Prometheus bound (and gagged)
In his book Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?, Jonathan Margolis notes in passing that the major publisher of skeptical books in the United States is Prometheus Books, founded by Paul Kurtz. He adds that "these days" (he was writing in 1998) "Prometheus sheds a diffuse light from its New York state headquarters ... Although it still claims a strictly rationalist ethic, rationalism has come to include libertarianism and, from there on, pretty much anything goes ... One book on Prometheus' list is a British academic text on child abuse: Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults, republished in the States ... The book consists of hundreds of pages of detailed case histories of adults having sex with children. Other Prometheus titles have surely still less claim to academic status: Cannibalism: From Sacrifice to Survival, The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile, Whips and Kisses: Parting the Leather Curtain, The Breathless Orgasm: A Lovemap Biography of Asphyxiophilia, Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz ..."
Since skeptics often accuse us woo-woo types of reading a lot of worthless and sensationalistic junk, I was interested to see if Prometheus's catalogue had changed its tone in the last ten years. Evidently it has not. Sure, there are serious academic titles available, but there is also a lot of stuff that seems pretty flaky when coming from a publisher whose motto is "Lighting the way to reason since 1969."
For one thing, the above-mentioned Whips and Kisses is still on their list, as are Cannibalism: From Sacrifice to Survival, Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults, and The Breathless Orgasm (a study of the dangerous practice of intensifying orgasm through strangulation). Sadly, I was unable to find Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz or The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile. (A zoophile is someone who has sex with animals - presumably horses in this case. For further info, consult this useful online guide, with its various "Howto" sections, like "Howto: Dolphins" and "Howto: Garden Goats.")
A quick search through Prometheus's current offerings yielded some new titles of interest. Some are rather scholarly, in their own way. There's Transvestites: The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress, which, while first published in 1910, "still is the most comprehensive treatise on the subject of transvestism, illustrating that while styles have changed, the enthusiasm of devotees has not."
The Handbook of Forensic Sexology discusses "sodomy, pedophilia, incest, sexual abuse, rape, exhibitionism, prostitution, and sexual harassment." Crossing Sexual Boundaries covers "cross-dressers, transvestites, transsexuals, and intersexuals" (?), while Gender Blending tells us that "from cross-dressing to altering one's sex by undergoing hormone therapy and radical surgery, 'gender blending' has reached new levels of popularity."
In S & M: Studies in Dominance and Submission, "a variety of subworlds and identities are explored: the professional dominatrix; prostitution and S&M; heterosexual, gay, and lesbian S&M; the role of pain and fantasy; and organized S&M groups." A History of X is billed as the "first comprehensive and most in-depth history of cinematic pornography." Porn 101 is a "wide-ranging collection of essays by both scholars and those who work within the porn industry, from actors and actresses to directors and writers, including even top First Amendment attorneys." Essays include "A Short History of Sex Toys."
Too heavy? Lighter fare is available. The self-explanatory Seduction Lines Heard Round the World and Answers You Can Give is "especially relevant for teenagers who have to deal with sexuality for the first time." Or try Hooking Up, "an educational book about sex that is as captivating as a novel, and as fun as a slumber party ... [it] will educate, entertain, and empower you."
How I Got Into Sex "collects fascinating autobiographies of more than forty people whose livelihoods are linked to sex. The list of contributors [includes] therapists, educators, leading researchers of sexology, a sex toy designer, housewives, sex surrogates, criminologists, clergy, transsexuals, journalists, sociologists, physicians, psychologists, lawyers, nurses, scientists, social workers, and historians." Historians?
A Youth in Babylon: Confessions of a Trash-Film King is the memoir of "David F. Friedman, the emperor of 'exploitation' films. Friedman perfected the fine art of sleaze and delightfully admits that he has hurled more garbage at the public than anyone else before or since." Tragically, Friedman's output came to an end when "hardcore porn ... pulled the rug out from under the adult-film industry and ... ended the fun."
Not your cup of tea? How about Armed Robbery Orgasm, by "imprisoned paraphiliac Ronald Keyes [who] reveals the factors that contributed to his sadomasochistic tendencies and criminal life. Taunted and beaten into a state of erotic ecstasy by his dominatrix 'Connie,' Keyes became utterly subservient to her wishes. In an act of ultimate capitulation, he accommodated Connie's need to achieve orgasm through crime."
