Beautiful, thanks Peter!

Religion teaches celibacy in order to capture the enormous raw sexual energy and direct it toward God. Society subsequently picked up this idea from the ruins of religion (and once religion was tangled with power and control, it was already in ruins), but without the context of directing the energy to God, society didn't know what to do with the sexual energy, so all that was left was ugly suppression.

Pornography appeals to the indirect, mental contortion of sexuality, leaving actual healthy sexual energy behind and suppressed. Just because someone is genitally-active does not liberate their suppressed sexual energy.

As the raw sexual energy was suppressed, considered dirty and only allowed to stay in the mind, no energy was left to be directed toward God. One cannot channel their sexual energy towards God before they even have that energy.

So indeed, the Anglican Deacon, the author, did well to encourage a return to direct sensuality and sexuality, in the blood rather than in the head, replacing virtual mind-f*?*ing with something to a degree more real. Speaking of celibacy at this stage would be premature: that second stage of this rocket to God can only be activated once the first has done its part.

Looking in from the outside again Peter? So how can you understand love? And why do you think it is connected to sex? Or the love's exclusively between a man and a woman?

And you are as transparent as always in your attempt to show that only sex between a man and a woman is normal!

You should buy or hire a copy of Russell Crowe's, Water Diviner.

It's all about love and the culturally inappropriate love between a Muslim and a lapsed Christian, and love of a father for his sons; and a ripper story only marred by the bigotry of the priest?

It's Russell's first attempt at direction and arguably a very good first start! In the opening chapter, you see a conversation between the principal character and a parish priest. And if you look closely, you'll see yourself in that image Peter, as others see you?

I don't care much for phornography, and the way it's manipulated today. I believe the act of sex should be private, between partners of all description.

However I'm a fan of erotic dancing, by completely natural naked women, always providing it is consensual. A hula hoop and lots of pelvic thrusts that get it spinning can have me standing to attention. as is parodying love making by a naked woman to an invisible man. The best go at it like a singer sewing machine.

I think porn should be educational, and show tenderness, concern, and spontaneity! They need to bring back the beaver and completely normal love making that ends in a masive orgasam for the lady!

Given God given sexual orientation is like fingerprints, formed in the womb! And given that is so, I wouldn't presume to ask people to exercise unrealistic entirely unnatural celibacy, given I can't/couldn't!

As for porn, it's everywhere and available on demand for just about anybody, and needs to be modified to include tenderness and caring, given kids are invariably exposed and often have their expectations generated by entirely mendacious rubbish!
Rhrosty.

Dear Peter,

I can find nothing to disagree with in your article. That is a first for me. I also appreciate D. H. Lawrence. Literature can give us so much.

As a teenager I often disliked my parents and felt very guilty about disliking my parents. Then I read a book which freed me from my guilt. The protagonist, Ernest Pontifex, lived in the nineteenth century, had far worse parents than mine and hated them far more than I hated mine. He was depicted as a very decent man who broke off contact with his stifling parents. The book was "The Way of All Flesh" by Samuel Butler.

I read the book again this year and, to my surprise, still enjoyed it. One excerpt from the book:

"To me it seems that youth is like spring, an overpraised season--delightful if it happen to be a favoured one, but in practice very rarely favoured and more remarkable, as a general rule, for biting east winds than genial breezes. Autumn is the mellower season, and what we lose in flowers we more than gain in fruits. Fontenelle at the age of ninety, being asked what was the happiest time of his life, said he did not know that he had ever been much happier than he then was, but that perhaps his best years had been those when he was between fifty-five and seventy-five, and Dr Johnson placed the pleasures of old age far higher than those of youth. True, in old age we live under the shadow of Death, which, like a sword of Damocles, may descend at any moment, but we have so long found life to be an affair of being rather frightened than hurt that we have become like the people who live under Vesuvius, and chance it without much misgiving."

Being 90 the above speaks to me.

