Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sexual expression: your opinion
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 134 (263695)
11-28-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by iano
11-28-2005 7:08 AM


One can nit-pick and say the bible doesn't prohibit this specific or that specific act. There's a lot more it doesn't specifically prohibit than home made porn if that's the way you'd like to view it.
I love it. When you point out that the Bible doesn't say something and indeed has statements which LITERALLY contradict modern thumper opinions, I get to hear how it is nitpicking not to read the Bible figuratively instead of being so literal.
Now I want an explanation. Why would home made porn be upsetting to Jesus and friends? What would it be upsetting?
Also, I've been doing some thinking and realized that most porn doesn't actually invoke lusting for another woman anyway. It is a fantasy and most people understand that. There is a difference between getting excited with no intention or desire to carry out an act, and actually having such intentions.
Jesus was discussing desire for another person, not a fantasy image in one's head.
By the way, why don't Xians more vehemently come out against violent shows and almost all sports. There's more sayings from Jesus that go against them than sexual imagery.
Also why does the Bible escape this decree when it specifically describes sex in vivid language which is sure to invite excitement? Song of Solomon is erotic and not about my girlfriend. Even where it doesn't go for excitement it can be graphic including about penis lengths and amount of cum spurting from them... over underage girls nonetheless.
God tells us not to sin but he is not surprised that we do. He tells us not to so that when we do we are breaking his law and are thus condemnable.
Yes but you missed my point by miles. The guy was a sexual sinner in the absolute utmost ways and yet he was still glorified by God and necessary as a link to Jesus. None of his sins carried forward and certainly all went unpunished by the state.
Thus, as was the point, we can see that it is NOT important for govts to crush sexual sin. It is unimportant, and indeed (as we see throughout) such social judgement actually results in judgement by God.
Jesus would never have used violence to punish.
And he told others NOT TO DO SO. Yet fundies are pushing to be able to do this using the state, just as those people did with the stones.
The discussion was about repressing sexual speech. I was stating that the Bible itself is against the suppression of such things, even if it suggests people not partake of them.
Now come on and address that point! Jesus would not be for jailing and otherwise punishing people simply for expressing themselves sexually... yes or no?
Oh by the way, I think its a bit much to say he hated sexual entertainment and that he'd hate all porn. He did not express hatred toward the prostitute. He simply told her not to do it anymore. A doctor does not have to hate eating to tell a person they really should cut down on the desserts.
Pulling truths out of context is a hallmark of fanaticism. That it used a 'Religious' arena to do so makes it religious fanaticism
First of all I was not trying to support my position. I said that at least the religious could discuss God as a source of condemnation and then pointed out an apparent hypocrisy with regard to fundie Xians. I even added they could get out of it by saying he changed his mind.
Second I did not pull anything out of context, as your wriggling around shows. I was only discussing attitudes toward public sanction. It is true that God never said that sexual IMAGERY was bad, and by the way there was plenty of it back then so its omission from lists of bad things IS notable. And it is true that Jesus condemned people that condemned others specifically for sexual sin.
True or not?
Third, by your definition all religious people are fanatics. What religious person cannot be said to be taking passages out of context to support their own religious theory? Indeed what group IS NOT accused of doing so by somebody?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 11-28-2005 7:08 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by iano, posted 11-28-2005 10:49 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 134 (263751)
11-28-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by iano
11-28-2005 10:49 AM


