today's topic: sex and violence.

the last several entries have been extra self-indulgent, so i suppose a bit more intelligent discourse is called for.

anyhow, i just finished a book by Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos. wonderful wonderful book. i won't really go into detail of describing it, it's one of those books where there are building and interdependent thoughts and i'd take too long to explain and hardly do it justice. i do, however, highly recommend this book. in general, it discusses man's search to know self and basically, how lost we've become in our efforts to do so. very interesting, very illuminating book.
anyhow, the idea is discussed of the relation of sex and violence and society, how perhaps they are interrelated. and to me, it makes sense. i mean, really...these two in a broad sense describe the two most destructive ways in which we separate ourselves from God, and attempt to fill voids in our lives. for example, many people would say that because Christianity was sexually repressive, society became violent...a big part of the "free love" movement in the 60's was based on the idea that in a sexually released society, violence would be minimalized. of course, then we could look at Rome and how both were quite prevalent, especially toward the end.
if you think about it, though, a lot of this makes sense. i'm not intelligencia, i'm not writing particularly coherently today, and i haven't studied ___ and _____ and _____ (or ___ or ___ or ____, really), so take this as you will.
the main place i'm taking this, though, is that look at our modern society. we live in an age where technology has drastically increased our "leisure" time and as result, we turn to sex and violence in a broader sense. for example, often our lust for violence is satiated by sports, in which we not only watch two teams practice aggression but we tribe ourselves off and conflict with other fans. and there's the usual drivel about sex and violence on television and in films and music and video games and so on. i mean, we all know this stuff. even on a more dyadic level, person to person...how many people do you know who, if the sexual element is not there, seek out conflict in one way or another? how many couples do you know who are lovey dovey one minute, at each other's throats the next? there's a sense in which someone's sexuality is threatened and suddenly the conflict is sought or occurs. of course, just like we're using a broader idea for "violence," we do with sexuality too. for example, whether or not a romantic relationship is constantly erotic, the sexual aspect is there, even if all a couple has done is hold hands in a month. but on the other hand, isn't sexuality often measured in one's ability or potential to "win" in conflict, or violence? so perhaps while in some ways, in our society, one occurs when the other doesn't, they obviously aren't mutually exclusive, and in some cases are proportional.
anyway, there's no real "answer" here and really, we're dealing with human beings. where one person may get bored and seek out conflict if sexuality isn't available at the moment or seems threatened, another may specifically choose one over the other. i mean, really, i've been into the Cubs for years, but one night, if i had the choice (which i currently don't), i may choose to hang out with a girl i'm interested in, whereas another night i'd sit home and watch the Cubs. probably depends who is pitching. and of course, we'd all prefer to have both, so the ideal situation is sitting at home, watching the Cubs or overcoming conflict through creation (ie writing, in my case), the girl there with me.