Taboo

[S.L. Lewis]

This was a point brought up in my Incest thread by FrenchCanadian. They wrote:

 

Double standard,,, incest is bad, but oh I wouldn't mind doing it with twins,,, That's like str8 guys that are against gay, but oh they don't mind in their "dream" having 2 girls kissing and doing stuff.

 

Why is something bad, except for one thing?

 

My opinon is because that's the way most people were raised. Coming from an American female, the US has a history where the male was always right, and the woman was nothing more than a pretty decoration that took care of house, husband and children. It's still affecting us now.

[AFriendlyFace]

My opinon is because that's the way most people were raised. Coming from an American female, the US has a history where the male was always right, and the woman was nothing more than a pretty decoration that took care of house, husband and children. It's still affecting us now.

Things do seem to be getting better though

 

Also, while I'm a bigger "feminist" than most of the women I know, I'd also like to point out that women have quite a few social freedoms that men do not

 

For me nothing short of complete gender equality and an abandoning of all gender stereotypes and expectations will satisfy me.

 

...I don't expect to be satisfied anytime soon

 

Things do seem to be getting better though

 

-Kevin

[Hylas]

Taboos... the forbidden apple.

[S.L. Lewis]

Things do seem to be getting better though

 

Also, while I'm a bigger "feminist" than most of the women I know, I'd also like to point out that women have quite a few social freedoms that men do not

 

For me nothing short of complete gender equality and an abandoning of all gender stereotypes and expectations will satisfy me.

 

...I don't expect to be satisfied anytime soon

 

Things do seem to be getting better though

 

-Kevin

Hey! We've fought long and hard for those social freedoms. Let us enjoy it.

Anyways, it's true. We've gone from slaves and what not to where we are now, free, but with some problems that we're still trying to work out. It's a stagger process. We have a couple of decades of good change, then we stagger and fall to the ground only to pick our selves up and continue on our way. (I can't believe I've used a metaphor for this.)

Right now, we're staggering in our steps and it's because of some bad decisions that were made.

And, Kevin, quite frankly, neither do I and they are. Just at what seems like a snails pace.

 

Rose

[Drewbie]

Rose it can be the same with a taboo,

 

Think there's a also where, public would rather see a girl and girl kissing then two guys.

 

and with twins, I just dunno, thing with me is rather see twins with the third but not kissing the other twin, just might be how we been raised.

[Tiger]

This was a point brought up in my Incest thread by FrenchCanadian. They wrote:

 

 

 

My opinon is because that's the way most people were raised. Coming from an American female, the US has a history where the male was always right, and the woman was nothing more than a pretty decoration that took care of house, husband and children. It's still affecting us now.

Such mentalities never go away completely. I happen to think that women have it much better than they did 100 years ago with Middle Eastern women as a notable exception.

[FrenchCanadian]

Such mentalities never go away completely. I happen to think that women have it much better than they did 100 years ago with Middle Eastern women as a notable exception.

 

tututut, now, now, the Middle Eastern women are not obliged to wear the burka and do all those things. They do it because they want it Not because they are forced, LOL :wacko: After having immigrated in "free" country they still do it,,,

 

jk

sacha

[Tiger]

tututut, now, now, the Middle Eastern women are not obliged to wear the burka and do all those things. They do it because they want it Not because they are forced, LOL :wacko: After having immigrated in "free" country they still do it,,,

 

jk

sacha

I would certainly hope you are joking. They are treated like dogs.

[FrenchCanadian]

I would certainly hope you are joking. They are treated like dogs.

 

But of course I was joking hence the "jk"

[rknapp]

Today's workplace standards are all over the place. It used to be that a woman would be hired because of her good looks, and if she was sexually assaulted and sued, she could never again find work because employers would be afraid of her suing them. This still happens, but there's a whole other level to gender discrimination in the workplace. A prime example would be, if I was lined up for a job with a woman as my competition, chances are high that they would higher the woman, regardless of whether or not she is better for the position than I am, just because they have to fill a minority quota.

 

Likewise, opportunities that used to benefit the white man now benefit everyone but him simple because they're a black Jewish lesbian woman with one leg. The REU (Research Education for Undergraduates program run by the government) was created originally with the intent of bringing women and minorities into science positions during and after college. They expanded it to everyone since there were so few women and minorities in the sciences applying (a joke in my friends biochem class, where she and a single white boy are the minority in a class full of Asians, Hispanics, and blacks). My professor said to the females if they put emphasis on their gender then they have a strong chance of being accepted for that sole reason.

 

I as a white male now have fewer options and opportunities simple because of my skin color and my gender. Kind of ironic how the tides have flipped to the opposite end of the spectrum in the wake of equal rights. God forbid I say as much in front of a "minority" without being branded a racist. I could go on an on on the subject, but then I would bore you all and go totally off-topic... what was the topic?

[S.L. Lewis]

I could go on an on on the subject, but then I would bore you all and go totally off-topic... what was the topic?

 

 

Er...why is something taboo, but one part of it is alright? Your opinon.

[JamesSavik]

The taboo of incest (and a number of other sexual taboos) is illegal.

