Back To School, or Back to...Sex?

[wdlove]

Laura's Weekly E-Blast
http://www.LauraIngraham.com

Back To School, or Back to...Sex?

Ah, the first week of September! It brings back warm memories of the nervous excitement I felt about going back to school as a kid outside Hartford, Connecticut. It was all about getting new folders and notebooks, maybe a cool pen or two, and practicing for a new field hockey season. And of course, getting back to school was fun because it meant my friends and I would be together to giggle and whisper about boys.

That is pretty much what I remember about the first week of school.

Girls today--I can't believe I'm writing that!--still deal with a lot of these same issues. They manage school work and after school activities and acclimate to their new classes, teachers, and cliques. Yet the pressures facing girls today are worse, not better, than what I experienced twenty plus years ago. Sure, we were urged to be as aggressive in the classroom and on the playing fields as the boys. But along with that (positive) message, girls today are being urged-- in music, television, magazines, and on the internet--to be aggressive when it comes to sex, too.

For years liberal elites cheered as the anti-tobacco lobby railed against RJR and Phillip Morris for "targeting" young people in their ads. Imagine that, companies profiting off something they know is bad for our youth. There was no such sanctimonious outrage toward MTV, however, when, during its Video Music Awards, a 45 year-old Madonna, French kissed girls decades younger (singers Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera) for a cheap ratings boost. (I'm only now barely recovering.) Is the menage a trois really something we need to glamorize for young women today? (The audience at Radio City Music Hall went nuts.)

I know, it's nothing you haven't already seen on MTV's The Real World.

Of course this is nothing new. Large segments of the music industry, through its lyrics and videos, are sending girls and young women an undeniable message--Sex it up or get out! The lower the pants, the higher the skirt, the more sex you have, the more "woman" you are. Now that's empowerment!

The print media are no better. The once-innocuous teen magazines (remember "16" and "Tigerbeat"?) have taken content cues from dopey sex-obsessed magazines like Cosmopolitan. The September issue of Seventeen includes on its cover the teaser -- "The Sex Questions You Can't Ask Anyone Else Answered." Elle Girl's cover features stories on "What a Guy Wants" and "I Was a Teenage Prostitute."

In this cultural wasteland, is it surprising then, that informal surveys are showing that girls (and boys) today treat oral sex like a handshake?

Or is it shocking to learn in The Washington Post about a new booming business--plastic surgery for teens? Imagine the ad campaign -- "Nose-jobs...they're not just for Tori Spelling anymore!" Yesterday's girls pestered their parents for money to go the movies. If we aren't careful, today soon it could be, "Mom, it's not fair! Brittany got breast implants! Why can't I?!!"

Last weekend I forced myself to go to a movie last week that I knew would depress me--the new, critically acclaimed film Thirteen. It was based on the true story of a girl growing up in a broken home in Los Angeles who does drugs, steals, lies, and uses sex to get her way when she's not self-mutiliating with a razor blade in the bathroom. The film's writer, who also acted in the film, told a deeply disturbing, cautionary tale of her own teenage experiences.

The cultural influences that bombard girls today have real world consequences for them. There will be girls who get pregnant because they see promiscuity glorified. There will be girls who get raped because they put themselves in bad situtations with bad men who tell them "everyone's doing it." There will be girls who get demeaned in "wet t-shirt contests" all for the pleasure of young men.

After 40 years of telling girls they can be anything they want to be, feminists are MIA when it comes to the effects of a culture that pushing sex and deviancy on young women 24/7. They were so concerned about the "religious right" they ignored the "deviant left." One of the great things about early feminists is that they recognized that women are very influenced by social pressure. The culture forced women to play roles that they didn't want to play and limited their opportunities. But which is worse--encouraging young women to act and look like housewives or act and look like hookers? You decide.

[Waluigi]

I don't like what MTV is doing because it is marketed to kids. To be honest, 12-year-old girls should not be wearing low rider jeans, or thongs. It is very disturbing when 12-year-old girls dress up like they are 16, to get with guys who might be 17 or 18! That is messed up.

However, I must admit, I love it when the ladies show lots of skin, and most do. I feel it actually does empower them if they show off their cleavage, and stomachs. I'd just ignore them if they were wearing the bed sheets they make women in some Middle Eastern countries wear. This forces me to pay attention to them, try to impress them, and talk to them. I think that is actually a good thing that women are getting more attention in the classroom, and in the social scene.

Some sociologist did a study a few years back in a country somewhere in Asia. In this country, the boys have all the power, and any girl they wanted to have sex with, they would do it whether the girl wanted to or not. These boys had the lowest suicide rate, and were happier overall then any other boys in any country in the world. The reason the suicide rate for teenage males in America is so high, and the reason behind all the high school shootings is due to LACK of sex. However, this happiness of the boys in that country did come at the expense of the girls, who were miserable.

