Here is a company history you don't see often!!!

[Jotham]

So you all know i dig and doodle...LOTS. Well today i was doing some reading on Kama Sutra, Tantra, and a related topic on male continence (http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/mc/index.htm) written back in 1872, and came across an interesting article mentioning that Oneida Silverware company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Limited) was a byproduct of the Oneida Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community) (it's founder wrote the above lined article).

LOL. Strange stuff they were into.

BUT DIG THIS...They held the belief that Christ returned in 70ad.

Ah the internet, what would we do without it!

; ) Thom

:hand:Kama Sutra... great for a marriage : )

[Me Again]

Sorry to take the discussion in a slightly different direction but you brought it up...:)

I can see no benefit to sex without ejaculation, UNLESS you are attempting to have sex with as many women as possible (or you just like to make it last for hours). While the latter may be beneficial, it loses its importance as men and women reach the age to join AARP. Mama just ain't as interested any more...

Sorry to be so blunt, but geesh...that Oneida community was a little weird, if you ask me. However, I could see how a preterist fellowship/commune could be a good thing. I don't like the "complex marriage" idea, it sounds too much like the Clinton White House. As much as I do find other women attractive, I really love the way that Dana loves me. She is everything that I want, and all that I need. On top of that, she'd kill me if I was having sex with another woman, even if it was one of my friends here on Talk-Grace (not trying to make a pass or anything, just going off the Preterist Commune idea).

Noyes other problem is the idea of being free from sin by our own efforts, rather than the biblical concept of being free from sin because Jesus made us thus.

Other than those three things - male continence, complex marriage, and perfectionism; the idea behind Oneida sounds good to me.

[Paige]

Yeah,

They were pretty darn weird!!!!!

What I felt as I read their history sounded a bit too much like one guy getting too much power, and of course then, running crazy with it. Also, they were trying to create a utopia...RED FLAGS!!!

Paige

[Jotham]

Oh they were TOTALLY WEIRD. What amazed me while reading through the history is how long they actually continued the "experiment" (25+ years and two generations). There is no way i would have been part of that group...nor do i agree with their teachings.

...that said, KS/T does have some interesting teachings/thoughts that go back a millennium or two. Primarily the idea complements Traditional Chinese Medicine and its teachings on male health. And the idea that Making Love can be a spiritual and sacred act beyond what Western thought typically teaches (especially from the pulpit). It is a dance, a poem, and something to be savored for as long as desired. If the focus is on being together (i can here Tolle's "Now" thingy) rather than "finishing" or arriving at a climax, there can be a greater level of satisfaction which can, i suppose be something practiced until death do part??.

[Me Again]

Again, not to get too voyeuristic, but that's why sex can be so dangerous. It is a spiritual experience, and when it is cheapened, it can cause damage - spiritual and emotional.

As I get older, my love making is more about slowing down, being intimate...finding new ways to be together (looking in one another's eyes, lightly kissing odd places - won't go into detail :), etc.). The whole climax thing doesn't need to be rushed to, that's where sex is just bland. Sometimes it is just fun (and spiritual) to just slowly do some foreplay, and then go to sleep (did I mention that at my house everything interesting happens after the kids go to bed AT NIGHT). The actual climactic act doesn't need to be done all the time. That's something that Dana and I are learning (duh! how old are we again?).

Every night can be a spiritual experience - of course, I need to learn to go to bed rather than be up writing messages to you guys. Snuggling, kissing, touching, etc. can all be a wonderful part of the spiritual experience - without "going all the way." That kind of foreplay can occur every night, whereas the other stuff can be left for a couple or three times a week (that's what the researchers say is average).

BTW, with Dana's and my weight, I don't think we could do 1/3 of what's in the Kama Sutra. Oh well...

[Jotham]

Ed good post and thoughts. I'm with you on the idea of cuddling and falling to sleep without the "need" to go all the way...every time. With the kids out of the house it is easy for us to begin cuddling early in a day off or evening after work and just see where it takes us without having a step by step plan. I think we've got a few years on you two though... i just turned 51 Turkey Day, and Cari is right behind me at 49 : ) both gratefully still fit and limber.

Oh yea, on the messaging or doing way past when i should be, it is one of the easiest, yet most difficult habits for me to break!

Thom

[Amie]

I found this if anyone wants to see the mansion: http://www.oneidacommunity.org/education.html


Also, they were trying to create a utopia...RED FLAGS!!!

Would you say that defining love and then trying to live it would be constructing a "utopic vision"? (Question including everyone)

Per S-E-X...

I think that what is enjoyable for each couple is deeply personal -- whether long or short, frequent or not, cheap and dirty or romantic..

When Bryan was in the military I did "couture parties". "Couture" is high quality custom designed women's clothing. The company that I sold for used the play on words as a lingerie designer. The contracted sales people around there also bought stuff from a company manufacturing and providing stuff for sexual use. We also sold the books on Tantra, among other things that you can find in the local adult shops - minus the movies.

The parties were a lot like the typical Tupperware set up - nothing dirty. They were women-only and it allowed people to shop from the comfort of their own homes without the embarrassment that they might otherwise have felt (not everyone is comfortable going to those stores).

The city was a small one and there were A LOT of sales people available. It was like we swept the city and whatever clientele you gained would order from you regularly and that was that. The profit was not enough, I could make more at a part time job elsewhere and with much less responsibility so I dumped it.