But who needs armed robbery when one can indulge in The Joy of Self-Pleasuring? As an appropriate accompanying purchase, consider The X-Rated Videotape Guide VII - or one of the three other volumes in this "sizzling series" also offered by Prometheus. "With thousands of new releases to choose from, this is expert advice on what's hot and what's not... with the latest tantalizing information, including cast members, directors, movie titles, distributors and manufacturers ..., classification (e.g., feature, compilation, bisexual, romantic, etc.), quality, erotic impact ratings, and notes of performers' sexual features, and the on-screen passion." Sounds like a very, um, handy guide.
In the same vein, Raw Talent: The Adult Film Industry as Seen by Its Most Popular Male Star "tells the story of [Jerry] Butler's erotic voyage from average child to sex star. The epilogue added to this new edition answers the question: Where will Jerry go from here?" It's a question I know I've been asking.
Somehow Bert & Lori: The Autobiography of a Crossdresser reminds me of the legendarily bad Ed Wood movie Glen or Glenda. It's the "true story" of an "unapologetic fetishist." Want more truth? The Q Letters: True Stories of Sadomasochism "is a revealing account of the S/M scene by a man who has participated in it for more than twenty-five years [detailing], with candor and sensitivity, the emotional and sexual 'highs' experienced by both dominants and submissives."
But best of all, I think is, Dirty Talk: Diary of a Phone Sex Mistress. This one, we are told, is "a revealing look at phone sex by a 'mistress of fantasy' responsible for a lot of heavy breathing.... a fascinating, no-holds-barred insider's look at the steamy and mysterious world of phone sex fantasy and the clients who keep coming back for more. Gary Anthony joined the business because he needed work, but he also hoped to hone his acting skills on duty; on the phone, he was every man's, and a few women's, fantasy, playing everything from a dominatrix to a she-male to a wide-eyed young male lover." From Anthony's "detailed diary" come "titillating conversations featuring every possible scenario from straight sex, transsexual and gay encounters to kinky scenes, fetishes, and the downright bizarre!"
Gosh, maybe rationalists really do have more fun!
Michael,
Those rationalists are Hot!
But I suppose we also ought to mention “The Psychic Mafia”, which you mentioned in your blog on 21 September 2007, which was at one point republished by Prometheus Books. It exposed fraudulent mediumship, including "spirit sex".
Posted by: Ben | July 17, 2008 at 01:19 PM
It's well known that Prometheus Books sell books about homosexuality, prostiution and pedophilia.
Some of that books seem to promote the view that these behaviours are morally acceptable (or morally neutral, because science can explain them...). In other titles, you'll see that the author tries to link "pervertions" with religion (or religious behaviours). It seems that these behaviours are bad when done by religious people, but good or "neutral" when linked to secular people.
In that catalogue aren't many other books of Prometheus Books promoting strange sexual practiques.
For example, in Amazon.com you can search the book "Half Straight: The secrets of my bisexual life" written by Tom Smith. The publisher is Prometheus Books.
As far I respect any kind of sexual orientations, I don't think it's good to promote these kind of practiques.
By the way, why a scientific and "skeptical" publisher has a book about the "secrets of a bisexual life"?
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | July 17, 2008 at 01:24 PM
James DeMeo, the expert in Reich's theory, has an article (not published online) dealing with links of some skeptics with communism and with the promotion of strange sexual practiques (like pedophilia and sadomasoquism).
The links with communism are well known, at least regarding some original members of CSICOP:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Observeskeptics/CSICOP/30yearswar_5.html
It seems logical that a marxist-communist attack any kind of paranormal reserach based on his ideological dogmas.
But the promotion or justification or neutrality (in the name of science) of strange sexual practiques is more surprising, because it could be a sign of maral degeneration or irresponsability.
As I said, it seems many titles of Prometheus "condemms" pervertions when they're linked to spiritualistic or religious practiques. But they accept them as neutral (or do a indirect promotion) when the author is secular or atheist. In the latter case, they present the info from a "scientific" point of view (to justify the moral neutrality about it)
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | July 17, 2008 at 01:38 PM
In all fairness...you got to pay the bills some how. Randi's not exactly a best seller any more.
Posted by: Tony M | July 17, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Wow.
I suppose the rationalists could point to this in support of the argument that our species arose from primordial slime.
Posted by: Michael H | July 17, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Hey Zetetic chick -
As a straight guy who enjoys this blog....
Where does homosexuality fall into the same moral blight as pedophilia? I absolutely LOVE the comment about respecting everyones sexual orientations and all...but, it's just NEVER good idea to encourage them. ( or the other "perversions" above)
We need MORE of that sort of incisive, agile minded forward thinking - keep UP the good work!