I don't know if there is a solution for this problem, but the situation our country is in now is bad: Girls are unhappy and have to grow up too soon and show off too much, and the boys can see a lot, but they don't get any more booty then they did 40 years ago, so they are more tantalized, and they have a higher suicide rate. We are living in a lose-lose society now, and I don't see an answer to the solution.

By the way I went to High School in CT too, where from CT are you from?

--Waluigi

[MrMacMan]

Hmm besides this article obviously hates that 'liberals' gave women power to chose what they want and now because of that power people blast 'liberals'...

:thinkaboutthat:

Okay, so do we want women to have power over what they want to do or not?


Hello...? :confused:

Look, if "oral sex like a handshake" then my 15 year old hand has never been touched by a girl.

We all know Madonna did it to boost ratings, it was a kiss, whoop de doo.

And am I getting the wrong picture or when this author refers to the "liberal elites" does he/she *want* Tobacco Companies to target kids?

:confused:

Also I'd like to hear wdlove's perspective.

[e-coli]

Who cares if 12 year old girls are wearing thongs! It's just underwear. Don't be so puritanical.

Low-rise jeans. That's a different story.

I've read that promiscuity amongst teen girls, well teens in general, is due largely to the fact that we put so many hormones into the beef and chicken we feed our people. It actually messes up the natural development of our own growth and sexual hormones, in effect speeding them up.

I, for one, wouldn't doubt it. That's not to say I wasn't promiscuous as a teen, though. That's a fact of life.

For years liberal elites...

Gee, I wonder if she's Republican. :rolleyes: That pretty much ruins her credibility as far as I'm concerned. Throwing in cheap biased shots. She just sounds bitter.

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by e-coli
Who cares if 12 year old girls are wearing thongs! It's just underwear. Don't be so puritanical.

Thongs are made so that there is no visible lines when girls wear tight paints. There is only one reason girls for wearing a thong, and that is to be more attractive. 12 years old is too young for that! They aren't just underwear, they are the equilvant of a pushup bra for girl's butts. They are a very sexual undergarmet, not just plain old underware.

--Waluigi

[e-coli]

Originally posted by Waluigi
Thongs are made so that there is no visible lines when girls wear tight paints. There is only one reason girls for wearing a thong, and that is to be more attractive. 12 years old is too young for that! They aren't just underwear, they are the equilvant of a pushup bra for girl's butts. They are a very sexual undergarmet, not just plain old underware.

--Waluigi

I respectfully disagree.

Thongs are much better designed than the regular granny panties. For one, you don't have to worry about them bunching up in your various crevices, and they're much more comfortable for a lot of people. Specifically people with low body fat and round behinds. I think there are quite a few young girls who fall into this category.

Ever seen anyone with a thong picking out a wedgie? Nope. Neither have I. My fiance wears thongs exclusively. It's a comfort issue. She's tall and tiny with a round rump. She says her butt "eats" normal undies.

It's not all about sex. You're associating.

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by e-coli
I respectfully disagree.

Thongs are much better designed than the regular granny panties. For one, you don't have to worry about them bunching up in your various crevices, and they're much more comfortable for a lot of people. Specifically people with low body fat and round behinds. I thinks there are quite a few young girls who fall into this category.

Ever seen anyone with a thong picking out a wedgie? Nope. Neither have I. My fiance wears thongs exclusively. It's a comfort issue. She's tall and tiny with a round rump. She says her butt "eats" normal undies.

It's not all about sex. You're associating.

But what about 12 year olds! I think its fine for a grown women to wear a thong for sexual or non sexual reasons. But 12 years old is too young to wear a thong, and besides, they don't need to.

--Waluigi

[wdlove]

Using the media to target young teenage girls to dress like sex objects is wrong. They are wanting to dress the way they see others. Having a dress code in schools would definitely take the pressure off everyone. It would tend to lessen the cost of clothing for the parent and teenager.

[howard]

Originally posted by Waluigi
But what about 12 year olds! I think its fine for a grown women to wear a thong for sexual or non sexual reasons. But 12 years old is too young to wear a thong, and besides, they don't need to.

--Waluigi

i believe he just explained why young girls may have a reason for wearing a thong.

its a comfort thing and completely opinion. if a girl hates to wear thongs and wears then to look pretty then i agree thats stupid...but if there just plain more comfortable then by all means wear them.

in most situations of life i prefer practical over pretty

[King Cobra]

June 6, 2003
My H.S., before I graduated only weeks later:

A somewhat distant friend of mine around the same age took the dress code a little too far. I was upstairs during the action: She ran naked through the cafeteria downstairs.