The bible won't support the stance that porn/prostitution is fine.
Once again, I did not say that it did.
It does the opposite. Prostitution is called sin, lusting after another is called sin. You seem to think that because it doesn't specifically state its stance on every single possible act of sexual immorality thaen those acts not mentioned are now okay.
While it does say things against prostitution there is nothing said about sexually graphic imagery, which I will remind you yet again was all over the place in those times. That it did not mention them in their derision is significant, especially when it includes such imagery within the Bible itself.
But hey, I was not even trying to suggest that it would agree with porn. My main point was that it does come out clearly against corporal sanctions against people for such things.
As far as something not being wrong unless it mentions it, fundies play that game all the time when they defend war.
How do you know that? Anyway I find it hard to imagine porn not being an object focussed activity. Ones excitment has nothing to do with the object at all?
Okay, what was Jesus discussing? You said it before yourself. And no porn is not avidly focused on another person that one will then want to have sex with. It is fantasy imagery of a person you might never get a chance much less desire to have sex with in person.
There was no TV then, nor am I aware of violent sports in his time that he spoke against.
Wow you are slow. I was extending your own argument. IF what you say is true, THEN why don't fundies go against violence in media? He sermonized against violence much more often than about sexual things. Get it? Now answer the question.
sexual immorality in a Christian is considered 'worse' because it is a sin involving the body and mind in a very complete way. And the Christian has God residing in him so they are committing an offence against the very residence of God as it were.
Unlike violence which does nothing to mind or body? This makes no sense.
Its not the existance of these things, its a persons reaction to them and what they do with them that matters.
Song of Solomon is erotic. Yes it did get people excited. It still does for some people. Once again, answer the question. It has imagery designed to invoke sexual imagery and indeed excitement. Why is that allowed in the Bible?
If you are going to claim Solomon is not, how many citations do you want from Xians that say that it is before you believe me?
As far as the nonerotic parts, so you are going to be okay... and fundies will be okay... with movies showing excessive sexual content including guys with huge cocks spurting gallons of jizz all over young girls, as long as it is portrayed that they are bad... correct? If not, then answer the question.
Take a stroll through the red-light district in Amsterdam sometime. Unrelenting porn and vice and perversity (my personal view) on open display. On public streets. There is nothing to stop a child walking by and being subject to it. This I would argue is a form of child abuse. Unless you would hold that there is no such thing as child abuse.
Ahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha!!!!
See that location under my name? It is where I was living when I first started and I keep forgetting to change it. I live IN the red light district in Amsterdam. I live right in there amongst the porn shops and prostitutes. Every time I step out my door I do everything you just suggested.
Now what the hell are you talking about? You just undid your very argument. You said that it would slide toward anarchy, yet it hasn't. That despite having the very thing you just mentioned. And you are right that kids can see everything here, even bestiality vids are openly displayed in windows.
In fact there's a child's day care center down the block from me sandwiched between a bank of the seediest prostitutes you can find and a porn theater.
You call it child abuse? Why? Based on what? You say there will be problems? Why? What evidence do you have?
You sir are seriously looking like a person who bears false witness... or at least logical fallacies.
Oh by the way there is such thing as child abuse. To my mind taking a child and indoctrinating it in the Xian religion is to some degree child abuse. I don't like anything which scares children into hating others and themselves, as well as believing that they are basically bad, and that all knowledge comes from a single book. Call me crazy!
And the way you prevent people having free reign to sin in our society is to invoke laws. The Christians didn't make it this way - but they have a right (like everyone) to use the system to those ends (prevention) if they can.
Sorry that there is some twisty turny logic. He specifically decried legal punishment of a person for sexual sin. That you cannot admit that speaks volumes.
And that is wholly different that overturning tables at the temple, which was specifically condemning mixing religion with profit and govt.
If anything this points up yet another hypocrisy. When fundies get into office, or into religion, they use both to mix moneymaking with religion. Yet what do they try to get laws to punish? Sexual sin.
Exclusion from the society of the church to protect the church and cause the person to come to their senses yes. Do the fundis want punishment or do they want the person prevented from ruining (in their view) the society in which they live?
They want to punish. But what difference does it make if they want to prevent people from ruining their society? Are you claiming Jesus would have said "Oh yeah, okay fire away!" if they had said they were simply trying to stop her from ruining their society.
And by the way, if the purpose is to exclude people from their church and so save their society then you just answered the question of whether such moves would be legal.
He didn't condemn them.
Good catch, very bad word choice on my part. He criticized them.
The Holmes Wayward Biblical Interpretation Sect?
Sounds great, can't wait to get the children's illustrated version into stores.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by iano, posted 11-28-2005 10:49 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by iano, posted 11-28-2005 1:36 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 134 (263821)
11-28-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by iano
11-28-2005 1:36 PM


