da_blissmachine: I think we are just coming out of the puritan era (which never happened in most of the world) and have hormones raging from the Sexual Revolution (which wasn't necessary in the rest of the world). American culture is very pudescent, like a 13 year old who just figured out he could have a boner (no offense to recent members. there's nothing wrong with being a 13 year old when you're 13.)
jerkin4-10: wow...i just thought of something while reading this again...bringing up the Biblical aspect again...my commentary was using the assumed qualifier of a committed 1 man 1 woman relationship...not meaning that its ok to just jump anyone that got your juices flowing... 
...im sure everyone here understood that...but i just had to make that clear for me...you never know whos reading these posts...might be some 13yo kid...
...im sure everyone here understood that...but i just had to make that clear for me...you never know whos reading these posts...might be some 13yo kid...[quote author=prepstudinsc link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=0#19 date=11/02/03 at 02:25:13]
There's nothing wrong with trying to figure things out, but there's a reason that the Judeo-Christian religions have some rules and regulations about sex. If one is free with their "lovin' " someone is bound to get hurt.
By hurt, I mean it in several ways--emotionally and physically. These days we just can't be too careful--there's too much out there that can be picked up.
If you're gonna play, play carefully.[/quote]
That's one idea I never heard at my Baptist Church. The preachers said that sex in itself is evil, and the work of the devil unless it's within the confines of marriage. I think this is still what many Chritians think. It's a view that instills confusion and guilt in people, especially boys who may have very strong sex drives. The preachers never say, "You should explore your sexuality & find out about your body & try to make some sense out of your physical and emotional drives." Instead all I ever heard was shame and negativity. I'm just saying that these religions may help us in some ways, but do a lot of damage in others.
There's nothing wrong with trying to figure things out, but there's a reason that the Judeo-Christian religions have some rules and regulations about sex. If one is free with their "lovin' " someone is bound to get hurt.
By hurt, I mean it in several ways--emotionally and physically. These days we just can't be too careful--there's too much out there that can be picked up.
If you're gonna play, play carefully.[/quote]
That's one idea I never heard at my Baptist Church. The preachers said that sex in itself is evil, and the work of the devil unless it's within the confines of marriage. I think this is still what many Chritians think. It's a view that instills confusion and guilt in people, especially boys who may have very strong sex drives. The preachers never say, "You should explore your sexuality & find out about your body & try to make some sense out of your physical and emotional drives." Instead all I ever heard was shame and negativity. I'm just saying that these religions may help us in some ways, but do a lot of damage in others.
prepstudinsc: [quote author=black10inches link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#22 date=11/02/03 at 10:26:56]
That's one idea I never heard at my Baptist Church. The preachers said that sex in itself is evil, and the work of the devil unless it's within the confines of marriage. I think this is still what many Chritians think. It's a view that instills confusion and guilt in people, especially boys who may have very strong sex drives. The preachers never say, "You should explore your sexuality & find out about your body & try to make some sense out of your physical and emotional drives." Instead all I ever heard was shame and negativity. I'm just saying that these religions may help us in some ways, but do a lot of damage in others.
[/quote]
I'm Baptist myself, but it's not really the message that conservatives preach, it's how they preach it. It's very "by the book," all black and white. In reality, yeah I can understand where they are coming from, but if they instructed in a kinder, gentler manner, it wouldn't come across so negative. The bottom line is still the same, somebody is bound to get hurt when it's not in the confines of marriage, but it can be conveyed in a nicer way.
That's one idea I never heard at my Baptist Church. The preachers said that sex in itself is evil, and the work of the devil unless it's within the confines of marriage. I think this is still what many Chritians think. It's a view that instills confusion and guilt in people, especially boys who may have very strong sex drives. The preachers never say, "You should explore your sexuality & find out about your body & try to make some sense out of your physical and emotional drives." Instead all I ever heard was shame and negativity. I'm just saying that these religions may help us in some ways, but do a lot of damage in others.
[/quote]
I'm Baptist myself, but it's not really the message that conservatives preach, it's how they preach it. It's very "by the book," all black and white. In reality, yeah I can understand where they are coming from, but if they instructed in a kinder, gentler manner, it wouldn't come across so negative. The bottom line is still the same, somebody is bound to get hurt when it's not in the confines of marriage, but it can be conveyed in a nicer way.