Now that I have everyone's attention, the sex talk is over. Do you feel like killing yourself now?

If the entertainment of society was much less based on sex, then anyone denied from it would not feel suicidal, period. As individuals, we are after entertainment. Society, not "liberal elites", not politics, make us decide what entertainment is the most rewarding.

I am not against sex, but I feel it is something that must be coincided with responsibility and awareness of all circumstances surrounding it. Some of us forget/neglect to do so, and we ask for more of entertainment regardless. This is our society, as (previously mentioned by Waluigi) "a lose-lose society".

[mymemory]

I see so much pressure on the US culture by its own media.

On one hand there is an actual culture where there is a lot of respect from every one mind or perspective, that is good but we face too a huge influence on the media on "how life should be lived". Let me give you an example of this away from the original topic:

"Friends" the TV show, that is the kind of relationship people would like to have but it is not the relationship of no one in the US, "ER" would be more accurate. The average north American feel lonely and isolated because of the individualism need to succeed.

Now, there are more fun things to do in life and the media is telling you "be this way, be this way" and people start to be that way to feel accepted by other but it is a plastic way to do it, the boobs, the piercing, the "experimentation" with the same sex, all that is just influenced by the media just because "they heard" that in France or Germany people have sex as drinking water even when they are marry.

That is why people feel in shock when they see things like Madonna pushing the envelop but that is just part of a plastic tendency that doesn't represent the real spirit of the people of the United Stated. The people in the US are kind, corny, simple, creative, talented, inexperienced, religious, etc, etc, etc. but that sort of things are no way part of the culture, the early sex, the guns, orgies, the materialism, that is not part of the culture when some one go and see, as well so many TV shows that are not even the shadow of what we find once you get to experiment the culture for real.

My point is that the US is a country that advertise cars when every body is really doing everything barefoot, and while every body does everything fine barefoot they start to feel the pressure of not doing what the media is telling you "what you should be doing because every body else is doing it".

That my friend is the easy way to kill a culture, destroying the roots. That is why the Pope will never let gay priest in the Christian religion, a lot of that come from the communist, the same thing is happening in my country, we are loosing our identity too.

My advice is to watch less TV, spend less time in the Internet and make more biological relationship with other humans, that way we won't need to find aliens in other planets so desperate, that by the way, the US is the country where more people are looking for aliens, not because they have the technology but because they feel lonely.

Be carefull with the media, 3% of what they say is true... 3% at the most.

[cb911]

Originally posted by Waluigi
Some sociologist did a study a few years back in a country somewhere in Asia. In this country, the boys have all the power, and any girl they wanted to have sex with, they would do it whether the girl wanted to or not. These boys had the lowest suicide rate, and were happier overall then any other boys in any country in the world. The reason the suicide rate for teenage males in America is so high, and the reason behind all the high school shootings is due to LACK of sex. However, this happiness of the boys in that country did come at the expense of the girls, who were miserable.

--Waluigi

one of the problems is that the media (well, mostly the media it seems) promote sex as one of the only ways to be happy and have fun.

i don't think the school shottings and unhappiness among males to be because of lack of sex, but because they think it is necessary to be happy. don't people realise that there are a lot of other things in the world besides sex? but i guess peer pressure can be a strong influence...

and i've also noticed quite a few young teenagers around here (Australia, Brisbane and the Sunshine and Gold Coasts) to be dressing like, well, sluts. there's a whole generation of 12-16 year olds that are just going to grow up to be sluts.

[DesterWallaboo]

Every man wants to marry a virgin with the mind of a whore.

But no one wants to marry the whore.


Women are not empowered by getting mostly naked in public or flaunting their sexuality. In fact, it pretty much turns the entire women's liberation movement on it's head when women were begging to be recognized as more than being a set of breasts. Now we're taking the road back again. The analogy used earlier that "granny undies" were pretty much the only option besides thongs is ridiculous. There is plenty of non-sex-driven underwear out there that is neither incomfortable nor bulky. Thongs are worn specifically for sexual reasons. Every guy on the planet with any drop of testosterone in his blood knows it to be true. I'm a man. So I certainly know the conversation among guys that occurs every time some woman goes walking by with an obvious thong on. And I'll tell you what... they certainly aren't discussing how amazing her education is or that she has a doctorate in this discipline or other. Nope... it's purely animalistic instinct. Now I'm not saying that sex is bad. Nope. In fact I think the contrary. But age, timing, place and appropriateness has certainly been turned on its head.

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Every man wants to marry a virgin with the mind of a whore.

But no one wants to marry the whore.

Wow, that is so true!


So I certainly know the conversation among guys that occurs every time some woman goes walking by with an obvious thong on. And I'll tell you what... they certainly aren't discussing how amazing her education is or that she has a doctorate in this discipline or other. Nope... it's purely animalistic instinct.