"In our time of internet pornography where every orifice is meticulously depicted,"

I think a Lot of active research went into that statement! Are your subscriptions still up to date Pete?

I had a normal sex-"education" back in the 60's. My parents told me nothing about it - zilch. Such was most probably the case with most people of my age, and certainly in every generation before then, and probably with most people until the last 2 or 3 decades when at least the information on the mechanics of how-to-do-it became freely available.

But the key to understanding and mastering ones sexuality is emotion, because what one is in emotional terms determines how you dramatize your persona altogether. Not just the obvious sexual aspects of your life - how you relate to your own body, all other men and women, and to the natural world too. And of your conception of God and the way in which you practice your religion too.

And by the way celibacy is not necessarily the answer. It takes profound emotional self-knowledge and self-discipline to be truly celibate - more so than what it takes to be sexually active (even in what is usually considered loving terms).
Without such profound self-knowledge, mind-based enforced celibacy usually results in all-the-way-down-the-line emotional-sexual aberrations. Whatever is merely repressed or stomped upon manifests in all kinds of wierd aberrated ways. Collective sexual repression at home always results in cruelties being dramatized elsewhere or upon collective scapegoat targets.
And being celibate does not really have anything to do with directing ones sexual energy "towards god". Children are celibate, so are sick people and many old people too, and some people are just not interested in sex - are they therefore more "godly"?

Meanwhile these essays introduce an Illuminated Understanding of the all-important emotional-sexual dimensions of our psycho-physical appearance here: http://www.dabase.org/twoarmc.htm

"While our culture is drowning in sexual images we seem to have lost the thing itself, that thing that bonds couples for life."

Speak for yourself Peter, as I don't believe that is true at all. I see love in couples all around me in the community, and pornography has been around for thousands of years, so I doubt that true love can be stamped out by increasing sexual images.

In any case, 'bonding' couples together for life is an extremely outdated notion where because of some stupid religious conviction, you stayed with a hated spouse, no matter how awful your life was. Thank goodness we have moved on from that era...

My grandparents despaired for my parents love of rock music and Elvis Presley's suggestive hip movements were considered the work of the devil from many in their generation. My parents and their friends were considered sinful and very naughty, but it didn't harm them and the younger generation today will get through life just as well.

They won't listen to old men trying to tell them how to live their lives, just as we never did...or most of us.

When discussions about pornography come up, there is never any mention of the corresponding 'romance' industry, which worldwide is actually bigger than the pornography industry.

The romance industry, while subject to the same consumerist ethic that drives the pornography industry, does anchor its eroticism in the concept of romantic love. And, while it does give women an unrealistic view of heterosexual relationships, it does treat eroticism as being part of an emotional bond. Lady Chatterley's Lover is really a work of romantic fiction, not pornography.

It's a pity that men don't read more romantic fiction. They'd learn a lot.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned because it was obscene, a category that we no longer understand, certainly as regards sex »
.

I understand your disappointment on reading Lady Chatterley's Lover. If you’re looking for something a little more spicy, a little more transgressive, allow me to suggest that you take a look at some of the more juicy passages of the bible. They are so much more spicy because the bible clearly indicates that incestuous and a number of other sexual relations are strictly forbidden (Leviticus 18:6-16; 20, 17 and Deuteronomy 27, 22-23).

There are several cases of incest, some of which do not give rise to any form of moral disapproval :

It seems that Noah may have been homosexually raped by one of his sons during a drunken sleep. This is the interpretation given by the Talmud of Genesis 9:20-25:

http://www.thisisyourbible.com/index.php?page=questions&task=show&mediaid=423

Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah (Genesis 20:12). The daughters of Lot had an incestuous relation with their father after having made him drunk (Genesis 19,30-38) :

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm

Amnon sexually abused his half-sister, Tamar, the daughter of David (2 Samuel 13, 1-39) :

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/2sa/2sa_13_01.html

Then, of course, there is the story of Adam and Eve (who was made from a rib of Adam) making love together, and their subsequent progeny doing likewise (incestuous sons and sisters) who ultimately produced us all … including you and me.