Tender: hmm i dont know about sex being evil, i think more a part of being human...
but i do beleive God intends it to be only in marriage, between spouses...
Tender
but i do beleive God intends it to be only in marriage, between spouses...
Tender
prepstudinsc: [quote author=Tender link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#24 date=11/02/03 at 11:28:47]hmm i dont know about sex being evil, i think more a part of being human...
but i do beleive God intends it to be only in marriage, between spouses...
Tender [/quote]
I don't think sex outside of marriage is any greater sin than any other sin, but our Puritanical society places more emphasis on it--it's dirtier, causes juicy gossip, etc.
I agree that sex really needs to be in the confines of marriage because too much pain and hurt can come from it otherwise. A short story here....some good friends of my mother had a child late in life, their only child. She is now 19, they are 61 or 62 years old. She got pregnant right out of high school, with twins. She was "so in love" with her boyfriend and they were going to get married. Well, it turns out, he was a drug dealer, he's served some time, is working at a job making $8.00 an hour and can't afford to take care of the kids. Well, the lovebirds have now split up, and who is left with the twin babies? You guessed it, the grandparents. A night of pleasure has ruined lives of several people, most importantly the babies. At this point, the family doesn't really want to place them for adoption, but the girl can't take care of them on her own since she doesn't have a job, her ex-boyfriend doesn't make enough money to even make his own car payment and insurance and rent,
and the grandparents are ready to retire. God knew what the deal was when the moral laws were set down in the Bible. Technology may have changed, society's standards may have changed, but people are still the same, thousands of years after the Bible was written down from oral tradition. Sex isn't evil, but we make it lose it's purpose when we don't honor the manner in which it is intended. I don't mean to offend anyone, and I don't mean to offend any of the gay members here, either. I am considering any kind of committed relationship a marriage--whether or not it's legal in the state you might live in. Sex is intended to be between two partners who share their lives for a lengthy period of time, not just for an hour of quick passion.
but i do beleive God intends it to be only in marriage, between spouses...
Tender [/quote]
I don't think sex outside of marriage is any greater sin than any other sin, but our Puritanical society places more emphasis on it--it's dirtier, causes juicy gossip, etc.
I agree that sex really needs to be in the confines of marriage because too much pain and hurt can come from it otherwise. A short story here....some good friends of my mother had a child late in life, their only child. She is now 19, they are 61 or 62 years old. She got pregnant right out of high school, with twins. She was "so in love" with her boyfriend and they were going to get married. Well, it turns out, he was a drug dealer, he's served some time, is working at a job making $8.00 an hour and can't afford to take care of the kids. Well, the lovebirds have now split up, and who is left with the twin babies? You guessed it, the grandparents. A night of pleasure has ruined lives of several people, most importantly the babies. At this point, the family doesn't really want to place them for adoption, but the girl can't take care of them on her own since she doesn't have a job, her ex-boyfriend doesn't make enough money to even make his own car payment and insurance and rent,
and the grandparents are ready to retire. God knew what the deal was when the moral laws were set down in the Bible. Technology may have changed, society's standards may have changed, but people are still the same, thousands of years after the Bible was written down from oral tradition. Sex isn't evil, but we make it lose it's purpose when we don't honor the manner in which it is intended. I don't mean to offend anyone, and I don't mean to offend any of the gay members here, either. I am considering any kind of committed relationship a marriage--whether or not it's legal in the state you might live in. Sex is intended to be between two partners who share their lives for a lengthy period of time, not just for an hour of quick passion.
blo1988: I am certain that Liza Minelli can tell you about the value of marriage as the key for admission to the sex door..........
My point is that marriage isn't the criterion that seems to me the best filter for sex. Jerry Springer succeeds by displaying a very nice cross section of folks who should not be allowed to breed, married or not. ;-)
Seriously, my point is that marriages already end nearly 50% of the time. If they were made the sole portal of entry for sex (no Freudian allusion intended) I am sure that we would find a spectacular increase in very horny people getting married for all the wrong reasons....and there is enough of that now.