Posted by: irh | July 17, 2008 at 04:01 PM
As Tony said, these velvet underground items might be needed to subsidize their highbrow stuff. I think (although I can't recall their names offhand) that there have been other publishing houses that had a split personality. Certainly serious authors have been known to produce "potboilers" to keep body and soul together.
Also, I imagine that Prometheus, as a presumptive promoter of an open market in information, would be responsive to pleas from authors and agents that Prometheus was their only hope, because all other mainstream / respectable publishers had turned them down.
Another possibility is that their editors have a fairly free hand in deciding what to accept--and that one of them has a taste for the weird.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 17, 2008 at 04:22 PM
these velvet underground items might be needed to subsidize their highbrow stuff.
I suspect that Prometheus's "humanistic" philosophy can rather easily run to hedonism. (Actually I suspect that a large part of humanism's appeal is that it offers a rationalization for hedonistic lifestyles. But that's another subject.)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 17, 2008 at 06:02 PM
How sad -- but how funny! -- that some people feel the need to mask their one-fisted reading as "scholarly research."
Posted by: Gen Galloway | July 17, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Michael makes an especially cogent point about humanism and hedonism. I personally endorse none of the extant religions and still maintain ethical and moral standards of behavior, but we can easily extend Michael's observation to note that SECULAR humanism would also obviate for that believer any sense of religious proscriptions and punishments (no eternal damnation or karmic burden), thus "clearing the way" for a hedonism which could make even Alastair Crowley blush ("Do as thou wilt").
Posted by: Kevin | July 17, 2008 at 09:49 PM
>>As Tony said, these velvet underground items might be needed to subsidize their highbrow stuff. I think (although I can't recall their names offhand) that there have been other publishing houses that had a split personality.
Doesn't relate, but HL Mecken started a trashy "pulp" magazine called The Black Mask to fund a now long forgotten "highbrow" magazine. Meanwhile, Black Mask gave us Hammett and Chandler. You never know where the lasting contribution will come from...
But somehow, I don't think that will be the case here.
Posted by: Tony M | July 17, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Hey now! I'm a gay man, but don't confuse random, wild homosexual encounters with the actual true love and caring relationships that we have just as much as straight people!
Don't stereotype us! Prometheus books, stop pushing this stereotype! More reasons to dislike them.
Posted by: | July 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM
"Where does homosexuality fall into the same moral blight as pedophilia?"
Hi Irc,
It's a hard question. I don't like to be a jugde of morality, but I have my own values. In the case of homosexuality (and bisexuality), I respect these orientations, but I don't share them and don't ever would try to encourage them.
Are they inmoral? According to the moral code of many countries, yes. It's a historical fact that moral codes are relative to countries and cultures; but philosophy has interest in the "ontology" of moral values, not only in its relative space-temporal and historical manifestations.
As far I have strong interest in ethics and moral philosophy, I admite that I don't have a specific answer to the problem of morality. I don't know if there is exist an absolutely rational and objetive moral code based on objetive moral values.
However, I think that most people would agree that encouragement of homosexuality, bisexuality and other "non-conventional" ways to express or practice sexuality wouldn't be good to society. Would you like your kids read books like these? Would you like your sons to be bisexuals? (I'm not asking if you would respect these orientations in your sons, but if you LIKE them) I think most people will say NO.
In the case of prostituion, pedophily and pronography, it's even worst. If I had a publishing house, I wouldn't sell books with titles àbout the "pornographic experiences of X person", or the "testimony of a pedophilic" or the "adventures of a prostitute". I think they don't give any positive message to society.
It's a very strange and curious way to promote "critical thinking" and "reason"...
"I suspect that Prometheus's "humanistic" philosophy can rather easily run to hedonism. (Actually I suspect that a large part of humanism's appeal is that it offers a rationalization for hedonistic lifestyles. But that's another subject.)"
It could be. Question is: how do they react if a person, in exercise of his hedonism, has pleasure killing other people? Or raping them? If they're consistent with hedonism, they should to accept it. If not, they're using as an implicit ethical criterium a non-hedonistic system to judge these behaviours as morally negative. And in this case, they wouldn't be hedonist anymore.
It could be argued that people who are victim of a murder or a rape don't have pleasure with it. But hedonism has to do with the pursuit of our own pleasure, not with another's pleasures. Moreover, what if a person wish to be killed, is it a moral justification for murder her?
If X person has pleasure with child pornography, and the specific children involved in it have pleasure with it too, it would justify child pornography as a morally correct conduct in that specific case?
