Sex and sexuality in the Mistborn series...missing?

[darxbane]

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?

[Vatdoro]

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. 

[kevinpii]

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.

[darxbane]

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.

[kevinpii]

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.

[Bookstore Guy]

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.

[kevinpii]

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.

[happyman]

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.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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.

[TMan]

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.

[Cynewulf]

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.

[Bookstore Guy]

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.

[darxbane]

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.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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.

[Vatdoro]

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.