Hahaha, yes!! Either that, or just stare in awe.

--Waluigi

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Let people where whatever clothing they want. If someone wants to have sex at an early age let them. I know a girl who had sex in elementary school, and it hasn't damaged her life. She's in advanced classes at my high school.

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
I know a girl who had sex in elementary school, and it hasn't damaged her life. She's in advanced classes at my high school.

That makes me sick to my stomach. Besides, being in advanced classes means she is smart, not that she is mentally healthy.

--Waluigi

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by Waluigi
That makes me sick to my stomach. Besides, being in advanced classes means she is smart, not that she is mentally healthy.

--Waluigi
But she isn't mentally unhealthy. It hasn't damaged her in any way.

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
But she isn't mentally unhealthy. It hasn't damaged her in any way.

It is still disturbing, and even if she appears to be OK, she could be hurting on the inside now, or down the road. Studies have shown time and time again, if you start having sex at a ridiculously young age, as this girl you know did, it will have devastating consequences down the road. And it is disgusting too!

--Waluigi

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by Waluigi
It is still disturbing, and even if she appears to be OK, she could be hurting on the inside now, or down the road. Studies have shown time and time again, if you start having sex at a ridiculously young age, as this girl you know did, it will have devastating consequences down the road. And it is disgusting too!

--Waluigi I don't find it particularly disgusting, they were both the same age. Maybe it was too early for them, maybe it wasn't. But once someone has gone into high school, they should have the right to do what they want, whether they be 12, 14, or 18.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Every man wants to marry a virgin with the mind of a whore.

But no one wants to marry the whore. that's just a truism.

what do you mean by "the mind of a whore?" a whore is promiscuous, possibly above all else. every man wants to marry a virgin who's more interested in sex than an inanimate object like Lillian Rearden (Atlas Shrugged). speaking for myself, i have no interest in a woman whose faithfulness would be suspect. that's why i don't want to marry a whore, virgin or no.

as for the media promoting sex--it's been outrageous for a long time. it always pushed the envelope; it has since the 20's at least. there are backlashes occasionally, but typically there is a pattern that as soon as you get used to something inappropriate, they throw something new out. a really basic non-sexual example of this is steve jobs' use of "kickass" in his speech. 3 years ago, i think that would have bothered a lot more people. and that's at a technology speech.

so madonna french kissed some girls. what's so bad about that? i mean, sure, they're the same sex. but were you as bothered when catherine zeta-jones made out with (and then some) sean connery in Entrapment? the age difference was most certainly comparable. bridging that age gap's been pretty common. i'm not really any more bothered by madonna doing that with them than i have been by the **** she's done in the last 18 years or so.

[Daveman Deluxe]

The problem, to put things simply, is that the media portrays an unhealthy attitude and method of sexual relations as being normal and worthwhile (by "method" I am not referring to homosexual/heterosexual relations).

Setting aside my faith for the discussion, at the very least, we can generally agree that sex is best kept within a monogamous relationship. By that, I mean one partner in a minimum span of a year. However, the media suggests to us that it is acceptable to pursue our passions and lusts with reckless disregard for the consequences. As a result, sex has become cheap. Fashion that could be called "slutty" is a manifestation of that, and I think it's a crying shame.

Sex is precious and good, but there are consequences when it is used carelessly. It does emotional damage and, when used particularly carelessly, can result in unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STIs.

The media tells us that it is acceptable for us to get everything that our bodies want and to get them now, regardless of any reasonable expectation of consequences. Want to have sex with a hundred girls/guys? Go for it. So what about the one in six people age 16-27 that has an STI? It's not going to you because you're pursuing your farking PASSION!

What BS.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by wdlove
Using the media to target young teenage girls to dress like sex objects is wrong. They are wanting to dress the way they see others. Having a dress code in schools would definitely take the pressure off everyone. It would tend to lessen the cost of clothing for the parent and teenager.

MrMacMan's take:
Yes... Lets all think alike...

Lets become brain washed...

:(

Last time they did that (mass scale) was Hitler.

Waluigi -- Thousand of years ago *children* were having babies.

It was different times. Sex can wait, yes, but if the person knows what it is and want it... why should there be laws forbidding. (teens I mean)

Personally: Body is a plus, l like personallity or a mind.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Waluigi
I don't like what MTV is doing because it is marketed to kids. To be honest, 12-year-old girls should not be wearing low rider jeans, or thongs. It is very disturbing when 12-year-old girls dress up like they are 16, to get with guys who might be 17 or 18! That is messed up.

In Brazil you see a lot of kids dressed up like prostitutes. Girls that are 4, or 6, definitely under 12. Not because they watch MTV but because it is "ok" there that girls dress like that - not on the inky pinky barbie girly stuff that e.g. in US and most of Europe seems to predominant.

