![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#28 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,003
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
That said, to me the difference here lies in the idea that any depiction of what is being called 'lust' is a lower form of intellect, being, literary interest, and morality/ethics. Like any aspect of the strange, weird, and wonderful complex we call human beings, sexual desire can be depicted crudely or honestly, immaturely or maturely, wisely or sillily, postively or negatively. It is, however, a moral value rather than an absolute standard which says that any discussion of sexuality is 'less, lower, somehow substandard and even dirty.' Perhaps this is part of the Christian heritage that sees sex as demeaning and dirty and which denies the body in favour of intellection, (part of our inheritance from Greek philosophy also) but it is--at the risk of repeating myself--one that is a value judgement. The idealisation of women which is being discussed here had--in the primary world as opposed to the subcreated world--historically and politically and culturally, a profoundly and seriously detrimental consequence not only for women but for all human beings. It is not 'maturity' which made Tolkien omit 'lust', but rather a function of his system of belief. Nor is it a function of modern author's scatological interest or immaturity that 'lust' appears more dominantly in modern literature. It is a function of different understanding and different beliefs. My opinion likely is not shared by many here at the Downs, and in that case I suspect discussion here will finish, at least on my part.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |