|
Dear farzana...Thank you for your detailed letter and
the generosity of your
spirit. I think the topic of human sexuality is not finished yet. You became
gentler about homosexuality by stating " I did not mean to come out as
forcefully against homosexuality as I did" but this time you came out
forcrfully against promiscuity...homosexual as well as heterosexual by
stating "what I do find reprehensible is promiscuity." Now I wonder about
the foundation of your ethics and morals. They seem to be based on
scriptures and you also seem to have a bias in favour of Quran as compared
to Old and New Testament. For you Old and New Testament are harsher than
Quran. In my opinion they are all judjmental and punitive and moralistic.
They all talk about sin and guilt. They might have some wisdom for their
times but in 21st century our understanding of human psychology and
sexuality is nore profound and intense than hundreds of years ago.
Please share with me
-
your definition and basis of ethics
What is the basis of your right and wrong?
-
Do you associate sin with sex?
-
What is your definition of promiscuity?
As far as my ethics is concerned I believe in human rights and I believe
that sex is a private thing between two consenting adults in which church
and state do not belong. Only when two people want to make a legal contract
of marriage or custody of children, then the state gets involved on secular
and humanistic basis giving all citizens equal rights.
So if one man wants to marry or have sex with two women or four
women...whether you call it polygamy or promiscuity (that is semantics) it
is their choice, if they all agree on it. Similarly if a woman wants to
marry two men (Anais Nin had two husbands, one in America and the other in
France...spending six months with each...both had no objection) or four men
or have sex with four men with their consent is their business.
As far as my understanding of human history and human psychology is
concerned some men and women might choose to be monogamous but to expect
MONOGAMY from all men and women is unnatural. Please quote any society in
history which was totally monogamous. Marx said if any society wants have
monogamy only a small group of the community will be able to practice it.
Others have to pay the price by
ADULTERY
PROSTITUTION
so either we choose for a free society based on free choice by consenting
adults or we choose the package of
MONOGAMY....ADULTERY...PROMISCUITY
I feel your views are very idealistic.
If you are not comfortable in exploring this topic further that is okay with
me.
As far as topic of WAHY is concerned I am trying to articulate my views for
my book on SPIRTUALITY. When I am ready I will share with all of you....As a
student of human psychology I want to understand how
a psychotic
a poet
and
a mystic
are similar and different? and what were prophets...poets or mystics or
psychotics or mixture of all that?
sincerely sohail
|