Perhaps. I'm curious, does this mean socialism too? Do we have financial communal responsibility?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is a man's sexual sins the woman's responsibility?
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
Perhaps. I'm curious, does this mean socialism too? Do we have financial communal responsibility?
Charity is a huge part of religious virtue, so yes, we have a responsibility to help others where possible.
But if I'm not mistaken, you're advocating using compulsion with the social conservative stuff (am I wrong)?
So why not financial compulsion? Why one and not the other?
It depends what you mean by compulsion. I don't mean legal compulsion, no, but social pressure.
Because finances are a lot trickier and not everyone earns the same, needs the same etc. as well as that charity is legally enshrined in religious law/s and this is the area we're discussing according to the OP; so religious folks are already obliged to give charity. There's no compulsion on how much because this really depends on one's means and situation, so is up the individual to decide, but that he knows he has a moral and religious obligation is enough for most religious and even non-religious people.
Okay, then I did misinterpret. I thought you were talking about legal compulsion regarding clothing and things like that.
So we're not talking about changing anything then? It's already the case that people get dirty looks for not dressing conservatively enough for some folks, we just ignore it or roll our eyes if they accost us over it.
The reason I brought up compulsion -- it may not matter now -- is because if we make arguments for communal responsibilities over individual responsibilities, and we use some kind of compulsion, then it would put things like socialized healthcare directly on the table. Because if we want to help people with porn addiction, that's a valid and communally responsible way to do it.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
So then warn women of what men can be like. Fine. But don't put the responsibility of controlling that on our shoulders.
I live in the UK so this is already a reality.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The exact number is quibbling. The fact that they are prohibited altogether is not quibbling.
True. I was just curious whether there was an argument for social dress compulsions but against social financial compulsions under the guise of communal vs individual responsibility. But it doesn't apply if you're not arguing for legal dress compulsion.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I find it truly pathetic that so many religions seem to promote this ridiculous notion. It's nothing more than an attempt to give males an excuse to abdicate responsibility for their own actions. Never once in nearly 60 years of being a male have I ever felt that a woman flaunting her sexual desirability made it impossible for me to control my own sexual desires. It's simply a part of basic maturity that most people learn by the time they're six or seven years old, the realization that you can't always have what you want.
Just imagine if we extended this notion of lack of responsibility to other aspects of life. You'd have to blame the owner of the BMW for getting carjacked as well, since you can hardly expect the carjacker to be able to control his desire to have a big fancy car when it's being driven down the street right in front of him. Of course the jewelry store owner got robbed... it's his own fault for putting his valuables on display and tempting all of the poor thieves out there who can't control their natural desire for valuable things. You can't blame me for steeling the baker's bread, since the baker enticed and tempted me with the fresh bread's delicious aroma. It's not my fault I punched you in the nose, you said something that made me angry and I certainly can't be held responsible for controlling my own anger. It's YOUR job to make sure you NEVER make me angry.
Does that sound like a world you'd want to live in?
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
I think it's the opposite. It is focusing on the irrelevant and I feel sorry for those women there that are in trouble and people elsewhere argue over whether they should be allowed in the government.
Who wants to join the Taliban? Because that's what you're saying the women want. So, what women? Is there nothing better you could direct attention to? How about whether they should be allowed to play golf on Wednesdays?
As usual capitalism proves to be poisonous. I would prefer it be regulated like a proper business, with health and safety, proper union representation and regular mandatory STI testing for the workers. Which I’m fairly certain is the approach here.
As for ease of access for the youth, yeah you and I are probably in agreement there. I think porn creates unhealthy and unrealistic expectations of sex for the younguns. Preteens should be taught about sex in a wholly clinical and realistic manner. They should be given the right tools to navigate an increasingly confusing world when it comes to consent. They need to be armed with the proper scientifically backed information. The parents can teach their own kids what sexual morality they wish. But I think we need to be pragmatic. I would rather a teenager be informed properly. Because too often I encounter naivety and often outright lies being peddled by people who clearly didn’t receive proper sex Ed. And those lies are often very dangerous.
Also I wanted to point out that what some people consider skimpy is sometimes sheerly function (talking about activewear like leggings, yoga pants, sleep tanks, sports bras, bike shorts on men). At those points it’s not even advertising sexual desirability, it’s just about function.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more.
I get so annoyed when I'm misinterpreted... Just due to my proportions, its very difficult for me not to show at least a little cleavage.
Its not that I want to show off. Its that unless I wear nothing but turtlenecks, its going to happen. So stop giving me crap about it, society!
Nah! Religions aren't interested in sexual purity. They're interested in control. And sex is about the most difficult thing to control that we know of, so it terrifies them.
If you want to know if I speak the truth Evangelicalhumanist, I would try sexual purity if you don't already and see what happens.
You'd have to explain to me what "sexual purity" actually means.
OK got it. In the Torah/Old Testament it talks about 3 levels of plant creation. Grass, who's seed is in the ground. Herbs, who's seed is above the ground. Trees, who's seed is in fruit.
The point is that the more you want to control everything you do and what sphere of action you are in, the more you have to control yourself.
Sexual action is the pinnacle of controlling yourself. Start getting used to no masturbation, pornography, or getting on bases until your married and always try to use your sexual power and urges for the best part of you. You will certainly find that it helps you control yourself in every way.
It's not about depriving you of spontaneity. CONTROLLED ACTION BEATS SPONTANEITY.
It also says in the Book of Mormon, "Bridle your passions that you may be full of love." I testify that if you bridle your passions you will find yourself very full of love. Many people on message boards for instance have said that I am an extremely caring/loving person.
Sounds really, really boring. I'd say "enjoy it," but that doesn't seem to be what it's about for you. For me, when I'm in the mood, a good wank is quite nice. And doesn't hurt my moral progress a bit.