Just want to apologise for the long (2+ month) break. This was the result of some technical difficulties. These difficulties are not altogether sorted out, but hopefully they are sorted enough that I can keep posting weekly.
The new blog about premarital sex is up, not too analytical and a bit "all over the place" but I guess I just wanted to get something up. That said, I still stand by everything I have said in that post.
Sorry again and happy and insightful reading.
StrangeRasta is now on twitter so look up there above the toolbar ^ and follow me on twitter. New blogs will now be posted via Twitter along with Facebook and Blogger. More ways to connect with the strange one.
Saturday 9 July 2011
I'm a bastard, but my parents are married now.
The one called Rev. Morris, controversial Christian minister, had the television, print media and internet all abuzz with his latest controversial biblical interpretations. The good reverend said something to the extent that the bible does not explicitly speak against premarital sex. With that said there is not much need to really get into what the traditionally "very religious" Barbadian society was saying on the airwaves and world wide web, but its opinions of Rev. Morris and his views were, in some instances, unpleasant, especially those views expressed in the colourful Bajan vernacular. There were calls for him to leave the clergy, calls for the clergy to part ways with him, calls for him to apologise to the Barbadian public and its impressionable youth (what for I'm not sure), all coming from a very hypocritical society. LBAR.
This is like the people who go to shows (Macy Gray) and are suprised when artists curse during performances, yet down in the rum shop or at the hair dresser every topic of conversation bout brass bowls and the ever growing population of female rabbits in the country. "Yuh Cunt."
Back to the issue of sex, or rather, premarital sex and its rightness or wrongness. I'll keep within the biblical framework for the time being since the issue of sex before marriage and the ethical and moral issues surrounding it arise from the bible, or any other Judeo-Christian religious text. A couple thousand years ago, when a marriage was not so much a written and signed legal contract, as it was an unwritten understanding between two people or in many cases, two families/tribes, and the wedding ceremony was as official as things got (had to clears it with the Lord) the bride was, in most cases, required to be a virgin, to signify purity and good will and good faith ( I think the men just wanted something fresh) so premarital sex was frowned upon. Also keep in mind that this whole business of premarital sex was devised by men in a time far more patriarchal than today, and that it also comes from a time when polygyny was practised much more heavily than today. (though with the amount of aunts and uncles and cousins I got...hmm) The point is that over those thousands of years the institution of marriage has undergone some changes: philosophically, socially and legally. The understanding of what a marriage was during the biblical era, is not what that understanding is today, what constituted a marriage then would not constitute one today, so to try to apply something written in and for a completely different social, philosophical and legal context and audience to another one eons later will lead to problems. As a friend of mine said, people are trying to run Microsoft Office 2010 on Windows 95, and surprised that a few things are going wrong.
Sex being the social taboo it is, is taken a bit more seriously or cautiously, at least in discussion, than some of the other antiquities in the bible, like the outlawed fabric mixes we so comfortably wear to church these days, but it really should not be analysed any differently than these fabric mixes, its biblical references with respect to its premarital protocol are just as antiquated.
One of the arguments that people love to bring when premarital sex comes up is STD's and STI's (not Subarus) as if premarital sex is the same thing as irresponsible sexual intercourse, or unprotected sexual intercourse. It is more likely that unmarried people will have more sexual partners than married ones and therefore have a higher probability of contracting and spreading STDs and STIs, but again this is not so much a result of their marital status, but of their sexual responsibility and ethical and moral standpoint. (I got nuff aunts and uncles and cousins, and my parents got half brothers and half sisters ages mixed up with full brothers and sisters, grandparents were married...just saying). There is this notion that with marriage comes sexual responsibility, which would come as a result of monogamy, which is made certain in the lines of most wedding vows and the law, and this is all written in unicorn blood on the back of a white elephant.
