Why as a society are we so Perversely Obsessed with Sex.

[kenny]

Comrades Hi my thread Is to do with thr Writings of Tolkien and the connections with Alexander.I knew relatively little about Tolkien till a day ago I watched a documentary on the guy and to be honest the man was a genius, He was a far sighted Philosopher with a pure understanding of the human nature.Alas someway through the programe some High minded arse talker said Tolkien wrote in a jeuvanile manner because he never wrote about sexual relations
what utter tosh I mean what has sexual behaviour to do with anyone else,,, Sexual behaviour to me is primeval thats just done not such a big deal only to those with an unnatural perverse interest in watching.Legolas Became close to Aragon and Gimli yet we dont wonder if they got upto bisexual relations. Also Sam and Frodo months alone together all we wanted to see was astory and the essense to a story,, To me sexuality has no real essennce even though it aught to be a special thing between people who care for one ande other.What Im basically trying to say is that Stone has deliberately gone into things about A;lexander that has permenantly dragged thew discerning viewer away from what Alexander really was.Alexander The Great was in esse4nse the greatest military leader ande empire builder the world has ever seen to be followed by Napoleon, Caesar and many more cointemperaies. He achieved it all hy himself by his iron Will and fortutude with minor influences,, Fair enough He adopted a great army,, But crap manbagers have adopted great foootball teams and wasted them.Alas Stone only leaves the viewers with the sexuality thing and nothing more,, people here says it doesnt matter but believe me comrades this movie has smkashed Alexander to peaces.
RegardsKenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,As far as the assessment of Tolkien I agree - what rubbish.As far as the rest of your post goes ... I don't know. To some extent the answer is that what Stone portrays is Stone's prerogative - as we've noted before, we don't all agree about Alexander on this forum, so it's not surprising that some people should not agree with Stone's vision of Alexander. If a particular element of A's character is important to Stone, we have no grounds for saying he's wrong, however much we don't like it. (I was once in an art gallery with my sister, who proceeded to *tell me off* because I said that I didn't like Impressionist art - now that is high-minded arrogance of the first degree! I did subsequently forgive her, of course...)Whether this all means that Stone has ruined Alexander, smashed his reputation, or whatever, I'll let you know what I think once I've watched the film. But whatever I think, I'll certainly defend to the death your right to disagree! :-)All the bestMarcus

[iskander_32]

Marcus HailRegards to your reply with Tolkien,, As I said so called academic arse talkers saying his writing was juevenile for not writing about sex.Really where do these guys come from what is there qualification to pass judgement on what I would call genius? Maybe just something to say to become noticed ill never know.In exploring Tolkien we get to undserstand the brotherhood of man,, bonds made between friends,, peoples and even enemies,,, Tolkien covers it all thats esential to what we are sex doesn't make anything of us.Maybe i'm too simple I will never know why so called intelectual schollars belittle or try to copmplicate things that are relatively simple.As Alexandrians Id say people label us for admiring A warmonger maybe so but in my opinion Alexander his companions and his soldiers personifies Tolkien.In a different way but Alexander was an adventurer with a lust for war, he had armies of Legolas and Gimlis,, he fought enormous odds against what he thought were opressors sorry for rambling I gotta quit.RegardsKenny

[me]

Probably the main difference between Alexander and Tolkein is that Alexander was real, and therefore a sexual being. I love TLOTR, but it isn't a "mature" book in the way in which, say, Anna Karinina is: it deals with elves, hobbits and dwarves. It is a great book, but it doesn't have the psychological depth of great literature: it is fantasy - stirring, rousing fantasy, with a moral core (which is admirable). But it doesn't really deal with the human condition, and perhaps that is what the critic meant when he said it was juvenile - not that it needed a sex scene to be adult, but that it has that boys own fantasy element to it. There is little of the inner life - apart form the struggle with dood and evil, destiny and comfort - which is fine, but isn't dealt with in a particularly perceptive way - an enjoyable one, but it's fantasy,I will not go into the homoeroticism beweteen Mr Frodo and Sam - that is probably in the eye of the beholder...ie half the cinema I was in..Stone could have made a great film about Alexander without mentioning sex at all. He could have made a great film in which he did mention Alexander's sex life. Unfortunately he seems to have done neither. Although, I will wait and see.Linda

[marcus]

I agree to some extent with your comments about Tolkien, Linda, although I think there's more 'stuff' on the 'human condition' that you appear to give him credit for. I might have misinterpreted your post, but peopling Middle Earth with dwarves, elves etc. doesn't in itself reduce the depth of the message - or should we say the same about The Pilgrim's Progress? I'd be prepared to admit that Tolkien didn't handle the themes as adroitly as some, but he handled them a darn sight more adroitly than many other authors. More to the point, getting back to Kenny's point, it is absurd to criticise a book as 'juvenile' just because there isn't any sex in it. Considering how many books would be vastly improved with the sex taken *out*, I see the absence of it as rather a refreshing thing. (Anyway, by the end of the book Sam Gamgee has had several children, so he obviously 'had it' ... now there's an idea for erotic literature - hobbit sex ...)As for any perceived homoerotic subtext ... well, people are perfectly entitled to read that into it if they wish, although it was certainly not intended by Tolkien.Be all this as it may, I won't go on, as one thing that Tolkien didn't write about was Alexander All the bestMarcus

[me]

OK - this is not a Tolkein board...but, yes, it doesn't mean that because creatures are not human, that they can't be real - and Women in Love is, I think, an infantile book...too *much* sex. You didn't see the Peep Show episode which referred to Hobbit sex...hmm. I think I read LOTR at the same time as I was trying to read The Illiad and Odyssey, and Arrian actually, - just gobbling them up. Those were the days..(before the Internet - wonder if that has anything to do with my shortening attention span..)

[marcus]

LOL!No, I didn't see Peep Show ... but I am intrigued.Forcing your way through Tolkien and Homer and Arrian, all at the same time, must have been very hard! I spent 3-4 years (in my teens) when I *only* read Tolkien (finished LoTR and immediately started again ... around 14 times) so I consider that I've done my stint. That was before I really got into Alexander, of course ...Anyway, I could never be bothered with DH Lawrence - one bad term of teaching at school when I got bored to tears with "Sons and Lovers", and that was enough for me! :-)Oh well, enough about Tolkien ...All the bestMarcus

[me]

I didn't read them all at the same time - well, actually, given some of my confusion in posts, you might think I had.. I used to read walking to school, bumping into trees etc, but I did not read LOTR more than two or three times. 14 is impressive. I don't think I appreciated the greatness of the Odyssey. I kept waitign for them to get home - not the point, really. Time for a reread (or listen to an audio tape..) The Peep Show thing is a bit untranslatable...Linda

[jan]

Interesting that I was thinking while watching the National Christmas Show with George Bush and stars that what a difference between the veneration of Jesus who becomes crucified because of claiming his status as son of God, and that of Alexander who gets a stupid film mocking his warrior status but not even mentioning his son of god status. So it goes...I don't think Alexander would approve of today's attitudes about his life at all. Jesus might be dismayed at all the greed and gluttony associated with his life now also. Irony all over the place on behalf of both sons of god!