From an anthropologic point if view, prohibitions against sex outside of marriage were directed at establishing a "law" for groups that often were communal in nature. Social boundaries had to be established because civil law did not exist. Also, from a public health perspective, sexually transmitted diseases were not treatable and were therefore terrifying. So, religion was the law. As most know, not all religions prohibited sex outside of marriage. We just happen to live in a world that is largely influenced by JudeoChristian ethics; therefore, we are narrow in our interpretation of sexual mores.
Religious bias still played an enormous role in civil law. I am not convinced that this is always a good thing.
Nonetheless, it seems more reasonable, to me, for a keen sense of personal responsibilty to be a key discriminator in determining sexual behavior. This, in my view, can be within the context of marriage or without. I don't think that sex needs to be ponderously considered or sanctified by marriage, but I think that a sense of personal responsibilty is key.
Ok...where is that button for the heat shields...there may be "incoming" from the right..........;-)
My point is that marriage isn't the criterion that seems to me the best filter for sex. Jerry Springer succeeds by displaying a very nice cross section of folks who should not be allowed to breed, married or not. ;-)
Seriously, my point is that marriages already end nearly 50% of the time. If they were made the sole portal of entry for sex (no Freudian allusion intended) I am sure that we would find a spectacular increase in very horny people getting married for all the wrong reasons....and there is enough of that now.
From an anthropologic point if view, prohibitions against sex outside of marriage were directed at establishing a "law" for groups that often were communal in nature. Social boundaries had to be established because civil law did not exist. Also, from a public health perspective, sexually transmitted diseases were not treatable and were therefore terrifying. So, religion was the law. As most know, not all religions prohibited sex outside of marriage. We just happen to live in a world that is largely influenced by JudeoChristian ethics; therefore, we are narrow in our interpretation of sexual mores.
Religious bias still played an enormous role in civil law. I am not convinced that this is always a good thing.
Nonetheless, it seems more reasonable, to me, for a keen sense of personal responsibilty to be a key discriminator in determining sexual behavior. This, in my view, can be within the context of marriage or without. I don't think that sex needs to be ponderously considered or sanctified by marriage, but I think that a sense of personal responsibilty is key.
Ok...where is that button for the heat shields...there may be "incoming" from the right..........;-)
da_blissmachine: sex is like all things, it can be used for evil or for good, or for something not discernably evil or good.
prepstudinsc: [quote author=blo1988 link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#26 date=11/02/03 at 14:00:29]I am certain that Liza Minelli can tell you about the value of marriage as the key for admission to the sex door..........
My point is that marriage isn't the criterion that seems to me the best filter for sex. Jerry Springer succeeds by displaying a very nice cross section of folks who should not be allowed to breed, married or not. ;-)
[/quote]
Liza Minelli's marriage is/was worthy of the Jerry Springer show. She and David Guest are both freaks that could fit in any red-neck, white trash, trailer park in rural Arkansas, Mississippi, or South Carolina. (And I can say that since I'm a South Carolinian)
My point is that marriage isn't the criterion that seems to me the best filter for sex. Jerry Springer succeeds by displaying a very nice cross section of folks who should not be allowed to breed, married or not. ;-)
[/quote]
Liza Minelli's marriage is/was worthy of the Jerry Springer show. She and David Guest are both freaks that could fit in any red-neck, white trash, trailer park in rural Arkansas, Mississippi, or South Carolina. (And I can say that since I'm a South Carolinian)
Ineligible: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#20 date=11/02/03 at 04:09:51]I think we are just coming out of the puritan era (which never happened in most of the world) and have hormones raging from the Sexual Revolution (which wasn't necessary in the rest of the world). American culture is very pudescent, like a 13 year old who just figured out he could have a boner (no offense to recent members. there's nothing wrong with being a 13 year old when you're 13.)[/quote]
I'm afraid I think we're entering a new one. In the past, in the West there has been a two-century cycle: the Puritan 17th century was followed by the more liberated 18th century (the Enlightenment, the age of Casanova and Fanny Hill). Reaction to this led to the Victorian 19th century; reaction from this took place through the 20th century, up to the 1970s. Since then, there has been a reaction back, which I think is still gathering pace. The Net is a new variable, though, and so far it is much freeer than real life - but I wonder for how long.