It’s quite amazing, as you say, that « Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterley's Lover (which you qualify as “the opposite of pornography”) was banned in Britain and Australia after its publication in Paris in 1928 and in Australia was only released from that ban in 1965 The novel was at the centre of obscenity trials all over the world »

Lady Chatterley's Lover was, of course a work of fiction, whereas the bible is purportedly a work of non-fiction. Curiously, the bible, which is a far more sexually transgressive work, has never been banned in Britain or Australia or anywhere else for that matter.

Even children are encouraged to read it !

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

The Bible has been banned.

http://aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm tells how the Bible was banned by the Catholic Church.

Bibles have been banned in Saudi Arabia and many other countries. When I was working for Philips, the Dutch electronics firm, we got a request from the Saudi government to design a device that would detect liquor, pornography, weapons and the Bible.

.

Thanks David,

.

I found this on the web :

« Regrettably, there are many countries with legal or customary restrictions on the Bible. While a total ban is comparatively rare (e.g., North Korea punishes any possession of religious literature by death or imprisonment), it is more common for ownership or distribution to be limited:

• To certain government-approved groups only. For example, China allows distribution of Bibles for churches or seminaries that are part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement / China Christian Council, and they are sold in some bookshops, but cannot generally be mail-ordered by individuals or unregistered churches. Several other nations require government approval before religious books (or any books) can be printed.

• To foreigners only. Maldives says citizens must be Muslim, and foreigners are allowed to practice their religion in private; Bibles can be imported for personal use.

• In certain languages only. Morocco allows Bibles in French, English, and Spanish, but not Arabic.

• Can't publish, but can import. Turkmenistan does not allow publication of Bibles. They can be imported, in limited numbers and with permission, by registered churches.

• Restrictions on attempts to convert members of other religions may also result in de facto bans on Bibles. Similarly, government actions in the name of "public order" may have the same effect, even if there is no law specifically banning Bible publication or ownership. In several cases, effective bans on religious freedom take place despite supposed constitutional guarantees to the contrary. Experiences may vary in different parts of the same country, or at different times.

So "illegal" is perhaps the wrong word, and we should instead be thinking of "Can anyone easily obtain a Bible in this country without attracting official difficulties?". Any such list will have fuzzy edges, of course. One indicator might be the ease with which Bible societies are able to do their work. They are organized groups with a missionary element and so the bar is higher for them than for private individuals. » :

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9351/in-what-countries-is-it-illegal-to-own-a-bible-the-most-banned-book-in-the-worl

Censorship of the bible is probably due more to religion than sex.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I object to banning of any sort of book. However, I think restrictions on unwanted advertising of a questionable product is warranted. Therefore it is legitimate to control missionary activity.

Banjo Patterson, thanks for those interesting bible passages.
They make the 'scandalous' book Lady Chatterley's Lover' seem like a stroll in the park!

I have to agree that the novel was more to do with romance than sex, and the saucy bits just added to the excitement of it all. I really enjoyed the book and didn't think it was pornographic at all.

//It's a pity that men don't read more romantic fiction.//

The reason they don't is because most poorly-written rubbish, and life's too short to read crap books when there are so many good ones to be read.

Lady Chatterley's Lover, on the other hand, is considered a classic. I've never read it but I might someday because by all accounts it is worth reading, unlike this sort of rubbish:

http://www.worldoflongmire.com/features/romance_novels/submissions/smug_viking.jpg

http://www.worldoflongmire.com/features/romance_novels/submissions/extra-gay.jpg

http://www.worldoflongmire.com/features/romance_novels/submissions/compensating.jpg

http://www.worldoflongmire.com/features/romance_novels/submissions/spaceship.jpg

.

Here is an interesting slant on Lady Chatterley's Lover :

« DH Lawrence's wife 'was the real Lady Chatterley' »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1484562/DH-Lawrences-wife-was-the-real-Lady-Chatterley.html

.