Fair enough. It does. And if fundis are promoting coporal sanction as punishment then they are off target I reckon.
Thank you.
This doesn't however remove their right to have action taken to prevent what they see as damage to the society they live in. Is imprisonment as prevention alright for a fundi to promote without conflicting with the bible
Well that would remove their legal right in a secular society, unless they somehow were able to prove that changing a culture constitutes damage. As far as imprisonment being okay to a Xian, that's still a good question. Do the guard's turn the other cheek?
Seriously though, what is the difference between stoning and imprisonment? Isn't the idea that one is not supposed to be punishing someone for something like that the important point? Are you suggesting that Jesus would have not delivered his famous sermon if they had interrupted him and said "yeah but she was destroying our society"?
In fact, isn't it interesting to note that nowhere does he suggest that she is destroying their society?
Lust doesn't require an act to be intended or to happen in order to exist
Now you speak for God? When it makes the difference between something that can never be attained because it is a fantasy in one's head, versus a real person one is fantasizing about actually sleeping with that seems to be important.
Lets say you just see an image with genitalia engaged in what they do best. For whom are you lusting? And if lust itself is the problem, then we come back around to the problem of sex with one's own spouse being bad.
I pointed out the occasion where Jesus actually got angry and expressed it violently.
Uhhhhh... he also hung out with prostitutes. You think he didn't see anything around a prostitute or any of their places? He clearly had not been upset enough to do anything noteworthy to them or the art around such places.
And did Jesus really hurt anyone? IIRC the only person that ever got hurt by him or his disciples was healed by Jesus.
As far as the corinthians, that is not Jesus or God talking, it is Paul. He even goes back and forth on whether he is talking as himself and for the faith. He also rails against many other than just sexual sins. And once again, I must note he goes off on people that go to the legal process against another. His suggestion was ostracism and not going to court...
6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?...
6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
I might note he is also railing against the concept of a jury system.
Designed to evoke sexual imagery is one thing. But you seem to conclude that excitement is a given - an automatic response to it. It is not.
Oh please. No sexual imagery has an automatic response of excitement. That's why porn is so diverse. Not everyone gets their kicks the same way.
Solomon evokes sexual imagery and it is INTENDED to be exciting. That it does not titillate you is besides the point. It is quite colorful and capable of such stimulation.
And I will ask again, you are saying graphic sex will be acceptable as long as its intention was not to stimulate?
Designed to evoke sexual imagery is one thing. But you seem to conclude that excitement is a given - an automatic response to it. It is not.
And there is a line in Amsterdam. It may be drawn in a different place than in the States but it is still there. There are rules governing it, licenses to be issued, sanitary checks to be conformed to etc. I don't seem to recall male prostitutes displaying in the windows. A limit even for the Dutch etc.
Now you are changing your argument. You started by saying there should be and gave an example of Amsterdam as being one that did not. Quite explicitly I might add.
Now that I challenged the notion that it was sliding anywhere, you suggest that that is because it has limits of some kind. So what is needed to withstand the slide to anarchy? Clearly Amsterdam can get along quite fine without many, and bureaucratic licensing is not comparable to laws on sexual behavior.
Oh yes, and men are in the windows. Many many men are in the windows. Most are in drag.
I'd be interested in seeing your theory on how nations slide into anarchy based on people having sex how they like. What evidence do you have for this?
I call it child abuse for the reason that children need to be protected from such imagery of bestiality in order to prevent the idea forming that it is in anyway normal. It is not normal. It is abnormal. I say this not in a judging fashion but simply that it is a fact.
I'm sorry but your first example was just seeing sexual imagery... what's not normal about that?
To move on to what I mentioned, bestiality, whose to say that that is not normal here? It is seen throughout much of europe and people are buying it (or it wouldn't be getting made). If abstinence is not the norm, is that something kids shouldn't ne exposed to either?
Society relies on people knowing and conforming to what is considered normal and not partaking in what is not. No society can hold that any and all behaviour is normal and acceptable. The places in the world where such general constraint is removed are ones where anarchy reigns
Other than your assertion, why am I supposed to believe this? I mean I agree it is not useful to allow all behaviors, but that does not mean that all behaviors now become open to restriction. In a society where most people are muslim then, you agree that it is okay to kill Xian missionaries?
Or does your law only apply to sex? See I'm having a problem understanding where you actually apply your principles consistently, as well as how society will collapse into anarchy if sex (like religion) is not controlled by law.
When a bloke demands evidence for there being problem with kids being exposed to bestiality images one wonders...
I just told you it happens here. Kids walk by my window all the time, sometimes in big packs with their parents and other adults and look at the images in the porn store windows. You can watch them all laughing it up and not exploding or bursting into hysterical tears.
Do you know of some problem that is going on from this? What?
One wonders how you can keep asserting things. Yes I am asking for evidence. Time for you to put up or shut up.
IOW - there is more to it than meets the eye
Well that's a way to put cheese on the pretzel. Jesus was not appealing to them not to break roman law. That almost blasphemous in its contortion. I thought you said quoting things out of context to support your religious position was fanaticism.
Come clean. He did not argue for them to be good roman citizens, and he did prevent them from applying mosaic law regarding adultery despite their being "legally" correct to do so. He ended by refusing to condemn her himself.
Jesus anger had to do specifically with the defilement of his fathers house. How it was being defiled was not the point.
Okey doke I'll agree he wouldn't have been pleased with other defilements of the Temple. This specific defilement was merging religion with money and politics. And he made some specific comments about it. He did not say, "hey anybody doing something He doesn't like shouldn't be here." He didn't beat down some infirm man and tell him he shouldn't think of getting close to an altar.
AbE: That church group may be nearby but its located centuries in the past. I find it ironic that evangelicals are allowed in here by people in this historic neighborhood, historic for its sexuality and red lights, and all they can do is call for the lights to be turned out and the sex to end.
You claim that norms should be preserved. Are you for laws banning Xians who live in places where it is not the norm, and pester sexual people where sexuality is the norm?
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-28-2005 04:07 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by iano, posted 11-28-2005 1:36 PM iano has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 134 (264007)
11-29-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Christian7
11-28-2005 8:40 PM