I'm afraid I think we're entering a new one. In the past, in the West there has been a two-century cycle: the Puritan 17th century was followed by the more liberated 18th century (the Enlightenment, the age of Casanova and Fanny Hill). Reaction to this led to the Victorian 19th century; reaction from this took place through the 20th century, up to the 1970s. Since then, there has been a reaction back, which I think is still gathering pace. The Net is a new variable, though, and so far it is much freeer than real life - but I wonder for how long.
da_blissmachine: i dunno i still think we are degenerating... and why was it the west only that had to have puritan and sexual revolution periods?
prepstudinsc: [quote author=Ineligible link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#29 date=11/02/03 at 15:31:52]
The Net is a new variable, though, and so far it is much freeer than real life - but I wonder for how long.
[/quote]
The net is opening up a lot of doors for people to explore things that were taboo in the past...I think this is how many people are exploring their bi fantasies, investigating BDSM lifestyles, etc. Things that were once off limits to most people are now widely accessible if one has a computer and a modem--and the best part of it is that it's anonymous. I recently heard a statistic (I know, you can skew the numbers anyway you want in a survey) that 2/3 of men are looking at porn now, mainly on the net, and 1/3 of all ministers admit to looking at internet porn. I know of a local minister who was fired because he was surfing porn sites in his office at church on the church computer. Talk about a pendulum swinging in a completely opposite direction!
The Net is a new variable, though, and so far it is much freeer than real life - but I wonder for how long.
[/quote]
The net is opening up a lot of doors for people to explore things that were taboo in the past...I think this is how many people are exploring their bi fantasies, investigating BDSM lifestyles, etc. Things that were once off limits to most people are now widely accessible if one has a computer and a modem--and the best part of it is that it's anonymous. I recently heard a statistic (I know, you can skew the numbers anyway you want in a survey) that 2/3 of men are looking at porn now, mainly on the net, and 1/3 of all ministers admit to looking at internet porn. I know of a local minister who was fired because he was surfing porn sites in his office at church on the church computer. Talk about a pendulum swinging in a completely opposite direction!
Ineligible: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#30 date=11/02/03 at 15:34:22]why was it the west only that had to have puritan and sexual revolution periods?[/quote]
I think other cultures have had them, but they haven't had to follow the West in their timing or depth, and other cultures may also have centres of oscillation at a different point. Of course, the pressure from the West on other cultures to conform with Western values is now much stronger than it used to be.
I think other cultures have had them, but they haven't had to follow the West in their timing or depth, and other cultures may also have centres of oscillation at a different point. Of course, the pressure from the West on other cultures to conform with Western values is now much stronger than it used to be.
curious66: As the guy who started this thread, I've been reading the responses with interest. It's been very interesting, but is it just me, or have we strayed from the original topic? Well, no offense intended, just an observation.
To get back to my original point that I tried to make (which was admittedly not all that clear now that I've reread it): I keep having sexual thoughts and sometimes wish they'd just go away. There's so much better stuff to do. But all around me is cleavage and exposed backsides and what's a guy to do? lol
Yes, I know it's normal to have sexual thoughts, but I feel the current trend is getting out of hand. It's overkill with the sexual innuedo we are bombarded with. And being one horny guy since about the age of 13 (I'm in my late 30s), that's a difficult admission to make.
I don't know how to measure my respect for women, so I can't really say if I truly respect women. They have been made into sexual beings to such a degree that I have a hard time seeing them any other way. And to be truthful, they are just as guilty as men for this view.
I am not saying I run around with different women. I'm happily married. But I think about having sex with different women all the time! I don't really think of them as "real people" even though they wouldn't know that. What I'm thinking and what I put out there are two different things.
My wrist is starting to hurt from all this typing (not from what many of you are now thinking) so I will stop my rant here.
To get back to my original point that I tried to make (which was admittedly not all that clear now that I've reread it): I keep having sexual thoughts and sometimes wish they'd just go away. There's so much better stuff to do. But all around me is cleavage and exposed backsides and what's a guy to do? lol
Yes, I know it's normal to have sexual thoughts, but I feel the current trend is getting out of hand. It's overkill with the sexual innuedo we are bombarded with. And being one horny guy since about the age of 13 (I'm in my late 30s), that's a difficult admission to make.
I don't know how to measure my respect for women, so I can't really say if I truly respect women. They have been made into sexual beings to such a degree that I have a hard time seeing them any other way. And to be truthful, they are just as guilty as men for this view.