Back on the good reverend again. The comment that he made that really got to the public was when he so eloquently compared the premarital sex to trying on shoes, with the rationale that no one wants to be stuck with a pair of uncomfortable shoes. Some considered it crude, some thought it tasteless, but one cannot argue as to the accuracy of the analogy. Sex is an important part of marriage, or at least this is what people say, I'm not married so I'm not sure, but what I do know is that unsatisfying sexual relationships are chief among the reasons for infidelity in marriages. Some people are just not sexually compatible; love your smile, love your personality, love your family love you, but 20 toes just not wiggling right. I'm no expert, but if sex is a significant part of the marital relationship, and two people are just not connecting on that level, some issues will arise, and I'm not even talking about the issue of infidelity. More potentially devastating and long term problems can and are likely to arise. Sex has with it, anticipation and expectation, which is to be fulfilled by the intercourse and the climax, and if the anticipation and expectations are not met constantly and consistently then at best you can expect a general disinterest to develop, but more likely resentment and an animosity will develop. The 20 toes that cannot wiggle, now start to affect the "I love your smile" and the "I love your personality" parts of the relationship and the marriage suffers. Not saying to go and sex down the country, but explore your options responsibly and with persons that you would seriously consider marrying, ie. people in meaningful relationships.
Instead of trying to apply outdated doctrines to modern and contemporary societies exactly as they were practised in antiquity, maybe we should try to take the values, the general essence, of these doctrines and teachings and adapt them to work within the world as it is today, and where they cannot be applied because they are totally outdated (like polyester being a sinful garment) dash it weh and move on, this is called development and advancement. The idea of trying to live simultaneously in the past and the present, which is what a lot of people are trying to do, will not work, life is not a Renaissance Fair. What needs to happen is for people to start advocating responsibility, start teaching people about respect and love, develop a culture of respect and love, because there are a lot of loveless marriages out there and a lot of divorces to prove it and many more Jim and Jane Schreechies running around.
As for the Barbadian public, stop being so damned hypocritical. As I might have mentioned, I have a lot of uncles and aunts and cousins, my parents have some half brothers and half sisters, and this is so common that it is a feature of many Barbadian family trees. But I think I may have discovered the loophole. My grandparents, and many people from that generation did wait till marriage to have sex, so there was no premarital sex, a lot of extramarital sex, but not so much premarital. LBAR
Good thing the reverend did not speak about that, but then again he would not have to, the bible is pretty clear on that one, and everyone knows.
Basically people are focused on the wrong thing, that is what I think. Actually that is what I know.
"If she cannot excite, man the marriage brek up tonight!" Mac Fingall - Sex Before Marriage. Click to listen.
Have some Stromae to vibe to: Click here for lyrics translated into English.
Relevance of this song to the topic? None. This is my mindset right now, I'm going to dance and sing away my problems for a bit. Alors on danse! lalalalala lalalalalalala
StrangeRasta is now on twitter so look up there above the toolbar ^ and follow me on twitter. New blogs will now be posted via Twitter along with Facebook and Blogger. More ways to connect with the strange one.
This is like the people who go to shows (Macy Gray) and are suprised when artists curse during performances, yet down in the rum shop or at the hair dresser every topic of conversation bout brass bowls and the ever growing population of female rabbits in the country. "Yuh Cunt."
Back to the issue of sex, or rather, premarital sex and its rightness or wrongness. I'll keep within the biblical framework for the time being since the issue of sex before marriage and the ethical and moral issues surrounding it arise from the bible, or any other Judeo-Christian religious text. A couple thousand years ago, when a marriage was not so much a written and signed legal contract, as it was an unwritten understanding between two people or in many cases, two families/tribes, and the wedding ceremony was as official as things got (had to clears it with the Lord) the bride was, in most cases, required to be a virgin, to signify purity and good will and good faith ( I think the men just wanted something fresh) so premarital sex was frowned upon. Also keep in mind that this whole business of premarital sex was devised by men in a time far more patriarchal than today, and that it also comes from a time when polygyny was practised much more heavily than today. (though with the amount of aunts and uncles and cousins I got...hmm) The point is that over those thousands of years the institution of marriage has undergone some changes: philosophically, socially and legally. The understanding of what a marriage was during the biblical era, is not what that understanding is today, what constituted a marriage then would not constitute one today, so to try to apply something written in and for a completely different social, philosophical and legal context and audience to another one eons later will lead to problems. As a friend of mine said, people are trying to run Microsoft Office 2010 on Windows 95, and surprised that a few things are going wrong.