Girls are more aggressive? Uh. Do I read the original article as "I miss the times when women were only good for cooking, cleaning, ironing and producing children"? Too tired and bored to read it all. :rolleyes:

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
Girls are more aggressive? Uh. Do I read the original article as "I miss the times when women were only good for cooking, cleaning, ironing and producing children"? Too tired and bored to read it all. :rolleyes: yeah, the times when they are just good for a good **** are much, much better. as long as they get something out of it, it must be better. right.

if you don't want to interact, don't post. i love how you scoff at people who make general assumptions about things without thinking about it and then proceed to do the same thing to this thread. if you don't have any respect for our opinions, don't come around.

[ExoticFish]

wow, reading these kinds of threads and things frightens me with the way that some people think about sex and women in this world. women do not wear thongs to be "comfortable", they wear them to be "sexy". and dressing like a slut to show off your body is so far from empowering it's not even funny. honestly, who would treat you with more respect when your boobs are hanging out and you have a plumbers crack (how that's getting popular is far beyond me). the only way that women can get on the same level as men is to leave any and all sexualness at the door. i don't go to work sporting some neck with my pants half down, why would it be ok for a girl to sport clevage? it's slutty. my girlfriend wears sexy cloths sometimes when we're alone, and i do the same for her cause that's something for us to share, but when she goes to school or work she wears cloths that don't show the world her assets and i do the same, i don't want to share my body with anyone else whether pysically or visually.

the one thing that is so annoying is when slutty girls wear a piece of string and then get all pissy when the get stared at like a piece of meat. don't dress like a piece of meat and you won't get stared at like that. sheesh. common sense here people.

but yes, the world seems to be getting more laxed about these types of things and it's all very scary. when you turn on MTV and see 50 cent singing about how he smacks his hoes around and treats them like crap and then see girls walking down the street looking like the whores in his videos, it makes me wonder how many times they were dropped on their head as a child.

i always blamed the breakup of the family for a lot of these problems, but i just read an article the other day about teenage prostitution is on the rise and although still a small percentage, the amount of teenage prostitutes from middle class healthy families is rising. this kind of crap makes me scared to death to have kids someday.

[Daveman Deluxe]

ExoticFish-

I agree for the most part with your post, but I disagree that all sexuality must go out the door. I think it is possible for a woman to look both respectable and attractive at the same time.

My best friend's girlfriend dresses reasonably conservatively and I have a lot of respect for that and for her. That said, she doesn't exactly wear a chador either. :rolleyes: She wears clothes that accentuate her already impressive good looks without revealing much--if any-- skin past the shoulders.

I think the issue in this case is best summed up by author Joshua Harris: "There is a big difference between dressing attractively and dressing to attract." Unfortunately, it seems a lot of (almost all?) women go way too far one direction or the other.

And another thing: for me, there is no bigger turn-off than girls wearing low-rise jeans.

[wdlove]

It seems to be a swing of the pendulum. There was the Victorian era where no skin was shown except for the face, conservative. Today it seems to be the more skin shown the better, liberal. There is nothing left to the imigination. Just enough clothing to cover the chest and waste!

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by wdlove
It seems to be a swing of the pendulum. There was the Victorian era where no skin was shown except for the face, conservative. Today it seems to be the more skin shown the better, liberal. There is nothing left to the imigination. Just enough clothing to cover the chest and waste! i think that your categorization of Victorianism fails to account for the culture. it only appeared to be immaculate, almost like a joke. today's culture is not a pendular swing from that, it's a removal of the mask.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i think that your categorization of Victorianism fails to account for the culture. it only appeared to be immaculate, almost like a joke. today's culture is not a pendular swing from that, it's a removal of the mask.

The dress during that period was very conservative, which was my reference. All thoughtout human history there has been sexual immorality. I don't think that the dress now is any worse than that of Sodom and Gomorah. Greece and Rome also had similar periods.

Don't you think that in the future clothing will become more conservative?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by wdlove
The dress during that period was very conservative, which was my reference. All thoughtout human history there has been sexual immorality. I don't think that the dress now is any worse than that of Sodom and Gomorah. Greece and Rome also had similar periods.

Don't you think that in the future clothing will become more conservative? it may. but dress concerns me, culturally, far less than the actualy morality of the culture. people who dress like nuns and still spread STDs and emotional disaster like orgyistic dogs are just as bad as those who dress like they act. that's the perspective from which i am coming.

maybe dress will become more conservative. just not too soon, i do doubt.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by shadowfax
it may. but dress concerns me, culturally, far less than the actualy morality of the culture. people who dress like nuns and still spread STDs and emotional disaster like orgyistic dogs are just as bad as those who dress like they act. that's the perspective from which i am coming.

maybe dress will become more conservative. just not too soon, i do doubt. What about the people who where revealing clothes who don't spread STD's, and the ones that are smart enough to use condoms and other birth control?