 

I think that most people, fantasies or not, want nothing to do with something that would give them that sort of trouble.

 

Here in the US, District Attorneys love to grandstand sex cases and the public eats it up- the raunchier the better. That's one railroad you never want to ride.

[Hylas]

I as a white male now have fewer options and opportunities simple because of my skin color and my gender. Kind of ironic how the tides have flipped to the opposite end of the spectrum in the wake of equal rights. God forbid I say as much in front of a "minority" without being branded a racist. I could go on an on on the subject, but then I would bore you all and go totally off-topic... what was the topic?

 

Racist!

 

j/k Robbie. LOL

 

Taboos probably had all to do with religion. As time passed, their original religious importance faded and they ebcame integrated into the culture.

 

An example, a circle of stones may once have been a sacrificial site and forbidden to enter if not a priest of a particular religion. As time passed, the religion was forgotten, but people will still not go near the stones.

 

Some notable religious taboos:

 

1) Women and priesthood in Roman Catholicism. Why aren't there female priests?

 

2) Homosexuality of course

 

3) Food codes (like Halal, Kosher, etc.)

 

4) Clothing codes (and yes, Judaism and Christianity also had them once, not just muslims)

 

5) Masturbation

 

6) Saying the name of the 'evil' deity of a religion out loud

 

7) Saying anything against what religion taught (Heresy, blasphemy, etc)

 

8) Incest (a worse taboo because of the psychological impact of it being a taboo. Kinda like a negative feedback loop kinda thing.)

 

9) Sabbath and fasting (e.g. Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays for Abrahamic religions, the Ramadan for Islam, the holy week for Catholics, etc.)

 

etc...

 

Most are distinctly illogical, or worse, has a hidden purpose. Women's subservience for instance. It's obviously designed by a chauvinist (notice how the Bible blames women in the story of creation), reflective of the patriarchal society of desert tribes.

[Graeme]

Most are distinctly illogical, or worse, has a hidden purpose.

I have to disagree.

 

I don't know about other cultures, but if you examine the Jewish Law (the early books of the Bible, Leviticus in particular) it is a remarkably GOOD set of rules for the culture of the time.

 

eg. Don't wear clothing of more than one thread.

The reason was that it didn't work! With the technology of the day, mixing fibres produced clothing that wasn't as good as single fibre clothing. The same applies to most of the agricultural restrictions in the same section -- they were the best practises at the time.

 

eg. Don't eat the flesh of certain animals (I can't remember the exact rules)

The reason is that these are the animals from which humans are most likely to pick up an illness if the food isn't cooked properly.

 

eg. Incest

Incest produces a higher rate of stillborns and deform babies.

 

eg. Homosexuality

At the time, the Jews were heavily outnumbered by the surrounding nations. Any sexual behaviour that reduced the rate of population growth wasn't a good idea.

 

eg. Don't worship idols.

The Jews needed to keep their social identity amongs the various religions practised around them. This, and other similar restrictions, helped keep them from being assimilated into those other cultures, and hence disappear as Jews.

 

The instructions are not as applicable now (we often wear clothing made of more than one fibre) because the reasons behind the restrictions are no longer relevant, but they definitely were at the time they were written.

 

I've picked the examples to make my point, but you get the idea. The rules are NOT distinctly illogical. Some are derived from the culture of the time. eg. The Jews had a concept of perfection, so imperfect things were forbidden. This is the basis for the prohibition on shellfish -- fish were considered the most perfect sea creature, so shellfish were lesser creatures and Jews were told to avoid them. They also had strong gender roles. This is why women wearing mens clothing or men wearing womens clothing was considered an abomination. Men lying with other men as if they were women fits into the same category -- it confuses the gender roles.

 

Trying to blindly apply these to modern society is the mistake -- not the original rules themselves.

[Hylas]

The rules are NOT distinctly illogical. Some are derived from the culture of the time.

 

Exactly my point. They were not illogical at the time. But the reasons behind why they should be enforced IS illogical. So illogical in fact that the reasons are still upheld long after their logicality has died.

 

Forgive me Graeme, but some of the reasons you pointed out are not enough, LOL.

 

That said, I understand what you mean. For example, the reason why a groom shouldn't see the bride in her wedding dress might have a perfectly good reason centuries ago. But today... it's just plain stupid. Why still stick to it at all? The example is a perfectly harmless one, but what about taboos that discriminate against people? It's good and well that they have been ignored at this age, but consider what may have happened if they were still enforced?

 

I remind you of the taboo against people with deformities/diseases entering a temple/church.

 

They ARE illogical and archaic. An example as a Roman Catholic - You can't take a bath on Black Friday. There's no logical reasoning to that.

 

You can't use the same utensils on milk and meat or something like that in Judaism. Again no logical reasoning behind it, except an obscure Torah passage.

 

Seriously, it's like some priest was bored one day in the temple, so decided to forbid something for fun.

 

Trying to blindly apply these to modern society is the mistake -- not the original rules themselves.

 

Which is why they are now taboos. In the original sense, they may have been 'commandments' or 'laws' or 'elder's advice'. Now that all the reason behind them have faded with time, they are taboos.

