When did America reach it's moral peak?

I am not suggesting that it is their business. But that is what they are talking about when they speak of moral decline.Their religion has indoctrinated them into abhorrence of sex acts by others, and guilt over their own sex acts.

They don't have anything against consensual sex. They are protecting society from sex acts which are patently nonconsensual due to the obvious nature of their nonconsensuality.If a person is ill and deluded into sexual behavior they wouldn't if they were psychologically whole, that wouldn't be consensual right? And that is true even if they claim up and down that they are consenting and not being harmed and there is no external data validating harm is being done, right?After all that is the position both top american Psychological organizations have taken officially and they aren't even the religious right. So why is the religious right incorrect to say the same thing?And it is simply obvious that the only truly healthy consensual acitivity will be conducted by people of the opposite sex who have graduated high school and are in a firm monogamous relationship, proven by their ability to commit to a long and so healthy relationship through marriage.All other routes lead to obvious harms of divorce, unwed mothers, disease, and more psychological illnesses.

---

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

Many, many (o so many) years ago, I was invited to sit on a panel of teenagers discussing "Teen Morality" at a PTA meeting in our local high school before several hundred people. I eagerly accepted.In the mid 60s conservative bastion of Indiana, all the parents and teachers wanted to discuss was sex. I refused, suggesting that sexual mores should be discussed more broadly as a human issue, not a teen one."Why are you all so obsessed with teen sexuality?" I asked."Certainly none of my fellow panel members are adulterers, while there are almost certainly some adulterers in an adult audience this size, and likely some fornicators, too.So let's discuss what concerns me and my peers as we prepare to join your adult world. Let's talk about war. Let's talk about civil rights and racism. Let's talk about poverty and political corruption. Besides, if you haven't persuaded your daughters to keep me out of their pants by now, all the panel discussions in the world won't help."My poor mother tried to melt into the floor.I suggested that their desire to control every decision made by their teen children worked against the development of a "moral sense":"You develop your 'moral sense' by making your own decisions and living with the consequences. None of you want to stand back and let that happen."A particularly reactionary teacher challenged me, asking, "So kids should be able to decide whether or not to eat their spinach, and then learn from the malnutritional consequences?""Well, sir," I replied, "do you eat anything you don't like? Are there no green vegetables as nutritious as spinach that the child might actually like? Your concern is not with morality, but with command and control. You will cram spinach down that child's throat, and they likely will never eat green vegetables again. Is that your idea of doing what is best for the child and their moral sense? Perhaps you should give some thought to what your real motivations are in that scenario."Hee hee. Great fun.Unfortunately, I was a freshman and had 3.5 years to go in that school, including a class with the Great Reactionary. What a long strange trip it was...AbE: Apologies for drifting so far OT.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-04-2005 01:11 PM

very cool

---

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

I guess "Omnivorous" himself didn't have spinach problems?