[DesterWallaboo]

How about those who use some self-control?

Kudos to all those willing to exhibit a little self-restraint and not join the animal humping frenzy.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
How about those who use some self-control?

Kudos to all those willing to exhibit a little self-restraint and not join the animal humping frenzy.

Whoa, I must have missed the bestiality references in this thread...time to go back and reread. ;)

[tpjunkie]

Why should people deny their natural biological urgings? We are animals; denying that sex and sexuality is a part of us seems like a much more rediculous idea than acknowledging it and behaving responsibly. When we deny what is normal and natural about us, we lose our humanity.

[DesterWallaboo]

Why should people deny their natural biological urgings? We are animals; denying that sex and sexuality is a part of us seems like a much more rediculous idea than acknowledging it and behaving responsibly. When we deny what is normal and natural about us, we lose our humanity.


So let's all follow our animal instincts. Like other species we should then be able to kill our competition for a mate, or act like a black widow and kill our mate after we're through mating. Maybe we should act like the majority of other animals and only mate in season. Or possibly become the lead male in the pack and force the other males into submission while having a dozen or so females to mate with unti the next male comes along to either kill you or drive you off.


Hopefully we have more intelligence to see beyond that simple argument.


Please. The comparison of us being like "the other animals" is a little ridiculous, don't you think?

[Rower_CPU]

Or like the animals who mate for life...oh wait, which species has divorce? ;)

[DesterWallaboo]

Divorce?... divorce comes about from either one or both parties being selfish. Plain and simple.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by tpjunkie
Why should people deny their natural biological urgings? We are animals; denying that sex and sexuality is a part of us seems like a much more rediculous idea than acknowledging it and behaving responsibly. When we deny what is normal and natural about us, we lose our humanity.

Part of being human is that we don't always act on our natural biological urgings. Since we are part of a society, we should follow certain morals. Sexual contact is meant to be done in private. It is wrong to be doing physical sex acts on a dance floor. The current dress code by teenagers allow for this to happen in public!

[DesterWallaboo]

Yup... I love how people always make lame excuses for their own lack of self-control.

[job]

Here in Texas, low jeans and thongs of every sort, shape, and description are the norm. I can't even concentrate in English class. How can you when you can plainly see 3 or 4 lacy, see-through, thongs? Not that I'm complaining or anything. ;)

Now here's a question. Go ask any mother with a 12 year old daughter if they would mind her dressing like this:

[XnavxeMiyyep]

In general, when people have sex, it is in private. It's uncommon to have sex on the dance floor and would be rather difficult, with all those people dancing around you.;)

But since when is dancing itself considered sex, just because of revealing clothing?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Divorce?... divorce comes about from either one or both parties being selfish. Plain and simple.

Wow, didn't know it was that simple. Guess issues like getting married for the wrong reasons, falling out of love, not taking it seriously, etc. have nothing to do with it.

Again, seems like there are some animals we could learn a thing or two from...we are an arrogant species.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Whoa, I must have missed the bestiality references in this thread...time to go back and reread. ;)

Haha, yeah it happened when they mentioned...

sex

;)

DesterWallaboo -- Its natural to have sex, give the anti-Peoplearenotanimals argument a rest.

:p

wdlove -- Write a Book on Moral code and what you want to to be. I'll read it and then Dis-Agree Or Agree.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Wow, didn't know it was that simple. Guess issues like getting married for the wrong reasons, falling out of love, not taking it seriously, etc. have nothing to do with it.

Again, seems like there are some animals we could learn a thing or two from...we are an arrogant species.
Yeah Rower Wins. :D

Its not always self-ish reasons, you have moved apart, its not always a drama show. (Ex: Cheating... blah blah)

You don't like the same things anymore, intrests fade.. yada yada.


Regulate my clothes next... :rolleyes:

[DesterWallaboo]

Its not always self-ish reasons, you have moved apart, its not always a drama show. (Ex: Cheating... blah blah)

You don't like the same things anymore, intrests fade.. yada yada.


Yeah... I guess that happens with familiy too. Lose interest in my brothers and sisters. Quit loving them. Grew out of parents, so I dumped em.



Man... I hope none of you have kids. I can imagine all the wise counsel you will give them.

[Rower_CPU]

Sorry but since when is spouting clichés and poorly thought out overgeneralizations wisdom?

Let's not turn this personal and start talking about other peoples (theoretical) children.