Porn is obviouslly immoral, unethical, perverted, destructive, corruptive, and a threat to the mechanics of any mind that is victimized by it.
Absolutely, thankfully no minds are ever victimized by it.
Porn is very addictive like a sigaret, and people who start getting into can't quit.
Says the guy with no stats and admittedly no experience with porn.
Jesus is VERY UNHAPPY with this porn business.
Says the blasphemer who pretends he can speak for Jesus and judge others. Way to go. Perhaps if you are not watching porn, you should read more from the Bible.
There is so much money being made off of all that crap. I don't even see why people find such things appealing, for whenever a thought related to such things enters my mind it makes me sick.
Could it be that you are the one having the problem? Even though I like porn, everytime I see a sexual image I do not get rabidly turned on, yet every sexual thought you have makes you sick? That sounds pretty badly fixated.
If you are ever going to be fruitful and multiply "such things" are going to have to enter your head and not make you sick.
At least my mind is stable enough that it is impossible for me to find such things appealling or become addicted, unlike many teen agers today.
But it sounds like you are addicted. You are simply addicted in the reverse way. You have a problem if sex makes you feel sick and you do not find such things appealing.
That really pissed me off, because not only was he making assumptions of my character, but he was putting me in a box with mathematical probability labelled on it, as if I don't have free will. What an idiot!
1) Didn't you just get done making assumptions about every other person's character, including one of the pastor's of your church?
2) Didn't you just put all people who like porn into a box without any basis in probabilities, as if they don't have free will, and you yourself suggest have no free will?
3) Guess who looks like an idiot to everyone he just insulted (which happens to be everyone else in the world), while insinuating he is the only person with free will, able to draw conclusions based on no evidence, and can speak for Jesus?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Christian7, posted 11-28-2005 8:40 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Christian7, posted 11-30-2005 8:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 134 (264545)
11-30-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
11-30-2005 3:55 PM


Re: Sexual Expression: Definition of it
Holmes, your thoughts? It's probably a fuzzy boundary.
It is indeed a very fuzzy boundary and one that has had an impact in people discussing the "problems" of pornography.
As there is no set definition, or no set working definition, studies investigating effects of porn have used various ones. It can be as you guys just said, or IIRC more frequently soft is divided from hard based on violence within the sexual acts. Thus actually seeing penetrative sex is not hardcore, but sex within a BDSM or rape scene would be.
That's why you sometimes have people (usually antiporn feminists) quoting a study saying that "hardcore" porn causes desensitization towards violence against women, and they discuss it using the def you guys used, but if the study is actually looked at they meant the violence only. Indeed if the studies are looked at one may find (ahem... will find) that graphic sexual porn in that study they quote actually had a lessening effect, and the researchers went on to conclude that violence itself was the factor for desensitization.
Frankly I don't care how a person defines hard vs soft or if they use such terms at all. The most important thing to me is that they openly define what they mean, stay consistent to that definition, and then when quoting studies make sure the study uses the same definition.
If I use such terms then I'd generally use it as you guys were suggesting, hard means full action seen, soft is nudity and perhaps some hints at sex going on... but that does not make anyone's defs correct.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 11-30-2005 3:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 134 (264683)
12-01-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Christian7
11-30-2005 8:32 PM