Some have argued that materialism, if applied consistently, imply a relativistic morality; because, metaphisically, you don't have any objective basis to believe in "objetive values". Values aren't material, you can't test them in a laboratory. (Some materialist believe that mind doesn't exist; so, how could exist values that only can be apprehended by a mind?)
In a materialist worldview, human beings are accidental by-products of nature; you don't have any objective significance, and values don't have an objetive entity. Your CHOOSE your own significance. (By the way, if as argued by some materialists, free will doesn't exist, I can't see how you can freely choose your own values...)
Could it explain the curious Prometheus' "humanist" philosophy about pedophily, pornography and prostitution? Are they being consistent with their materialist worldview?
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | July 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
It's not only materialists who think we have no free-will, Zetetic Chick. There are Eastern philosophies that insist on that too. St Augustine in the west appears to disagree with it, as we are only saved due to God’s grace, not through our own efforts to be good (and only if we are baptized!).
In any case, “Judge not lest ye be judged” puts a stop to all moralising, doesn’t it?
;-)
Posted by: Ben | July 18, 2008 at 01:06 AM
Are they being consistent with their materialist worldview?
Yes.
I think this all ultimately has to do with the naturalist view of humanity that has accompanied the ascent of materialism. Hedonism and moral equivalence are two consequences, but the growing influence of these doctrines has had many others, which are at least as serious.
Depression has become commonplace. Martin Seligman has noted that not only has the occurrence of depression increased ten-fold in the last 50 years, but the mean age of the first onset of depression has dropped from 29.5 years old fifty years ago to 14.5 years old today. He also points out that there is no objective reason for this; lifestyles have increased dramatically in that time, but the collective morale has tanked in an inverse and exponential proportion.
Neither the depression epidemic nor the hedonistic smorgasbord in the book list above is a surprise to anyone who has observed contemporary society in general. Casual sexual hookups are commonplace, as is rampant alcohol and drug abuse. All of these issues go back to one simple thing: too few people experience positive, unconditional, enduring feelings of genuine self-worth in their daily experience of life. As a result, they’re walking around with a gaping hole inside themselves, desperately trying to fill it with more ‘stuff”. And that only lasts until one can get more stuff.
The naturalist view of humanity as sophisticated animals is largely responsible for this. It is also related to the waning influence of religion in the West, but it’s difficult to imagine that the culture will ever return to acceptance of a moral standard based on dogmatic proclamations of clergy threatening eternal damnation. The current state of Islam doesn't engender widespread confidence in theological solutions either. If answers exist to these issues, they will not come from the prevalent thinking; they will involve new ideas.
My best guess, and my hope, is that the new ideas will actually be very old ideas, though they will be expressed in contemporary language. Essentially, I think the solution will have to do with humanism, but it will be humanism with a caveat. If we use the definition of humanism as “a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behavior that are believed to be best in human beings”, I think that’s precisely where the solution is. The caveat is that it will involve completely different ideas regarding what “the best in human beings” actually is.
Posted by: Michael H | July 18, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Zetetic chick, I highly doubt reading about glorified material portraying various lifestyles will really encourage anyone to go in to it. If a person is gay, he/she will come to it, crazy sex book or not.
Again, I reiterate, homosexuality is not about the sex, unlike what the 2% minority makes it seem like.
Posted by: | July 18, 2008 at 01:27 AM
“a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behavior that are believed to be best in human beings”,
Change the word human to spiritual and I suspect that may have some impact on our behavior. It is hard to judge a world if there are new souls arriving on earth on a continuous basis. And souls that have advanced beyond such behavior may not see a need to incarnate again. If of course reincarnation is a reality.
Also it appears that we humans often have to experience what does not work before we are willing to try what does work to bring us greater awareness and joy.
Posted by: william | July 18, 2008 at 02:02 AM
Ben said: "It's not only materialists who think we have no free-will, Zetetic Chick. There are Eastern philosophies that insist on that too. St Augustine in the west appears to disagree with it, as we are only saved due to God’s grace, not through our own efforts to be good (and only if we are baptized!).
"
I think this has to be put into perspective.
A lot of eastern philosophy says in the end that there is no free will because there is only oneness, in unity there is no right or wrong, no duality, no free will. But of course obviously we live in a duality at this time.
It's the whole paradox about infinity and manyness, free will and the absolute.
The difference with the non free will from materialists is that they come from a totally different perspective.
The non free will from materialists comes from their view that we are just automata, machines, that just do their thing without any meaning. This is highly different from using your free will first to realise that in essence you are unity and oneness and that free will is an illusion and a distortion from oneness but can still be regarded as its greatest gift.