[DesterWallaboo]

"Son... here's some great counsel for you as you go through life. When you meet a girl that you really like and would love to make a great, lasting positive impression upon her parents. Be sure to shag her silly. Knock boots with her. Take a long roll in the hay with her... and if her best friend is willing, dive in with her as well. Yes son, her parents will truly think of you as a highly respectable individual."

[kylos]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Wow, didn't know it was that simple. Guess issues like getting married for the wrong reasons, falling out of love, not taking it seriously, etc. have nothing to do with it.

Again, seems like there are some animals we could learn a thing or two from...we are an arrogant species.

Sounds pretty selfish to me. All those things you describe are based on decisions which generally consider an individual over their partner.

Getting married for the wrong reasons? The right reason would be for the mutual betterment of both, anything else is by definition selfish (unless you're such a self-loather so that pretty much everything you do favors others over yourself :D).

Falling out of love? That generally occurs when your partner just isn't "doing it" for you anymore. Again, selfish.

Not taking it seriously? You obviously don't care for the other. Extremely selfish.

Edit: Readability enhancements.:)

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by tpjunkie
Why should people deny their natural biological urgings? We are animals; denying that sex and sexuality is a part of us seems like a much more rediculous idea than acknowledging it and behaving responsibly. When we deny what is normal and natural about us, we lose our humanity.

I'm sure I was seeing some flames here a few weeks ago about the subject sexuality. So some have no instincts, or was it are not animals before they marry.

What is natural? Most of every day things are time and place bound; if you see them from another culture or from another century, they look absurd .. i guess just eating, sleeping, working and ****** are normal, but then what you eat and how and with who and when, what is your work etc change very much in a century. And a lot even in a decade.

I suddenly remember something of the books of the egyptian archaeology. The egyptians thousands of years ago were complaining about the haircuts of the young people at that time. So niente di nuovo sotto il sole ...

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Wow, didn't know it was that simple. Guess issues like getting married for the wrong reasons, falling out of love, not taking it seriously, etc. have nothing to do with it.

Green card is obviously marrying for the right purpose. Because you have to be married at least 2 years to get ... :p

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Yeah... I guess that happens with familiy too. Lose interest in my brothers and sisters. Quit loving them. Grew out of parents, so I dumped em.



Man... I hope none of you have kids. I can imagine all the wise counsel you will give them.

I understand that you are all for the no-divorce thing.

But it is better for parents to split then fighting all the time.


Sorry counseling does not work.

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
"Son... here's some great counsel for you as you go through life. When you meet a girl that you really like and would love to make a great, lasting positive impression upon her parents. Be sure to shag her silly. Knock boots with her. Take a long roll in the hay with her... and if her best friend is willing, dive in with her as well. Yes son, her parents will truly think of you as a highly respectable individual."
Wow, you are very insistant.

Posts only 8 Minutes apart...

No one said go have sex with ___ for no reason. There are standards, everyone knows this even if they don't agree with them.

What is wrong with you?

Kyle? -- Losing interest? Bad Choice making?

My (fake) anti-take on above:
"Son, if you really love a girl wait till she turns 21... no wait 30, then marry her. Then you will be allowed to kiss her. Hold all urges, feelings and wants back for these years. And if she is married before that, sorry son, this is the way things should be."

[DesterWallaboo]

I understand that you are all for the no-divorce thing.

But it is better for parents to split then fighting all the time.


Sorry counseling does not work.


Divorce is just legalized child abuse. If you don't believe me... go to Harvard's most recent study on the long-term effects of divorce on children.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Divorce is just legalized child abuse. If you don't believe me... go to Harvard's most recent study on the long-term effects of divorce on children. It's not legalized child abuse if they haven't had kids yet!;)

But seriously, if the kid still gets to see both of his/her parents frequently, it's not so bad as to be considered child abuse.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Kyle?
Sounds pretty selfish to me. All those things you describe are based on decisions which generally consider an individual over their partner.

Getting married for the wrong reasons? The right reason would be for the mutual betterment of both, anything else is by definition selfish (unless you're such a self-loather so that pretty much everything you do favors others over yourself :D).

Falling out of love? That generally occurs when your partner just isn't "doing it" for you anymore. Again, selfish.

Not taking it seriously? You obviously don't care for the other. Extremely selfish.

Edit: Readability enhancements.:)

All black and white distinctions.

The only reason to get married is for "mutual betterment"? Get real. Do people propose by saying "I think we should get married for our mutual betterment. Whaddya say?" :p

Clarify "doing it".

Obviously it's not that simple. People see others getting married for the 3rd, 4th, 5th time, see people getting married with little to no engagement period and think it's the norm. Society doesn't value marriage and enters into it too lightly.

