User:Lysander/Oberon essay
The Oberon essay was written by pseudonymous FCC Petersburg Medium prisoner Oberon in response to a request by Nathan Larson for some material to print in The Petersburg Dissident.
Essay
First let me apologize for awkward sentences and misspelling. I will try to catch all dropped "n't" as forgetting to write n't at the end of a word can change the meaning of a whole sentence. These are reasons I've chosen to write this in pencil.
I do better if I'm given a subject, statement, or question to respond to. But as the request is to have some essay on any subject, I guess I'll pick one of the main ideas that in a way defines me. That is my view on sex and sexuality.
Sex is something people do solo, in pairs, or in groups. It is a physical response to physical and sometimes psychological stimuli that creates for the most part a lot of pleasure. This pleasure encourages the act of sex for procreation but in no way is the act of sex limited to procreation. Although I do believe in some hardware issues, Many of people's taboos and preferences are limitations they have allowed society to place on them. I am talking about more than sexual preference as in homosexuality or heterosexuality. This I will talk about later.
I am talking more about this need to be in Love with someone to have good sex or meaningful sex. I don't have a problem with love. As an emotion it can be very powerful and important. I feel that love is used by people who are selfish to control other people. There is this idea that people can only love one other person as far as a partner or mate goes. But that's like saying a person can only be loyal to one friend. A person can only properly raise one child. I will say there are those that say only one child be properly raised. I will point out although not every parent is a good one, for centuries upon centuries parents have been able to raise more than one or even more than one per parent with a fair amount of success. There are also other cultures and even subcultures in the U.S. that have made multiple wives work within a marriage. Ideally each child and wife would be loved equally but I am not saying that. I am only saying people figure out a way to make it work.
There may be physical and emotional benefits to multiple partners. In general I believe it is hard for one person to totally meet the needs of another. A person might be able to meet 70 or 75% of those needs but that leaves still 25% not met. This brings up one of many sayings "I love them for different reasons." This is often said by some who find themselves dating two different people. The truth I think lays more in the reality that the two different people meet different needs; this more fully meeting the need of the person. If jealousy, a needless emotion, was taken out or the need to possess, it makes sense to allow the responsibility of meeting someone's needs to be shared by two or more people. The sharing of this responsibility not only allows a person's needs to be met more fully but helps allow a person from being overwhelmed and become burned out or too needy themselves.
Although we think of most polygamous relationships as being male-centered, I would state that I believe wholeheartedly what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I have known a few relationships that were either ménage à trois or open marriages/relationships. Both concepts of variety is the spice of life and having all one's needs/desires met was a factor why they chose that lifestyle. Those that overcame jealousy and possessiveness (in other words selfishness) seem to be very happy and satisfied. I'll even say well-balanced and confident. Not that they had there was not troubled waters from time to time. Those relationships tend to exist because of open communication so when there was trouble they learned how to talk it out. I also saw a couple of open relationships try to have more openness only to fall apart because the people could not handle their own emotions and reasoning. In short, one or both could not overcome their selfishness.
I am always confounded that sex treatment programs push this concept that the only sex a person should have is in a committed relationship that has spent some time growing without the sex involved. I see this as forcing upon me a world view that's based on a Jew-Christian religious moral belief or viewpoint. Because of this I feel it is the state forcing a religious belief upon me which I may not believe in. We now live in a society that allows openly fornication. Only allowing one to have sex in a committed relationship is a veiled attempt to say sex should be part of a marriage type relationship. Many of what the state and state-sponsored programs decry as the correct way often smacks of a Christian taint.
The two arguments as I have come to understand them are: Our country was founded on Christian beliefs, and these are Traditional values that have produced stable situations in the past. There are flaws with both of these reasons. The biggest one is we are not living in the past.
The truth is the Christianity was much different and even the hardcore Christians had to give up many of their wishes as to how our country should be run. A number of our founding fathers were Deist Christians which by today's standards would almost be saying they were Christians in name only. I'm not saying Christians have not had their influences but we do not live in a theocracy. Also, our Western Civilization was based on the Greek/Roman idea of Rights and Government. Those were established long before Christianity came along. The religion of the time was more flexible to individual interest or rights. It was during Christianity's watch that Rome fell. In the end Christianity is about controlling what others do and Conformity. Controlling what others do so they are all doing the same thing has nothing to do with Freedom. The only right one has is what the ruler of the church says you have. That is not what rights are but that system sounds familiar. People will rebel against the Christian's view of what is right. Some Christianized laws have been rejected. It's time to clean house. Let those who wish to live by Christian rules live by them but let everyone else live by the rule of "Do what you wish but harm no one." That's freedom.
It was Traditional to own slaves. Thomas Paine wrote "give me Liberty or give me death" after watching a man flogged to death for preaching without a license. That was a Traditional punishment. Of course only those who preach what the state wanted them to got licenses. In a way that tradition still goes on. Also if one looked in the record books of the 1700s or 1800s one might see many many dates between marriage and their firstborn was closer to seven months to nine months. Although people would like to believe Marriage before sex was traditional but the numbers say different. How far back do we take tradition. If we go back to Greek/Roman traditions there were not all these sex laws. Those who were citizens lived free of Government interference in their private laws. In the 1700s they made a law saying one had to be at least twelve to work in a brothel and the common law age of consent was Ten. What about these traditions. The problem with picking what one should follow because it is "Traditional" is people have a habit of picking a la carte style. They pick what they like and forget everything else. A little like how some practice their religion.
I have given you two (Four pages) of thoughts and rants. I will go into sexuality another time although I did touch upon it in these pages. It is very interesting and somewhat confusing sometimes when one starts to talk about what people like and why. Half of the times we don't know what and why about ourselves so why would it be confusing when we add all the others into the discussion. I hope these pages satisfy you for now but whets your appetite for more ideas and thoughts. Don't be afraid to start with your own without the rest of us. Bon appétit.