Wrong.
Great assertion, now I am convinced!
What makes you think I don't get popups?
Heheheh... at first I thought you meant erections. In any case you said you hadn't really seen porn, right? But now you are going to say that your experience is worthy because you've seen some "popups"? Nice.
I never said I can speak for Jesus. Jesus can speak for himself and he will one day.
You said what Jesus was getting angry about. Are you now playing some game because you weren't discussing what he'd actually say?
Buddy I can say the same thing as you, he will speak for himself one day, and where does that leave us? Unless you are suggesting you know what he'll say then that statement is meaningless.
It is natural to find it appealing I suppose, but I choose not to think about that crap.
"That crap" is how babies are made.
Yes I did, because humans suck and are all retarded and there is no love in the world so shall ye all burn in hell.
Are you suggesting you are not human, or that you suck like the rest of us and will also burn? In either case if I'm going to burn in hell anyway I might as well enjoy myself here with other people. Perhaps it feels like there is no love in the world to you because you are afraid of sex?
I didn't literally mean I dougted they had free will
But you pretty well said it. I'm sorry if I go by what you write rather than what you meant. I guess I need to upgrade my ESP program.
If I honestly thought I was the only person with free will I would not have posted the consciousness topic.
So how does this square with your earlier comment that all humans suck and there is no love and they'll all burn in fire?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Christian7, posted 11-30-2005 8:32 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 12-01-2005 10:29 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 97 by Christian7, posted 12-01-2005 4:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 134 (264781)
12-01-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Phat
12-01-2005 10:29 AM


Re: Information, Relationship and Expression
I have seen many teenagers both male and female who are but 13-15 years old and already have a kid! They are locked up and the state ends up taking care of both 13 year old parent and child!
Why should this situation pose a problem to a person in a first world country? Not the locking up part, but the age part. The fact that what you suggest is a result is an indictment of how we as a society handle pregnancy, rather than anything about pregnancy.
Sports are another outlet! Creativity is a gift from God and so is procreation, in the right time and place.
Yes, we are all peacocks. However the concept that all time must be spent in learning how to preen and display and nothing in what the end of that display is for, is what disturbs me.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 12-01-2005 10:29 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 12-02-2005 7:31 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 134 (264960)
12-02-2005 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Christian7
12-01-2005 4:41 PM


Patato!!!!
That doesn't even make sense. My criticism was that you keep making assertions. That is not a potato patato thing.
I read your later post and I think I've lost interest in discussing anything with you. Apparently you are young and speak as a child and are as yet not ready to put away childish things. You refuse to deal with what I say and instead throw only quips and assertions at me. For example...
It's in the scriptures.
That would be a lot more interesting if you actually quoted at least one, that made the connection between Jesus and porn.
Sex is not love and love is not sex. You are now confusng the two.
If you haven't had sex and have felt no love, how on earth would you know the connection between the two? Because Jerry told you? Didn't you just get done saying there is no love in the world anyway?
Here's a news flash at 14 you really shouldn't be so angry and hateful about sex. I don't care if you decide not to have it or avoid porn, but it is unhealthy to feel anger and sickness when you encounter it.
You say you "have heard" that porn leads to addiction which leads to rape. Unfortunately there is no data to back that claim up. Go ahead and look. And in fact if you look such studies up you may begin to find that a contrary statistic exists. Rapists and murderers have anger problems, and many were taught to be negative about sex while growing up. Thus they lost something that was heatlthy and positive, only understanding to feel hate and sickness toward something that is crucial to good relationships and feelings of self worth.
No joke, from what you write, you appear to be a greater candidate for turning into a rapist or murderer than someone who simply says "i like porn".
As another poster has suggested, you need to check into some Anger management classes. By the way, what does Jesus say about hate?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Christian7, posted 12-01-2005 4:41 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Funkaloyd, posted 12-02-2005 7:25 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 110 by Christian7, posted 12-02-2005 7:57 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 134 (264999)
12-02-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by nator
12-02-2005 7:31 AM


