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

[Shaggy]

Who is that quote from??

[little wilson]

That's not a quote from anyone. The inside quote is Cyne....the other quote is him (Bookstore Guy). Formatting messed it up.

[Bookstore Guy]

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.

[Shaggy]

Oh. That's weird.…

[Shaggy]

Ummm…why is it still messed up?

[little wilson]

The first one isn't anymore. The one he JUST quoted, he fixed by adding me in with the thanks....

[Loud_G]

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!

Which is itself a nice window into a culture where the women are mostly covered up. You find interesting things attractive.

[Shaggy]

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??]

[Bookstore Guy]

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.

[Shaggy]

Tuon might mean the end of his 'looks-and-more-at-everyone' reign, though.…

[Comfortable Madness]

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!

[Shaggy]

I can imagine why, Madness. 

[douglas]

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).

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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.

[muboop]

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!