The following passage is taken from The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera. English translation copyright ©1984 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. You should buy this book!
Did you read part II?
-----
In the fourth century, Saint Jerome completely rejected the notion that Adam
and Eve had sexual intercourse in Paradise. On the other hand, Johannes Scotus
Erigena, the great ninth-century theologian, accepted the idea. He believed,
moreover, that Adam's virile member could be made to rise like an arm or a leg,
when and as its owner wished. We must not dismiss this fancy as the recurrent
dream of a man obsessed with the threat of impotence. Erigena's idea has a
different meaning. If it were possible to raise the penis by means of a simple
command, then sexual excitement would have no place in the world. The penis
would rise not because we are excited but because we order it to do so. What the
great theologian found incompatible with Paradise was not sexual intercourse and
the attendant pleasure; what he found incompatible with Paradise was excitement.
Bear in mind: There was pleasure in Paradise, but no excitement.
Erigena's argument holds the key to a theological justification (in other
words, a theodicy) of shit. As long as man was allowed to remain in Paradise,
either (like Valentinus' Jesus) he did not defecate at all, or (as would seem
more likely) he did not look upon shit as something repellent. Not until after
God expelled man from Paradise did He make him feel disgust. Man began to hide
what shamed him, and by the time he removed the veil, he was blinded by a great
light. Thus, immediately after his introduction to disgust, he was introduced to
excitement. Without shit (in both the literal and figurative senses of the
word), there would be no sexual love as we know it, accompanied by pounding heart
and blinded senses.
-----
The dispute between those who believe that the world was created by God and
those who think it came into being of its own accord deals with phenomena that go
beyond our reason and experience. Much more real is the line separating those
who doubt being as it is granted to man (no matter how or by whom) from those who
accept it without reservation.
Behind all the European faiths, religious and political, we find the first
chapter of Genesis, which tells us that the world was created properly, that
human existence is good, and that we are therefore entitled to multiply. Let us
call this basic faith a categorical agreement with being.
The fact that until recently the word "shit" appeared in print as s--- has
nothing to do with moral considerations. You can't claim that shit is immoral,
after all! The objection to shit is a metaphysical one. The daily defecation
session is daily proof of the unacceptability of Creation. Either/or: either
shit is acceptable (in which case don't lock yourself in the bathroom!) or we are
created in an unacceptable manner.
It follows, then, that the aesthetic ideal of the categorical agreement with
being is a world in which shit is denied and everyone acts as though it did not
exist. This aesthetic ideal is called kitsch.
"Kitsch" is a German word born in the middle of the sentimental nineteenth
century, and from German it entered all Western languages. Repeated use,
however, has obliterated its original metaphysical meaning: kitsch is the
absolute denial of shit, in both the literal and the figurative senses of the
word; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which is essentially
unacceptable in human existence.