Re: Information, Relationship and Expression
I'm sorry, are you talking to me? Are you attempting to build an argument with evidence and logic and so it is something I should take as more than mere opinion, or is everything you have to say mere opinion?
You still need to get your act straight and let me know where you stand on the point of debate.
If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed, holmes?
Dial a cliche, hey its schraf!
There's lots of medical reasons that it's a bad idea for young girls to be having babies aside from the societal issues. They and their babies are at greater risk for all sorts of problems.
You mean based on stats from a study done in one year, pretty much in one culture has allowed you to determine there's LOTS of medical reasons its a bad idea for young girls to be having babies? Greater risks for ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS?
Lets see, where to begin on deconstructing your usual hit and run approach to knowledge regarding sexuality...
1) The study used is limited in scope and results filtered through the assumption that it is bad and should be limited, rather than from objective attempts to understand risks associated with age and childbirth.
2) The article you quoted did not discuss mechanisms so as to remove societal effects and indeed goes on to discuss social issues regarding teens, not inherent age issues, such as...
Teens too often have poor eating habits, neglect to take their vitamins, and may smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, increasing the risk that their babies will be born with health problems...
Pregnant teens are more likely to smoke than pregnant women over age 25. In 2002, 13.4 percent of pregnant teens ages 15 to 17 and 18.2 percent of those ages 18 to 19 smoked, compared to 11.4 of all pregnant women.2 Smoking doubles a woman’s risk of having a low-birthweight baby, and also increases the risk of pregnancy complications, premature birth and stillbirth.
Can you not see the vast difference between what you promised this article would show and what it in fact does show?
3) Skewed statistics are used to present more dramatic conclusions...
girls under age 15 who gave birth were more than twice as likely to deliver prematurely than women ages 30 to 34 (21 vs. 9 percent)
Did you not ask yourself why they would compare girls under 15 with women between 30-34? Why such a small and select group? If the point is about underage being worse, shouldn't it be against all ages above a certain line?
If you look at the article you will note that more than once they shift age ranges under observation. Nowhere are inherent age related mechanisms in any of those ranges discussed.
4) Inconsistent conclusions being drawn from the stats. You nor they have described what stats are important to determine whether something is a problem for a group of people within a demographic, especially that it would allow proscriptions to be invoked (moral or legal) rather than simply advocating greater medical precautions during such pregnancies.
What do you think will happen when stats are analyzed across race, or wealth, or... even more intriguing... the converse of young mothers? What is the effect of greater age on birth risks for both mother and child? Are you thinking these other demographics should be condemned or reduced should they share similar risk percentages? If not, why not?
5) Although the article suggests greater risk to the children, it does not suggest much risk to the young mother, and indeed not a huge risk to the children. Just because something is twice the risk as in another group, does not make the risk that much greater. LOTS of medical reasons are not apparent within the article, unless you care to define LOTS in some convenient way?
As ever schraf, as ever.
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2005 08:34 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 12-02-2005 7:31 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 121 of 134 (265188)
12-03-2005 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Christian7
12-02-2005 7:57 PM


I'm getting the feeling you're just a troll, but in case not...
Lust and Love are both desires but they are completley seperate and science has shown that the systems involved are completley different as well.
First of all love and lust don't have two different words, that is in any way separable from sex between the two. Remember people "make love"... that's sex. I might add that in some cultures there is no word for "love", and in other cultures there are many more than two.
Science has shown that the systems involved are different? Where? What are the different systems?
Are you claiming that children are always born of lust and not love?
Why is that you say I've felt no love?
You said there is no love in the world. If you had felt it, how could you say it did not exist?
My anger has nothing to do with sex.
If you say you get angry and sick and hateful about it, then yes your anger has something to do with sex.
I'll just get away from them.
That's going to be great on your honeymoon. And before you claim it will be different for the one you love, if you set yourself up into a pattern of behavior towards a certain stimulus, that's generally how you are going to react to that stimulus regardless of the source.
because I wish not to react to it to avoid judgement I show reaction.
First of all this sentence made no sense to me. It appears contradictory. Second you should not be trying to avoid judgement. That's not the point of man, even to a Xian. Other men shouldn't judge you, that includes pastors, and God already has judged you and no amount of trying not to react is going to fool him.
Yea, marital relationships, not this "Yo ur hot let's go have sex ok it's over now I am gona go hump someone else" bull.
I already said it didn't matter whether you ended up wanting porn or not, or wanting to sleep around or not. Okay so you want to stick with Xian based monogamy, fine. The point I was making is that such negative reactions to sex as you are describing do not set you up to have a healthy sexual relationship within any relationship, including a monogamous one.
If you get so used to turning away and feeling sick or feeling angry, then what is going to happen when a girl attempts to arouse you?
Jesus said do not look lustfully at a woman.
Real women, or images of women? They had such images all over the place in his time, and there is such imagery in the Bible. Yet nowhere does it say one cannot or should not look at such images. Then again it does seem to proscribe masturbation, but what about sexual imagery made by a couple for their own pleasure?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Christian7, posted 12-02-2005 7:57 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Christian7, posted 12-03-2005 10:07 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 134 (265215)
12-03-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Christian7
12-03-2005 10:07 AM


