernard2.gif
And I personally think they DID fall in love fully. They overcame their problems together. And I think the way the characters are portrayed in the book pretty effectively shows that they wouldn't act that way....
-
Universal truth? Do you say that with a straight face?
Come now, don't tell me that that statement appearing in one of my posts surprises you, given what I've posted before. (In other words, yes, I say it with a straight face.)
However, your sarcasm in the next paragraph misconstrues what I said. I'm not going to bother to say it again, so if you want to understand (and I think you don't) you can go back and read again what I said.
To answer your "serious" question with what someone already said in this thread earlier, though phrased differently, if person A is such an awesome lover that everyone he sleeps with compares their future partners with him and they don't measure up, making them unhappy whereas otherwise they would have been perfectly satisfied with the sexual ability of the person they eventually marry (who is more compatible with them in every other way than person A is): That's hurt.
The point is that sex is a serious issue with lasting consequences you just can't guess at in the moment. It has emotional and social effects on your partner that you can't predict. Now, in any sexual relationship where both parties have already slept around a lot, I think the fact that they're having sex probably won't have any particularly profound effect compared to any of the previous encounters, but the initial ones can set the tone for the rest of their life. See, for example, girls who are sexually abused growing up and can never thereafter form a healthy sexual attachment. It's just common sense that even in non-abuse situations someone who gains their sexual experience by having sex with a bunch of different people will become imprinted with that pattern and will have difficulty moving to a monogamous relationship that lasts decades and decades. Now, if you think extramarital sex is A-OK or never ever intend to get married and only have sex with people who never intend to get married, then maybe promiscuity will work for you, but it's not ideal and it will not contribute to the advancement of society.
Karen (my wife reading over my shoulder) says she has read studies (such as the one referred to here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-07-26-ncguest1.htm)) where women on college campuses who are pushed to have non-committal sex/"hooking up" (by peers whether male or female or by the media, etc.) are finding that they have real serious emotional consequences and the girl can't figure out why, because she has no conscious emotional investment in this guy—she just slept with him to gratify her sexual needs. But the hormones released by a woman's body during sex make the woman bond with the man, and if either the woman or the man takes off after that, the woman will feel like she's leaving a piece of herself behind.
-
Birth rates.....
Site I used:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
Live births in 1930(before WWII)--2.6 mil
1935 --2.3 mil
1940--2.5 mil
1945--2.8 mil
1950--3.6 mil
1955--4.1 mil
Here's a graph:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SamuelBernard2.gif
And I personally think they DID fall in love fully. They overcame their problems together. And I think the way the characters are portrayed in the book pretty effectively shows that they wouldn't act that way....
i misread this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom
it says still do that there was a baby boom in states during a nd before war, and it continued until after.
however it states that it is mainly a post war thing.
regardless, appreciate if you do not refer to only one country? just because it makes things to specific! im going for general things(for future referance of course)
just because your use of a singel country could be argued agianst my use of say america and it drags to an unecesay debate that neither wins!
however i concede that point,
but i still stand by my second of those two posts, and i would like to see your opinions on those??
everybody i have to say i dont know if this thread is going anywhere.
both sides seem to make quite resonable statements and long posts, followed by the other side picking out a particular area in said post and exploiting the faults in it. all the while never answerin the rest of each post!
we seem to only argue over eachothers flaws in statements?
i dont think this will lead to a real debate if we only pick the areas we cna win without ever conceding those we cannot?
-
Most of the time I have been addressing the post as a whole....leaving out the irrelevant bits, but to everything that matters....
And I'm not sure what you want me to address. The death-birth relation? Or something in the second post? It sounds like it's something in the second post, but I can't find anything other than what I already mentioned--about Vin and Elend.
-
Most of the time I have been addressing the post as a whole....leaving out the irrelevant bits, but to everything that matters....
And I'm not sure what you want me to address. The death-birth relation? Or something in the second post? It sounds like it's something in the second post, but I can't find anything other than what I already mentioned--about Vin and Elend.
ah it doesn't matter, nothing is being solved or changed by this thread!
-
Hmm. I don't think I should've mentioned "can of worms" earlier.
[quote ] muboop
regardless, appreciate if you do not refer to only one country? just because it makes things to specific! I'm going for general things(for future referance of course)
Thanks for saying that. We must be careful when using statistics to back up our statements. I've dealt with enough statistics to know that they can be skewed to support any statement. When Pizza Hut announced their statistic that they had "America's favorite crust", wow. Really? I'll eat Godfathers before Pizza Hut any day, if given the choice, so I laughed and didn't give that statistic much thought, as I do most others now. Education is great, isn't it?
This same data about birthrates could be contributed to post-war prosperity as well. More people could afford to support families so family numbers increased. There's also the era of sexual freedom that later evolved into the "free-love" movement. I noticed in these charts that birthrates REALLY went up after 1950, years after WWII was over. Also, we never had Japanese/German armies surrounding or marching through our country. Propaganda, yes, but no sight of armies or navies surrounding our seas and shores, unlike Luthedel. Did birthrates increase as dramatically in Europe as the states did before and during the war? I want to see what the birthrate was in European nations during this time to see if there's a difference.