From a fully balanced individual going to deeper realisation of reality, where reality is unity, the eternal Isness.
The difference is that reality gets a much deeper meaning, increases in depth with empirical personal experiences of unity while with a materialistic point of view it increases in shallowness with more thought games where the mind denies that the mind exists. I think the non free will of the mystics is based on deep experiences of unity, where indeed every seperation is the illusion. But with materialists it's not about unity, it's more about seperation.
Because the non free will is then based on the idea of automata where consciousness is an illusion and with other concepts like that we are just like other animals with theories of only the strongest will survive and self service is the only basis for actions...
Of course this is a very shallow, broad distinction, you can find very superficial religious people and extremely positive atheists. It's not black & white for sure.
Also Ben, according to Wilber there are 2 ways to realise spirit. One is to equal yourself to the Infinite, use your own power, where eventually athman equals brahman another way is to put yourself away, put everything in god's hands, with the grace of god. Both give the same result, destruction of the ego, the little self and direct experience of spirit.
greets,
Filip
Posted by: Filip VD | July 18, 2008 at 02:59 AM
Nicely put, Filip!
Interesting how everything in our earthly existence can be arranged in pairs of opposites, isn't it, deriving from Unity :: Duality/Separation.
One thing, though: Our bodies may indeed be automata, though open to influence by spirit. As he was dying, Krishnamurti is supposed to have said that his body/mind reacted in some distress to his spirit leaving. Also, Nanci Danison in “Backwards, Returning to our Source for Answers” said that in her exetended NDE she noted that she was surprised to find that some humans don’t have souls at all – no soul claimed them at birth. Very interesting, that. If true, it might explain a lot about the state of planet Earth!
Posted by: Ben | July 18, 2008 at 03:37 AM
Ben, I've had that unpleasant intuition for quite some time. Nothing like a bit of corroboration to start my day off right ;o(
Posted by: Wax Frog | July 18, 2008 at 04:21 AM
Nanci Danison in “Backwards, Returning to our Source for Answers” said that in her exetended NDE she noted that she was surprised to find that some humans don’t have souls at all – no soul claimed them at birth.
That is an unusual statement, and one that strikes me as contradictory to other mystical testimony that I’m aware of. I’ll need to read her book for the full context, because the balance of her NDE account is fully consistent with much other mystical literature. It further suggests the actual source of the extreme hedonism exemplified in Prometheus’ inspiring book list.
Nanci’s early observation regarding the power of belief caught my attention immediately:
As she begins to discover “who I really am”, it becomes clear that her terrestrial belief system was much stronger that she could possible conceive:
This is consistent with Seth’s description of the multi-dimensional personality essence, as well as Sri Yukteswar’s claim that the astral and causal selves are active with other aspects of experience that we are normally unaware of.
She then goes on to share her experience of meeting a group of five other entities, which she described as her “most cherished and beloved friends and soul mates”, though she also says that she has known none of them during this physical life. This again is consistent with Seth’s descriptions of soul groups, and may also relate to Plato’s concept of “soul mates”.
We then hear about her undergoing a process, whereby she and her five mates merge to experience existence as a collective of six, before her consciousness expands further to essentially merge with source itself:
Consider the above in the context of Sydney Banks’ following statement:
Next, she alludes to vibration as integral to conscious experience, as I speculated on in the previous thread:
She suggests the actual cause of the hedonism celebrated in the book list above, implying that it is a direct result of the widespread acceptance of a naturalist view of reality. What is hedonism, but an unbalanced focus on sensory experience? This also implies that those engaging in these practices are just much more vulnerable to their own thoughts about reality than those who are not.
The hold our physical senses have on us is repeated again and again in mystical literature. Seth states, “You cannot trust your physical senses to give you a true picture of reality. They are lovely liars, with such a fantastic tale to tell that you believe it without question.” Peter Kingsley’s interpretation of Parmenides and Empedocles makes this point as well:
Is there a better description of extreme hedonism than it being the direct consequence of being “bashed around by the senses”?
Two final points. First, her comment at the end of the interview addresses the fact that many attempt to interpret Near Death Experience from an objective perspective, and alludes to the limitations involved in doing so:
Second, her response to the question about whether her religious beliefs or practices changed as a consequence of her experience should be considered by those who think that the solution to the encroaching philosophy of naturalism involves a return to any extant religion:
I'll need to read her book to understand how she reconciles the statement, "All things that we perceive as physical reality are really thoughts manifested by Source within its own Energy field" with the statement that "some humans don't have souls at all". It's especially contradictory when her own experience included the sensation of her personality essence merging into Source itself, which on the deepest level, implies that none of us has a 'soul' that is fully independent and separate from the Source, despite all appearances to the contrary.