I do not regret it and I learned a whole lot. It was fun. I'm no sex therapist, lol! A large number of people opened their homes to me, and their secrets. In my experience the most important part of a happy sex life is the actual partnership of the couple. As I saw it, that was the very thing that preserved the intimacy and not a set rules as to how they conducted themselves in private quarters. They could work together via communication and understanding.

Looks like that Oneida community lacked that in that area, but I would be willing to bet that is because of the ideological thought rampant there to begin with. What intimacy is there when living to an idealogy? There's no relationship, there's just the picture of how things should be.

Thanks for this thread Thom!

Amie

[Dena]

Oh, what a fun thread...!

Just playing devil's advocate here, imagining the things that my more traditional friends would say ...

Is it inevitable that once folks say there's no more sin (& I see a biblical case for that, given fulfilled eschatology), that folks lapse into crossing sexual boundaries?

I don't believe that it's just my "outdated" morals that keeps me committed to my husband. I still believe that God's design is for commitment (I used to say "covenant", but I'm not clear on that anymore). I personally don't believe that true intimacy happens outside of exclusivity with a lifetime partner (for certainly, as Ed pointed out, sex matures and develops over time, delving into deeper and richer realms, than when we were new to sex, and so physical and goal-conscious).

Not that there's anything wrong with hot, fun sex in a longterm marriage...!

Anyway, what say y'all on the "no sin = inevitable promiscuity" theory...?

Shalom, Dena

[Me Again]

Dena, it's great to see you here again - especially talking about sex :).

There's an old proverb that says: nature abhors a vacuum. The idea behind there being no sin is that, in its place, is productivity/fruitfulness. Those fruits, in my opinion, are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, etc.; from which grow relationships. God called Adam and Eve to "be fruitful," i.e., productive. From which grew the multiplication of the covenant people (covenant simply means relationship, imo).

It is NOT possible to have "inevitable promiscuity" since our existence is one of productivity. Only those who chose to live either in their own productivity (thus, grieving the spirit), or eschew productivity altogether (those who harm others for selfish gain) still harm others, and this might be called "sin," but not in the biblical sense of transgressions against God. These are transgressions against other humans, and there are consequences for those things - but they do not grow out of there not being sin. It grows out of a self-oriented heart, which has always been the problem anyway.

these are just my opinions, not meant to force them on anyone else.

[Paige]

Yes, that's a great question!

To add an observation of my own to what Ed has already said...

As I look at the whole picture, and realize all the thousands of years the message of the presence of sin has been preached, I would expect to see a clear line of demarcation between the "churched" and the "unchurched." This is something I don't see. Last I heard, the divorce rate was equal to, or slightly higher in the churched group. That is just one statistic, but a telling one IMO.

AISI, people are people, and I like what Ed pointed out about the "self-oriented" heart. What I mean by that term, is a person that lives with no empathy for others. I've seen an up close example of that being lived out in our extended family. The major offender being one who believes in the hell-bound destiny for the majority of humanity.

Paige

[Me Again]

Yes Paige,
that's a good thought...self-oriented=no empathy for others. In the fundamentalist world, it means that people are to be judged for their sins and found guilty, while the judge looks at himself, and even if admitting that he has sin, simply confesses that sin and receives forgiveness. I frequently point out to scoffers when they say "yeah, what about Hitler? Is he in heaven too?" My response is that, even in the scenario that the fundamentalist believes, Hitler could be in heaven - he could have "accepted Jesus as his personal savior" right before he died. Most scoffers scoff at that (imagine that, scoffers scoffing - sounds like a good XMas song- "12 scoffers scoffing, 11 swans a swimming"), assuming that Hitler was just tooooooooo baaaaaaaaaad to ever be forgiven by God. Of themselves though, it's another story. They are EASILY forgiven because they are, in their eyes, good.

The other end of the spectrum also shows no empathy, those who harm others in physical and emotional ways. We know these folks as criminals, usually. They have no thought for anyone but themselves. They show no remorse for the things they do. In the psychological world, these people were known as sociopaths, but now they have a disorder...

I think that we (I) need to be careful. In speaking of these things, it is easy to become judgmental. God calls us to love, even those who irritate the hell out of us. Oh, it is so hard to do. But, on the other hand, it is not sin to fail, it is wrong to not try. The "sin" is in the self-centeredness (centredness). So, even those of us who point out the "sin" in others, often are guilty of the same. Isn't that what the scriptures actually teach? That's rhetorical, in case you weren't aware...

[Amie]

I am so enjoying y'alls thoughts!

I agree that the sword of judgment is a doubled edged one. That's the beauty of love and of empathy. If we thought over and really considered emotionally why Hitler was what he was, it becomes harder to imagine him burning. And, it seems that God is often in the role of parent. If one of our children were traumatized beyond our knowledge and did stuff like that, we wouldn't be so quick to burn them either -- at least for many of us that would be true.

Still in my head is that example that Ed gave when we were talking about how we send people to jail for burning children with cigarettes yet we imagine God doing far worse.

Something else that comes to mind is the idea that Pharaoh served God. Does that mean that Hitler was chosen as well? He is an icon for many learned lessons.

Dena -- I think that it is silly that people believe that they/we don't already do what they/we want. :D

Amie

[Dena]

I like how all of you laid this out, Amie, Ed and Paige...

Yes, the new law is love... are we, or are we not, living in love...?

So simple, and yet so all-encompassing ... about relationship, not about rules.

He didn't come to get us in line with the rules ... He came so that we could have relationship...!

Beautiful, no?

(& Paige - THANK you for your incredible insights and help over at www.simplechurch.com! I felt like a fish swimming upstream, amongst pirhanas!)