[Graeme]

It sounds like we agree to a degree. For example, the milk and meat restriction would have been a food contamination issue. The prohibition about diseased/deformed entering a church would have been to stop the spread of infection (you have to remember they didn't have a germ theory then, so it's surprisingly good practical advice to keep potential carriers from public gatherings, such as in a church).

 

But these sorts of things are no longer necessarily applicable in today's world. And that's where we agree

[Benji]

It sounds like we agree to a degree. For example, the milk and meat restriction would have been a food contamination issue. The prohibition about diseased/deformed entering a church would have been to stop the spread of infection (you have to remember they didn't have a germ theory then, so it's surprisingly good practical advice to keep potential carriers from public gatherings, such as in a church).

 

But these sorts of things are no longer necessarily applicable in today's world. And that's where we agree

 

 

........If memory serves me.... the milk and meat taboo was more about disrespect. You could eat the beef, but to drink the milk with it was disrespectful.

[FrenchCanadian]

An example, a circle of stones may once have been a sacrificial site and forbidden to enter if not a priest of a particular religion. As time passed, the religion was forgotten, but people will still not go near the stones.

 

Some notable religious taboos:

 

That's totally right, all the taboos, or at least almost all, are based on religious beliefs. Now that the religion as faded away, or at least lost its importance, people still remembers those taboos and still follows them.

[JamesSavik]

Keep in mind that religions have traditionally been very populist when it come to deciding what exactly a sin is and how severe it is.

 

Most religions have held up things that were social taboos and made them into moral taboos.

 

For instance- Baptist might not like gambling and drinking but every Sunday after church you can find them piled high at the casinoe buffets.

 

Religions are not and have never been about rightiousness. They are about power and are designed to appeal to as many people as possible to bolster that power be it economic, military or civil authority.

[Hylas]

The prohibition about diseased/deformed entering a church would have been to stop the spread of infection (you have to remember they didn't have a germ theory then, so it's surprisingly good practical advice to keep potential carriers from public gatherings, such as in a church).

 

Er... the prohibition wasn't against disease, it was against physical imperfections. :S Blindness, deafness, lameness, etc.

 

The reason most likely is that the priests decided it was not fitting for imperfect people to enter the temple.

[Tiger]

The taboo of incest (and a number of other sexual taboos) is illegal.

 

I think that most people, fantasies or not, want nothing to do with something that would give them that sort of trouble.

Sadly, there are too many who are into what I consider the ultimate sexual taboos. They are so terrible; I dare not even mention them by name.

[Graeme]

Er... the prohibition wasn't against disease, it was against physical imperfections. :S Blindness, deafness, lameness, etc.

 

The reason most likely is that the priests decided it was not fitting for imperfect people to enter the temple.

Partially true. You're looking at it from a modern perspective. From their perspective, they don't know what causes them, and a common 'belief' was that it was punishment from God. As such, they shouldn't be in a Church or they might cause the same thing to happen to them. Some of those conditions (eg. lameness, or arthritis, blindness, deafness) can be acquired during your life. Since they don't know what causes them, being cautious isn't such as a bad idea. Okay... maybe I'm stretching things a bit here, BUT I still stand by the statement that many of the restrictions were sensible rules to live by in that era. They may not be sensible now, but they were then.

[FrenchCanadian]

Er... the prohibition wasn't against disease, it was against physical imperfections. :S Blindness, deafness, lameness, etc.

 

The reason most likely is that the priests decided it was not fitting for imperfect people to enter the temple.

Partially true. You're looking at it from a modern perspective. From their perspective, they don't know what causes them, and a common 'belief' was that it was punishment from God. As such, they shouldn't be in a Church or they might cause the same thing to happen to them. Some of those conditions (eg. lameness, or arthritis, blindness, deafness) can be acquired during your life. Since they don't know what causes them, being cautious isn't such as a bad idea. Okay... maybe I'm stretching things a bit here, BUT I still stand by the statement that many of the restrictions were sensible rules to live by in that era. They may not be sensible now, but they were then.

 

if you look at it historically, yea. That's perfectly true. they didn't know what cause those conditions, so for them it was some sort of punishment from God.

 

I'm just putting oil on fire here, but weren't they supposed to teach forgiveness and help them see the right way? meaning that it doesn't explain why they didn't let those people in,.

[Graeme]

I'm just putting oil on fire here, but weren't they supposed to teach forgiveness and help them see the right way? meaning that it doesn't explain why they didn't let those people in,.

Actually, no Forgiveness was described when someone did something against you, but if 'God' has punished you, it was up to God to forgive you, not the other people. It was up to them to find the message that God was sending them, and to do what was required to gain his forgiveness. At least that's my reading of it....

[Tiger]

if you look at it historically, yea. That's perfectly true. they didn't know what cause those conditions, so for them it was some sort of punishment from God.

 

I'm just putting oil on fire here, but weren't they supposed to teach forgiveness and help them see the right way? meaning that it doesn't explain why they didn't let those people in,.

The Bible does say to forgive or you will not be given, but that doesn't mean all Christians forgive as they should. They seem unforgiving, in general, as it pertains to "sexual immorality."