[Milton-L] Fallen vs. Unfallen Sex

Carol Barton cbartonphd1 at verizon.net
Wed Jul 20 17:39:28 EDT 2011


I think the distinction between fallen and unfallen sex might be 
easier for women to comprehend, Richard (and that's 
not--intentionally--a sexist comment). There is a real distinction for 
most women between making love (unfallen sex, if you will) and the 
sort of wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am engagement that occurs between casual 
partners (or those involved in a retail relationship).

Nudity and nakedness are different? I had no idea . . . but with a 
heat index of 102F and climbing (around 35C for those who don't 
Fahrenheit) I think I'd welcome being either one . . .

Best to all,

Carol Barton


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "richard strier" <rastrier at uchicago.edu>
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] It's Confirmed!


Well, I don't hold the view (which some philosophers--e.g. Roger 
Scruton) hold
that great art can't be erotically stimulating.  Seems like a silly 
view.  Lots of
great Renaissance art is very sexy.  MIlton insists -- surely with his 
male readers
in mind (but not only, of course) -- on Eve's gorgeousness and her 
absolute
nakedness. No reason for us, or her, to feel ashamed, and no reason 
for us (or
her, or Adam) not to feel erotically aroused.

And, to say something that will surely invite/incite some responses, I 
think the
supposed contrast between the fallen and unfallen sex of A and E to be 
quite
unconvincing.

And, finally, I think the supposed distinction between nudity and 
nakedness
(Kenneth Clark) also to be bogus (let's all pretend to be very 
high-minded!).





More information about the Milton-L mailing list