Sex being the social taboo it is, is taken a bit more seriously or cautiously, at least in discussion, than some of the other antiquities in the bible, like the outlawed fabric mixes we so comfortably wear to church these days, but it really should not be analysed any differently than these fabric mixes, its biblical references with respect to its premarital protocol are just as antiquated.
One of the arguments that people love to bring when premarital sex comes up is STD's and STI's (not Subarus) as if premarital sex is the same thing as irresponsible sexual intercourse, or unprotected sexual intercourse. It is more likely that unmarried people will have more sexual partners than married ones and therefore have a higher probability of contracting and spreading STDs and STIs, but again this is not so much a result of their marital status, but of their sexual responsibility and ethical and moral standpoint. (I got nuff aunts and uncles and cousins, and my parents got half brothers and half sisters ages mixed up with full brothers and sisters, grandparents were married...just saying). There is this notion that with marriage comes sexual responsibility, which would come as a result of monogamy, which is made certain in the lines of most wedding vows and the law, and this is all written in unicorn blood on the back of a white elephant.
Back on the good reverend again. The comment that he made that really got to the public was when he so eloquently compared the premarital sex to trying on shoes, with the rationale that no one wants to be stuck with a pair of uncomfortable shoes. Some considered it crude, some thought it tasteless, but one cannot argue as to the accuracy of the analogy. Sex is an important part of marriage, or at least this is what people say, I'm not married so I'm not sure, but what I do know is that unsatisfying sexual relationships are chief among the reasons for infidelity in marriages. Some people are just not sexually compatible; love your smile, love your personality, love your family love you, but 20 toes just not wiggling right. I'm no expert, but if sex is a significant part of the marital relationship, and two people are just not connecting on that level, some issues will arise, and I'm not even talking about the issue of infidelity. More potentially devastating and long term problems can and are likely to arise. Sex has with it, anticipation and expectation, which is to be fulfilled by the intercourse and the climax, and if the anticipation and expectations are not met constantly and consistently then at best you can expect a general disinterest to develop, but more likely resentment and an animosity will develop. The 20 toes that cannot wiggle, now start to affect the "I love your smile" and the "I love your personality" parts of the relationship and the marriage suffers. Not saying to go and sex down the country, but explore your options responsibly and with persons that you would seriously consider marrying, ie. people in meaningful relationships.
Instead of trying to apply outdated doctrines to modern and contemporary societies exactly as they were practised in antiquity, maybe we should try to take the values, the general essence, of these doctrines and teachings and adapt them to work within the world as it is today, and where they cannot be applied because they are totally outdated (like polyester being a sinful garment) dash it weh and move on, this is called development and advancement. The idea of trying to live simultaneously in the past and the present, which is what a lot of people are trying to do, will not work, life is not a Renaissance Fair. What needs to happen is for people to start advocating responsibility, start teaching people about respect and love, develop a culture of respect and love, because there are a lot of loveless marriages out there and a lot of divorces to prove it and many more Jim and Jane Schreechies running around.
As for the Barbadian public, stop being so damned hypocritical. As I might have mentioned, I have a lot of uncles and aunts and cousins, my parents have some half brothers and half sisters, and this is so common that it is a feature of many Barbadian family trees. But I think I may have discovered the loophole. My grandparents, and many people from that generation did wait till marriage to have sex, so there was no premarital sex, a lot of extramarital sex, but not so much premarital. LBAR
Good thing the reverend did not speak about that, but then again he would not have to, the bible is pretty clear on that one, and everyone knows.
Basically people are focused on the wrong thing, that is what I think. Actually that is what I know.
"If she cannot excite, man the marriage brek up tonight!" Mac Fingall - Sex Before Marriage. Click to listen.
Have some Stromae to vibe to: Click here for lyrics translated into English.
Relevance of this song to the topic? None. This is my mindset right now, I'm going to dance and sing away my problems for a bit. Alors on danse! lalalalala lalalalalalala
StrangeRasta is now on twitter so look up there above the toolbar ^ and follow me on twitter. New blogs will now be posted via Twitter along with Facebook and Blogger. More ways to connect with the strange one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)