The Town of Odyssey

Ginny Weasley wrote:I'd imagine so, TKD. We were discussing whether the Bible was graphic or not, and I think I mentioned Song of Solomon at some point as being sexually graphic, and Pip started talking about...something to do with erotica. It all snowballed from there.

Well actually the young people were cool with it, because we all had a lot of questions as far as what God thinks of it. But with the other adults you could have heard a pin drop. Which is saying something, because we have carpet. Anyway.

Ah I see, danke.

Jelly wrote:You seem vehemently opposed to viewing SoS as any kind of source of sexual arousal... but why? I would argue that it IS in fact the intention of SoS's erotic phrasing to excite the reader sexually. The anatomy of the human form is described in intimate detail. Sexual intercourse is not merely referred to, it is foundational to the story arc, elaborated with flourish. The writer grasps at every bit of analogical phrasing in order to portray explicit sexual expression to the fullest. Why else would this have been written?

To express the beauty of sexuality. The very nature of beauty is that it is not kinetic. It doesn't cause you to desire or loathe. Can you not merely enjoy the beauty of it without feeling lustful towards it? A painting of a flower is not intended to make you desire to plant flowers. It's intended to please you with a beautiful flower.
The problem is that desire is often confused with beauty.

Jelly wrote: What's wrong with sexual desire? God intended for us to be fully capable of sexual desire from an early age, and it seems clear to me that SoS was written with the obvious intention of complimenting this God-ordained desire. What you're opposed to is the 'cultural mindset' that has objectified sex and confused God's desire for sexual intimacy with sexual immorality. I believe, especially since SoS is found directly in the Biblical cannon, that all its descriptions of intimacy and sex are entirely pure, and I also believe that the sexual desire God gifted us with is intended to be entirely pure. I'm then led to the conclusion that the two must compliment each other in the purest form.

I'm not merely opposed to the cultural mindset that has objectified sex, I'm opposed to the cultural mindset that has objectified beauty.

Yes, God gave us sexual desire at a young age, but the beauty of it is that we resist sexual temptations and lust and save ourselves for our spouses. What is the point of exciting sexual desire at a young age? All that does is make you vulnerable to temptation. This is why I cannot believe that Song of Solomon intended to arouse sexual feelings in the reader. The question is, sexual feelings towards whom/what? If it is the character being described, is that not lust/adultery?

Once again, I am not just conjuring this in my own head. Much of it comes from Pilgrim's Regress by C. S. Lewis, which I would definitely encourage you to read, and also from James Joyce's aesthetic theory.

It was written by the guy who had how many wives... Just saying.

Pip wrote:To express the beauty of sexuality. The very nature of beauty is that it is not kinetic. It doesn't cause you to desire or loathe. Can you not merely enjoy the beauty of it without feeling lustful towards it? A painting of a flower is not intended to make you desire to plant flowers. It's intended to please you with a beautiful flower.
The problem is that desire is often confused with beauty.

I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, we're just using different definitions. I still think that you're confusing 'desire' with 'lust', but yes, the ideal situation is as you just described.

Pip wrote:I'm not merely opposed to the cultural mindset that has objectified sex, I'm opposed to the cultural mindset that has objectified beauty.

Beauty, sex, whatever... it's all been distorted and confused.

SoS actually brings beauty and sex together in perfect unity.

Pip wrote:Yes, God gave us sexual desire at a young age, but the beauty of it is that we resist sexual temptations and lust and save ourselves for our spouses. What is the point of exciting sexual desire at a young age? All that does is make you vulnerable to temptation. This is why I cannot believe that Song of Solomon intended to arouse sexual feelings in the reader. The question is, sexual feelings towards whom/what? If it is the character being described, is that not lust/adultery?

Let's clarify some definitions here. The kind of sexual desire I'm talking about, and the kind that SoS intends to excite, is the sexual desire that's paired with the unabiding love of a couple in God-ordained unity. It's a very personal desire, which is far different from an objective sexual desire which is better described as lust. As you grow in an intimate relationship with someone, you're designed to feel sexual attraction towards them, which is great so long as it remains in the context of the personal and intimate love you hold for them. This is the kind of sexual desire/intimate love that SoS thrives on. It's not designed to excite you in a way that will fill your mind with materialistic lust, it's designed to excite you for a personal intimacy with a significant other.

Pip wrote:Once again, I am not just conjuring this in my own head. Much of it comes from Pilgrim's Regress by C. S. Lewis, which I would definitely encourage you to read, and also from James Joyce's aesthetic theory.

I'll let you know when I do.

Knight Fisher wrote:It was written by the guy who had how many wives... Just saying.

No, most scholars actually suspect that SoS wasn't actually written by Solomon at all, and those who believe that he did determine that he probably wrote it before he began losing himself to woman. Either way, though, does that change anything?

Okay, sounds good.