But enough of this idle speculation. Mistborn is still a great story and I'd LOVE to see a film adapted from it. Wouldn't we all?
-
Some of this thread reminds me of this, and I'm guilty of it too:
(http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww245/ryanjms/wrong_internet.jpg)
It's just so hard to stop yourself, especially when there's nothing productive to come of it. And I have one weird quirk in that I do not get offended by much of anything, so my barometer is sometimes off when trying to judge if what I say would offend another.
-
Haha that is all too true.
Daigima, I think the only way we would ALL love to see Mistborn become a movie is it it followed the storyline pretty strictly and the actos were believable…if they make it like they made the Harry Potter's I might not go see it (that's a lie, but still).
-
True Shaggy :)
I say wait ten years, build a fan base, and then go for it. Of course, the optioning process has already begun. I know someone's made an offer for the rights, but Brandon turned them down because they wanted to make it a miniseries. No. NO NO NO NO. Absolutely not :)
-
Yeah that would suck.
-
It was a trilogy and the books were long enough already. There wasn't really a place for it, ya know?
In the first book when Vin was pretending to be a noblewoman and only saw Elend at brief intervals?
In the second where the city was constantly under seige and Vin constantly out and about protecting Elend?
In the third when... things were just about as busy for her as the third?
Allraine and Breeze had sex.
there's one for you.
Sazed felt he wasn't man enough because he couldn't.
Both Spook and Elend felt uncomfortable when Vin was wearing only her shift in the first book.
So the sexual stuff is there, you just have to read between the lines.
-
In the second book…isn't there a scene where Elend and Vin (and Spook) run away from the city and they're in their tent, and Vin is top-less (at least) and they kiss and stuff and Elend wants to do something else but Vin doesn't…I don't know something like that.
-
In the second book…isn't there a scene where Elend and Vin (and Spook) run away from the city and they're in their tent, and Vin is top-less (at least) and they kiss and stuff and Elend wants to do something else but Vin doesn't…I don't know something like that.
Yes, there is, and since you mentioned it, I just read that part over again, and it is strewn with sexual innuendos. No, it doesn't come right out and say anything blatantly, but it's exactly like Natalie said--reading between the lines, it's there. And in that particular section, you don't even have to read very much between the lines, because....well. It's obvious enough.
I mean, here's a few quotes:
Elend Venture awoke on the third day out of Luthadel, surprised at how rested he could feel after a night spent in a tent out in the wilderness. Of course, part of that might have been the company.
Well of Ascension, pg 629 (US Paperback)
Then later, when Vin wakes up.
"You're a bad influence on me."
"Oh?" he asked, smiling as he rested on one arm.
Vin nodded, running a hand through her hair. "You're making me get used to sleeping at night," she said. "Plus, I don't sleep in my clothing anymore."
"If you did, it would make things a little awkward."
Well of Ascension, pg 630 (US Paperback)
And then, after that there's the part Shaggy's referring to, where Elend tries to pull her down after she's dressed and is about to leave the tent.....
I've already said it, but I personally think that the sexuality that is currently in the books is a perfect amount. It's there, but it's just enough that it doesn't detract from the plot, and that's good. Plot-detracting sexuality isn't that kind of sexuality that I care to read about...
-
I agree. And that scene is so quick, and so…poluted (?)…with Vin's thoughts about the Well of Ascension and the mist spirit and death and everything that the focus is obviously not on the sex…I like it.
-
Some of this thread reminds me of this, and I'm guilty of it too:
(http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww245/ryanjms/wrong_internet.jpg)
It's just so hard to stop yourself, especially when there's nothing productive to come of it. And I have one weird quirk in that I do not get offended by much of anything, so my barometer is sometimes off when trying to judge if what I say would offend another.
Ryanjim That is the best webcomic EVER! That just made my night.
I really like this topic because I also noticed a lack of the sexuality and I really don't mean sexual actions as I have seen posted in this thread. This doesn't mean I think it's error nor even soley based on Brandon's religious beliefs as Sazed is I think proof otherwise. It's just I am used to many fantasy Authors Jordan, GRRM, and Goodkind having it to some degree. I think Jordan's is the best out of those three as usually you do fade out and it's the next day or whatever. I think the way Brandon used it just goes to show it isn't needed to be shown on page as much as some do it.
I think some are forgetting that the characters Elend and Vin really do have a background to be reticent about sex. Vin having major trust issues and Elend being traumatized about his first time, so I can see them not wanting to rush it. I think Vin and Elend are also just people who aren't as into sex as some others are, like Breeze. I think there are authors who go over board with it and you wonder if your reading a story or a porn. Don't get me wrong I think Sex is great as well but like with anything you can have too much. These two characters just don't obsess over it is all.
I really don't know how or if it will really effect aMoL at all but it will be interesting to see. I guess the oddness is that I found more sexual tension in a Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione kisses in Deathly Hallows then I did in most of Vin/Elend's kisses. *shrug*