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

[Reaves]

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.

[ryanjm]

"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.

[little wilson]

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.

[Dangerbutton]

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.

[Andrew the Great]

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.....

[Bookstore Guy]

aaaaaaand derailed.

[Cynewulf]

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.

[Shaggy]

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?

[Loud_G]

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 ). 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.

[Shaggy]

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?

[Reaves]

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?

[Bookstore Guy]

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.

[Cynewulf]

It is amusing to hear something as mundane as pre- or extramarital sex being referenced as a "risk".

[Bookstore Guy]

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.

[JCHancey]

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.