Infact love itself has absolutley nothing to do with lust or sex.
The love which leads to marriage and children generally is unless you are bringing back arranged marriages.
O come on, it was on the news along time ago
Perhaps I don't watch the same news you do. Now cough it up.
Children are born with love.
I feel sorry for you. Even in the most loving relationships sex is the only way to make children. I might point out that children are born out of rape and I hardly think you'd say that was love.
I don't know how I will react after marrage
More than likely the way you have trained yourself to act before marriage.
Let's say that when somebody sex the word, "Sex" or "Pornography"
That sex quite a bit about how much sex is not on your mind.
If a girl attempted to sexually arouse me before marrage, I would have to get away from her.
So you are only planning on marrying a girl that you love but shows nor elicits sexual passion from you. Hmmmm, may explain the anger over unrequited love.
When your looking at a picture of a woman your looking at the woman herself. When you see a woman on the news, do you not see the woman herself? The only difference is that you have a copy of her image, so it is not direct, but you are still bassically looking at her. For example let's say you take a picture of someone named opey. When you see his picture can you not say, that is Opey or that is a picture of Opey, you are still looking at Opey.
You are quite wrong. First of all there are drawings which represent no one but an image, same goes for writings. Then there are people dressed and made up to look like someone besides themself. Third even photos of a person are not accurate enough to capture that person.
Some people look better in pictures than they do in person (esp with makeup and lighting and editing), some people actually look worse. At best photorealistic magery is a 2D representation of a part of an individual. They may move, smell, or feel completely different than anything you may have imagined. They may not even do things in real life which they will do while acting out a part (even in porn)
I am sorry but that is the difference between speaking from ignorance and experience. That you think looking at a picture and developing a fantasy over it is the same as looking at a real person and developing a fantasy for that real person suggests you have a ways to go in learning the difference between fantasy and reality.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Christian7, posted 12-03-2005 10:07 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Christian7, posted 12-03-2005 11:01 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 125 of 134 (265235)
12-03-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Christian7
12-03-2005 11:01 AM


Of course children are born because of lust.
So you are not planning on having children?
People change over time.
That's true, but not from when you put on a ring to when you hit the honeymoon suite.
O, and it was in the news on TV. I forgot which channel, maybe 12, maybe a channel in the 20's. I don't remember but it was a credible well-known news
This just keeps getting better.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Christian7, posted 12-03-2005 11:01 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Christian7, posted 12-03-2005 12:20 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 127 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 12:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 128 of 134 (265288)
12-03-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Christian7
12-03-2005 12:20 PM


Let me ask you a question, when you tell your wife: "I love you." is she to interpret that as "I want to have sex with you"? I don't think so.
If that is not contained within the message then she is unlikely to be a wife for long.
Let me ask you a question, when you tell your wife "I love you", is she to interpret that as "I may or may not want to have sex with you and anyway it is really unimportant"? I don't think so.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Christian7, posted 12-03-2005 12:20 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 129 of 134 (265289)
12-03-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by nwr
12-03-2005 12:22 PM


You ought to have taken Guidosoft to be saying "some children are born because of lust."
Was he only saying "some"? I hope he meant "most, if not all".
His statement to me was that love does not have to involve sex and I was walking him toward the obvious counterpoint that the love which creates babies does.
It seems to me the only time children are not created from lust is in arranged marriages or truly loveless situations such as in vitro fertilization.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 12:22 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 3:44 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 131 of 134 (265316)
12-03-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by nwr
12-03-2005 3:44 PM


Re: Lust vs. love
It seems to me that you have a dubious meaning for "lust". According to Wikipedia it is "inappropriate sexual desire."
Or you could go to a dictionary. The etymology of lust is from possibly from german for pleasure. In any case...
1 obsolete a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH
2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS
3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS
All three seem appropriate to what drives a person to a sexual act, though obviously the second is the most appropriate. Intense and unbridled are descriptors I would have used. "Inappropriate" seems inappropriate and I will disagree with Wiki there.
Wiki is not always correct.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 3:44 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 7:37 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024