Posted by: Michael H | July 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM
“I can now safely leave the future to bring forth cumulative evidence in support of my assertions, so that the day will come when to disbelieve in the reality of psychic phenomena will be but to plead ignorance and to scoff will be accounted foolish.”
A quote from the last paragraph by Findlay in his book on the edge of the etheric. It appears that he felt Sloan was the read deal as a medium as he spent 12 years with him as a sitter and a researcher.
Posted by: william | July 18, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Michael H, I ought to say that I don't recommend Nanci's book -it's disappointing. The best bits are online. At one point she admits that if she knew she was coming back, she'd have made more effort to remember more. As for the 'human animals' bit -- I neither believe nor disbelieve her. She only throws that one in with no further explanation.
Still, the very fact that our bodies have "animal passions" which we find it hard to disregard in spite of the fact that they give no lasting satisfaction suggests that, in some sense at least, they are independent of our true selves. As you say, this may ultimately apply to any higher vehicles we possess too.
Posted by: Ben | July 18, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Still, the very fact that our bodies have "animal passions" which we find it hard to disregard in spite of the fact that they give no lasting satisfaction suggests that, in some sense at least, they are independent of our true selves.
It seems that this is essentially the point, doesn't it? We're pulled in two directions all the time; it sort recalls the image of an angel whispering in one ear while a noisy devil has the other.
I know I've been guilty of ignoring the angel more often than I like to admit!
The difference between the hedonist and myself is a matter of degree, I guess. I mention that not as a justification, but rather as a means to understanding behavior that appears abhorrent.
Thanks for the clarification on the book contents, too.
Posted by: Michael H | July 18, 2008 at 01:04 PM
“I know I've been guilty of ignoring the angel more often than I like to admit!”
I wonder if this is not by design and this friction is what helps to develop our soul. We appear to be our same sweet self or not so sweet self when we leave this world and move into another dimension. Not sure we can put all the responsibility on human nature.
Many of the drives of nature could cause problems but I suspect society may even cause more desires and problems. It would be interesting to try and find out why America has such a huge prison problem. I.e. what are the significant variables?
Could anyone do such research without letting their beliefs bias his or her findings?
Posted by: william | July 18, 2008 at 03:48 PM
I wonder if Prometheus also publishes idiosyncratic books on neutral oddball topics, like chain-saw carving, etc. If so, it would be exculpatory.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 19, 2008 at 04:11 AM
...but nuncupatory (because environmentally unfriendly).
Posted by: | July 19, 2008 at 06:11 AM
Unfortunately ZC's apparent view that we shouldn't advertise homosexuality for fear of leading people into it is precisely the kind of attiutude that Margaret Thatcher played to in the 80's and I can tell you it cause a lot of suffering. You can't catch homosexuality and for most people it certainly isn't a choice. If you believe that our sexuality divides quite nicely into Gay/Straight or any other combination I think it is a sadly ill-informed view. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and although it has often been persecuted it has tended to be in religious societies. In many other socities not controlled by religious books and bishops or derived from Hebrew scripture it has been integrated into society and even revered. I am quite surprised to find such attitudes demonstrated in this forum.
Posted by: Paul Welsh | July 19, 2008 at 03:26 PM
“If you believe that our sexuality divides quite nicely into Gay/Straight or any other combination I think it is a sadly ill-informed view.”
I suspect but don’t know but those that come out most forcibly against homosexuality may be trying to hide some of their own deep inner feelings for the same sex.
Posted by: william | July 19, 2008 at 06:37 PM
Hi Paul,
"You can't catch homosexuality and for most people it certainly isn't a choice"
It's true that for most people it isn't a choice, but it doesn't justify to promote them. My point was ethical, not psychological.
"If you believe that our sexuality divides quite nicely into Gay/Straight or any other combination I think it is a sadly ill-informed view"
It's not my own classification, but many scholars classification of sexual orientation. According to wikipedia: "Sexual orientation is usually classified according to the sex or gender of the persons whom the individual finds sexually attractive. The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_%28orientation%29
I suppose scholars of sexuality has a very ill-informed view too.
If you have another scientific classification of sexual orientation, maybe you could publish it in a journal of sexuality, and change the view of most scholars.
"Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and although it has often been persecuted it has tended to be in religious societies. In many other socities not controlled by religious books and bishops or derived from Hebrew scripture it has been integrated into society and even revered"
so what? Is that a moral justification of Prometheus' endorsement of homosexuality and bisexuality? The point of discussion was ethical, we're commenting about the ethical foundations or implications of Prometheus's book list, and I give my opinion about it.
"I am quite surprised to find such attitudes demonstrated in this forum"
Each person has its own acctitudes and values, you can't expect all of us think like you. If you are a defender of homosexuality, I respect it. But I don't have to share your views.
I said I respect the sexual orientation of any person; but it doesn't entail that I must or want to encourage them.
In any case, the point of discussion was Prometheus's endorsement of many types of sexual practiques, not only homosexuality. But you only focused yourself in the homosexuality topic.
Relax, don't take it so seriously. (I'm sorry if I hurt your beliefs or values; I only express my opinion)
:)
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | July 19, 2008 at 07:15 PM
Prometheus' endorsement of homosexuality and bisexuality
For the record, my point in listing all these titles was not to complain that Prometheus has published some books on homosexuality. In fact, I did not list any titles from thir "Gay & Lesbian" section, and I don't think any of the titles I did list concerns homosexuality as such.
My point was that, for a publisher "lighting the way to reason," they put out a lot of rather trashy books about sadomasochism, pederasty, bestiality, travestitism, sex-change operations, porno films, self-strangulation, etc.
This struck me as amusing.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 19, 2008 at 08:50 PM
“Sexual orientation is usually classified according to the sex or gender of the persons whom the individual finds sexually attractive.” As you stated there may be a whole continuum of sexual orientation. Maybe it is not a yes or no switch.
Variation in all things maybe even sexual orientation. We may reach a point in society where even marriage becomes almost obsolete. Or not. We know so little about sexual orientation how can we possibly evaluate it to any degree of certainty.
Posted by: william | July 19, 2008 at 11:49 PM
It's truth, William.
However, for the moment, I think the classification is useful, if not absolute or perfect. Classifications, in most cases, not are absolute; but they're useful to understand phenomena and thinking about them according the the basic differences and properties of things.
By the way, in the Findlay' book (and in other spiritualit books too), I've read that the etheric body is like the physical body. But if it's truth, it poses the some questions:
1)Why are "etherians" male or female? Why the spirit has a gender and a sex?
2)How explain that in reincarnation, you can have a male body and then a female body? If your etheric body is male, how you can have a female body in the next reincarnation?
I suppose the etheric body isn't the spiritual body. It's only a temporal body to facilitate the transition of physical realm to spiritual realm.
As far many spiritualist references seems to be serious or credible, I think the idea of a spritual realm with houses, pets, books, music and other things like these seems very weird to me.
Is there internet in it too?
:)
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | July 20, 2008 at 07:54 AM
Actually, Zetetic Chick, there are some spiritual sources that I've encountered that claim that on the deepest level, our spiritual essence is androgynous. Seth spends quite some time on this in his descriptions of the 'multi-dimensional personality essence', and Manly Hall mentions the same thing in The Secret Teachings of All Ages, referencing several esoteric sources. I seem to recall certain NDE accounts alluding to this also, though I can't remember the particulars, and as you mentioned, much of the literature regarding reincarnation indicates that past lives involve experience as both sexes.
If we consider this premise of an androgynous essence as potentially valid, it could provide an explanation for gender confusion and sexual orientation. It could be that sexual preferences arise from a sort of deep spiritual memory, and might even imply that a bisexual orientation is more balanced than us heterosexuals know. I guess I'll just have to remain unbalanced for now.
:-)
In any case, whatever orientation one happens to experience has no bearing on their capacity for spiritual realization: Bucke's classic Cosmic Consciousness identified both Walt Whitman and Edward Carpenter as examples of his contemporaries that had realized the underlying Source, and neither were heterosexual.
Everything considered, I can't conclude that homosexuality or bisexuality in and of themselves are immoral, though I tend to agree with you that I'm uncomfortable with the promotion of the bizarre sexual practices outlined in MP's main post. I think that these titles represent the fringe element of a greater trend that has to do with Western culture's obsession with all things sexual. And I think that greater trend is a direct consequence of the influence of naturalism, which can in turn be attributed to the metaphysical assumptions of materialism.
That being said, I think that the persecution of gays is one of the ugliest aspects of theism, and continues today in more repressive societies. There are no gay parades in Iran.
Posted by: Michael H | July 20, 2008 at 09:39 AM
I think it's true to say that scientific views of many seemingly inviolable facts about many subjects including homesexuality have changed a lot over the years and has at times also been used to excuse or endorse a great deal of persecution and harm. I don't think citing current thinking is very helpful as it is subject to change - unless you think we have finally learned all there is to know about human personality and sexuality?
