Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:23 PM
19 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, Phat (AdminPhat), Taq, Theodoric (6 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,791 Year: 4,828/19,786 Month: 950/873 Week: 306/376 Day: 99/57 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Sexual expression: your opinion
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 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 Guido Arbia
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 Guido Arbia, posted 12-02-2005 7:57 PM Guido Arbia has responded

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

    
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 122 of 134 (265206)
12-03-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Silent H
12-03-2005 6:00 AM


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.

When it is said that people make love, they are expressing it physical.

First of all, that should be in a marrital relation ship.
Seccond of all, love is not just based on sex. Infact love itself has absolutley nothing to do with lust or sex.


Science has shown that the systems involved are different? Where? What are the different systems?

O come on, it was on the news along time ago. You can be inlove with somebody but not want to have sex with them or you can want to have sex with somebody and not be inlove with them.

I say you should just be inlove with someone and then sex can be thought about AFTER marrage.


Are you claiming that children are always born of lust and not love?

Children are born with love.

There are 3 types of love btw:
Philia - Brotherly love.
Eros - Romantic love.
Agape - Self-sacraficing all-sufficient love.

I don't even believe Eros is lust.

If you say you get angry and sick and hateful about it, then yes your anger has something to do with sex.

No, my anger has nothing to do with sex.

You said there is no love in the world. If you had felt it, how could you say it did not exist?

If you were smart at connecting the dots, you would come to the conclusion that I was angry because of unrequitted love.

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.

I don't know how I will react after marrage, that is IF I ever get married.

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.

It's like this. Let's say that when somebody sex the word, "Sex" or "Pornography" you ussually don't care.

Now, with me its kind of complicated. If I am in the presence of a judgmental person, I will TRY not to react, even though ussually I don't care. Because I try not to react, I show some type of misleading reaction, but it is a very suttle reaction.

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?

If a girl attempted to sexually arouse me before marrage, I would have to get away from her.

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?

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.

Looking lustfully at a woman includes pictures too.

This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 12-03-2005 10:10 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 6:00 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 10:34 AM Guido Arbia has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 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 Guido Arbia
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 Guido Arbia, posted 12-03-2005 10:07 AM Guido Arbia has responded

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

    
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 124 of 134 (265224)
12-03-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Silent H
12-03-2005 10:34 AM


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.

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you mean how the children themselves are when they are born.

Of course children are born because of lust.

The love which leads to marriage and children generally is unless you are bringing back arranged marriages

No, love and lust are seperate. Period.

More than likely the way you have trained yourself to act before marriage.

People change over time.

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.

I don't understand what your saying.

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 message has been edited by Guidosoft, 12-03-2005 11:03 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 10:34 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 11:44 AM Guido Arbia has responded
 Message 133 by bkelly, posted 12-03-2005 10:31 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 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 Guido Arbia
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 Guido Arbia, posted 12-03-2005 11:01 AM Guido Arbia has responded

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

    
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 126 of 134 (265247)
12-03-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Silent H
12-03-2005 11:44 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 11:44 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 3:21 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 127 of 134 (265248)
12-03-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Silent H
12-03-2005 11:44 AM


quote:
Of course children are born because of lust.

So you are not planning on having children?



Come now, holmes. That was unfair.

You ought to have taken Guidosoft to be saying "some children are born because of lust." After all, you were leading him on with your comment about children born as a result of rape.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 11:44 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 3:28 PM nwr has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 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 Guido Arbia
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 Guido Arbia, posted 12-03-2005 12:20 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 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 responded

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

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 130 of 134 (265294)
12-03-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Silent H
12-03-2005 3:28 PM


Lust vs. love
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".


It's hard to say what he meant. He has immature ideas as to what is lust, what is love, what is sex.

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.

I would not agree with that. Perhaps Guidosoft would. It seems to me that you have a dubious meaning for "lust". According to Wikipedia it is "inappropriate sexual desire."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 3:28 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 6:08 PM nwr has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 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 responded

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

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 132 of 134 (265330)
12-03-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Silent H
12-03-2005 6:08 PM


Re: Lust vs. love
holmes writes:

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


I don't have any problem with those definitions. It still seems to me that you are using "lust" too broadly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 6:08 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 12-04-2005 6:01 AM nwr has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 134 (265355)
12-03-2005 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Guido Arbia
12-03-2005 11:01 AM


so certain when so young
Guidosoft writes:

No, love and lust are seperate. Period.

Guido,
You have made quite a few statements that you claim to be absolute fact. You seem to be certain that you know more than almost anyone else in this forum.

You are but 14, you have not completed high school much less college, you probably have not held a job, and you have not been married. (I refer to marriage in terms of living with and getting along with another person in a peer to peer equal relationship for extended time. This is often not easy to do.)

You have either: 1) not had sex or 2) not had sex near as much as any of the married people that post here. (This is not judgmental, not good or bad, just a point of fact and a comparison of experience)

Yet you post as though you have all this information that no one else here might possibly have, and that you are always right. The people visiting this forum and responding to you have (probably) from 10 to 40 years more experience in life than you do. As I read your posts, it occurs to me that you have never imagined that these people might know something you have not had the time to lean.

If you continue speaking to people in such an arrogant manner, many will resent your arrogance and you will have a difficult time in life. This is true for both your peers and your elders.

(fixed a typo)

This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-03-2005 10:33 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Guido Arbia, posted 12-03-2005 11:01 AM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 134 of 134 (265411)
12-04-2005 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by nwr
12-03-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Lust vs. love
It still seems to me that you are using "lust" too broadly.

Well that could be for you. But that's potato patato. I do believe the best lovers, even while making love, will experience great lust.

The difference between people that just have sex and those that "make love" is not the degree of lust, but the degree of love involved.

Lust describes the physical portion of attraction, regardless of other forms of attraction.

If you disagree then you simply have a different, and probably valid, definitional set.


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 132 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 7:37 PM nwr has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019