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

[TMan]

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.

[Bookstore Guy]

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.

[little wilson]

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....

[Shaggy]

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.

[Cynewulf]

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?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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. 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.

[Loud_G]

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.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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."

[muboop]

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?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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.

[little wilson]

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.

[TMan]

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. 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

[Cynewulf]

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.

[Publius]

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...

[imflyer20]

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