Although the scientific view of homesxuality is a lot more enlightened than it was even 30 years ago,it seems to me to be in a state of alomost continual change and refinement - if it was ice I wouldn't skate on it but by all means go ahead.
What does "defender of homesexuality" mean? I don't believe it is a lifestyle choice, certainly not for most gay people - it would be a lot easier to be straight if that were the case and I am sure most would choose heterosexuality. It isn't IMO a thing to be defended it is simply a feature of humanity much as blue eyes and red hair are. I would be very interested to hear your evidence supporting the view that encouraging it means there is more of it as opposed to people simply feeling free to be who they really are. I cannot see how it is something that it itself can be "promoted" as opposed to understanding of it being "promoted".
I certainly don't expect everyone here to have the same view as me, in fact that's why I like this forum - I have learned a great deal from it. I suppose I simply found your comments bigoted and ignorant. I don't find this very often on these forums hence my surprise.
As far as the original observation was concerned yes it is amusing that Prometheus is purveying such tripe however I think comments linking homosexuality with pederasty, bestiality and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity betray an anachronistic ill-informed attitude that deserves censure.
Posted by: Paul Welsh | July 20, 2008 at 10:16 AM
By the way, ZC, this short essay speaks to the above: Whitman, Emerson, and the Song of Sex.
The writer addresses the difficulty Emerson had with certain aspects of Whitman's poetry:
Food for thought.
Posted by: Michael H | July 20, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Michael H,
It's seems to me more plausible a non-sexual identity in the spiritual world. It would be consistent both with different sexual identities in each reincarnation, and with the sources you quoted. But it's inconsistent with Findaly's evidence (one of the best I've read), and with the controversial Victor Zammit's communications via Thompson.
As I said, many of sources I've read claims that we survives with the same identity (including our sexual identity) in afterlife. So, you'll be male in afterlife.
If sources are contradictory in this point, it could be that some of them are false.
I don't find any sense in having sexual identities in afterlife, but the same applies to have "etheric" mouths, hands, stomachs, etc.
The contradiction of sources about these basic questions are a main point used by some "skeptics" to debunk the topic.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | July 20, 2008 at 12:59 PM
As I said, many of sources I've read claims that we survives with the same identity (including our sexual identity) in afterlife. So, you'll be male in afterlife.
If sources are contradictory in this point, it could be that some of them are false.
There's not necessarily a contradiction involved, ZC. There are several spiritual cosmologies that say that Self-discovery involves ascension through multiple levels or realms of existence. The Hinda and Buddhist schools are two examples, while Kabbalah is another. Seth suggests the same sort of thing.
It is entirely possible that sexual identification is one of the last core beliefs that is released along the journey towards complete reunification with the Source. If this is the case, then testimony from other realms stating that sexual identification remains intact makes sense. The testimony can be considered as accurate and truthful from the perspective of the one testifying, but the one testifying would not necessarily be aware of realms higher than their own, and even if they were, they wouldn't know for themselves the conditions or perspectives that exist in higher realms.
The recurring theme in the esoteric spiritual traditions is that the ultimate Self is Source Itself: Brahman and Atman are One. Our individualized spirit is more accurately described as a tiny piece of the One spirit, Source itself.
Source itself is understood as an absolute incomprehensible principle, existing in a timeless state, without any form or identifying aspect at all, though all form owes its existence to the Source. It is the formless essence from which form arises.
If these cosmologies are accurate, (and I suspect they are), it would of course mean that individual sexual identity cannot be absolute, despite all appearances to the contrary.
So, my best guess is that we will all experience a unique sexual identity only until we've ascended in Self-realization to what are probably the very highest levels.
Posted by: Michael H | July 20, 2008 at 02:14 PM
I think the idea of a spiritual realm with houses, pets, books, music and other things like these seems very weird to me.
Is there internet in it too?
By the way, it occurs to me that since the spiritual realm we're currently in contains all of these things, why would it be weird for them to exist in others?
:-)
Posted by: Michael H | July 20, 2008 at 02:32 PM
There was a recent report that backs Michael up, I think. Don't have the link, unfortunately. The study was based on a very large sample of twins and the conclusion was that BOTH environmental AND genetic factors play a role in one's sexual identity. People who argue that it's purely one thing or the other, are probably both wrong. As usual, the reality is more intricate than the politics.
Posted by: DMDuncan | July 24, 2008 at 06:26 PM