I am not saying I run around with different women. I'm happily married. But I think about having sex with different women all the time! I don't really think of them as "real people" even though they wouldn't know that. What I'm thinking and what I put out there are two different things.
My wrist is starting to hurt from all this typing (not from what many of you are now thinking) so I will stop my rant here.
da_blissmachine: well according to my religion lust is a major obstacle toward self realization
i would encourage meditation or focus much of your sexual energy on other endevours
i would encourage meditation or focus much of your sexual energy on other endevours
ORCABOMBER: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#34 date=11/02/03 at 19:40:30]
I would encourage meditation or focus much of your sexual energy on other endevours[/quote]
Not a bad idea, used to write poetry and other...stuff.
---
Onto Curiouses point. ALtough I can say that we're all influenced by certain factors, I don't think that excuses some points of our behaviour.
You said for example, that "can't truly respect women" and that is awfully sad, but y'know, we have to make our own desisions as sensible adults on what we want to believe.
Personally, I think that the general media is a bane of all evils sometimes, but we don't have to accept what is handed to us. I'm counting the years until paedophilia in movies is legally accpetable as much as rape in movies are, and you know what? That truly is saddneing.
Okay, back around to what you said, I understand your view though, so don't think I'm chastising you, heck, I aint that evil!
Because in our society women are ranked according to sexual features. I mean, men are rated by being good leaders, geniuses, furthering the cause of the nation or humanity..etc. While women are ranked on being good with children, charity workers, sex symbols... I think that was what you were talking about.
I mean, on TV, how many women are shown as being successfull, but without having to have sex with every animal with a pulse or acting like they do?
I would encourage meditation or focus much of your sexual energy on other endevours[/quote]
Not a bad idea, used to write poetry and other...stuff.
---
Onto Curiouses point. ALtough I can say that we're all influenced by certain factors, I don't think that excuses some points of our behaviour.
You said for example, that "can't truly respect women" and that is awfully sad, but y'know, we have to make our own desisions as sensible adults on what we want to believe.
Personally, I think that the general media is a bane of all evils sometimes, but we don't have to accept what is handed to us. I'm counting the years until paedophilia in movies is legally accpetable as much as rape in movies are, and you know what? That truly is saddneing.
Okay, back around to what you said, I understand your view though, so don't think I'm chastising you, heck, I aint that evil!
Because in our society women are ranked according to sexual features. I mean, men are rated by being good leaders, geniuses, furthering the cause of the nation or humanity..etc. While women are ranked on being good with children, charity workers, sex symbols... I think that was what you were talking about.
I mean, on TV, how many women are shown as being successfull, but without having to have sex with every animal with a pulse or acting like they do?
da_blissmachine: I know I sound like a Bible-beater (which I obviously am not) but I blame the downsurge of religion.
longtimelurker: [quote author=ORCABOMBER link=board=meetgreet;num=1066888115;start=20#35 date=11/03/03 at 06:33:01]
I'm counting the years until paedophilia in movies is legally accpetable as much as rape in movies are, and you know what? That truly is saddneing.
[/quote]
The two most striking films that I have seen that have dealt with paedophilia and rape are Sleepers and Irreversable respectively. I thought that they were both excellent, thought-provoking films that do a lot of good in helping people to empathise with the victims rather than being perverted tittilation.
Film directors in general realise how intense these issues are and do tend to treat them with the respect they deserve.
I'm counting the years until paedophilia in movies is legally accpetable as much as rape in movies are, and you know what? That truly is saddneing.
[/quote]
The two most striking films that I have seen that have dealt with paedophilia and rape are Sleepers and Irreversable respectively. I thought that they were both excellent, thought-provoking films that do a lot of good in helping people to empathise with the victims rather than being perverted tittilation.
Film directors in general realise how intense these issues are and do tend to treat them with the respect they deserve.
An interesting film dealing with paedophilia was LIE (stands for Long Island Expressway), which saw limited release about a year ago. It's about kids growing up in an afluent Long Island (New York) suburb, with parents who are to preoccupied with other things to really care about raising their kids. The paedophile turns out to be the only decent, caring adult in the film.
ORCABOMBER: LTL, Ericbear, now I am surprised, but in the context of tastefullness, I concede to your wisdom.
But don't tell the "common much papers" that these films exist!
But don't tell the "common much papers" that these films exist!
Similar threads