I'm not defending divorce or our society's penchant for it, if anything I'm arguing that it's our society in general that doesn't value marriage enough - and pointing out that we're not the be all and end all of societal evolution on this planet.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by Kyle?
Sounds pretty selfish to me. All those things you describe are based on decisions which generally consider an individual over their partner.

Getting married for the wrong reasons? The right reason would be for the mutual betterment of both, anything else is by definition selfish (unless you're such a self-loather so that pretty much everything you do favors others over yourself :D).

Falling out of love? That generally occurs when your partner just isn't "doing it" for you anymore. Again, selfish.

Not taking it seriously? You obviously don't care for the other. Extremely selfish.

Edit: Readability enhancements.:) So any breakup is selfish, or just divorce?

[DesterWallaboo]

I grew up in a family of eight kids where my father discussed the pros and cons of premarital sex. Every one of us decided to wait until marriage to jump into the sack. Six of us eight are happily married, and the other two are still dating, etc. I'm going on 13 years of a happy marriage with 3 kids to boot. So something about this must be working right.

Just my 2¢

[Daveman Deluxe]

Regarding divorce: I'm against it (in general). Too many times, people will go into a marraige thinking, "Well, I'm not sure if this will work, but if it doesn't, at least we can get divorced." That's a TERRIBLE attitude about marraige. Marraiges and divorces are both entered into far too lightly. For what it's worth, if a marraige is on the rocks, counseling can and will help if both parties genuinely want to fix things up.

Regarding sex: I think that part of the problem is that in our society (at least in the U.S.) sex is too much of a taboo. Very few people are willing to have a serious discussion about sex. As a result, very little hard information about sex is communicated to the majority of people, just the idea that it's cool and will make your friends like you. People should be more willing to talk seriously about sex. It may be one of the primary ways we are all bound together: the vast majority of us have sex at one time or another in our lives.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Regarding divorce: I'm against it (in general). Too many times, people will go into a marraige thinking, "Well, I'm not sure if this will work, but if it doesn't, at least we can get divorced." That's a TERRIBLE attitude about marraige. Marraiges and divorces are both entered into far too lightly. For what it's worth, if a marraige is on the rocks, counseling can and will help if both parties genuinely want to fix things up.
That is indeed a horrible thing. However, there are justifyable reasons for divorce, thus it shouldn't be illegal.


Regarding sex: I think that part of the problem is that in our society (at least in the U.S.) sex is too much of a taboo. Very few people are willing to have a serious discussion about sex. As a result, very little hard information about sex is communicated to the majority of people, just the idea that it's cool and will make your friends like you. People should be more willing to talk seriously about sex. It may be one of the primary ways we are all bound together: the vast majority of us have sex at one time or another in our lives. I wouldn't have sex to be "cool", I would have it to show my love for my girlfriend(if I had one and if she liked the idea), and because it feels good. But of course I would use protection.

[kylos]

@Rower
Liked that mutual betterment, huh?:D

I was responding to your claim that divorce isn't as simple as selfishness. And as you pointed out, most people aren't thinking mutual betterment when they plan for marriage. Which as you said shows that our culture doesn't value marriage nearly enough. So, yeah, I think we agree kinda. I feel that we'd have a lot less divorce if people did consider my admittedly altruistic "mutual betterment." Tell me what you think.

@xnavxemiyyep
Marriage is meant to be a long-term commitment, so I think you wouldn't be showing your partner much love if you didn't get to know them before marriage to see if you were compatible. So a breakup before marriage is not selfish, it's part of the process. Which is why marriage is allowed more "priveliges" than other relationships. If you get too involved before marriage, that is being selfish (see, you can make everthing selfish if you want;) ) because such a split will be more painful than it should be and that is definitely not caring for the other.

and finally
@mrmacman
losing interest would seem to be covered by "falling out of love" and bad choice making could be covered by any of the scenarios. They're all bad choices. Give me a specific example.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by Kyle?
xnavxemiyyep
Marriage is meant to be a long-term commitment, so I think you wouldn't be showing your partner much love if you didn't get to know them before marriage to see if you were compatible. So a breakup before marriage is not selfish, it's part of the process. Which is why marriage is allowed more "priveliges" than other relationships. If you get too involved before marriage, that is being selfish (see, you can make everthing selfish if you want;) ) because such a split will be more painful than it should be and that is definitely not caring for the other.
Ok, I'll admit, in general, most divorce involves someone being selfish. However, there are probably some situations where it is not.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by job
Here in Texas, low jeans and thongs of every sort, shape, and description are the norm. I can't even concentrate in English class. How can you when you can plainly see 3 or 4 lacy, see-through, thongs? Not that I'm complaining or anything. ;)

Now here's a question. Go ask any mother with a 12 year old daughter if they would mind her dressing like this:

I have seen a lot of teenage girls dressed like that here in Boston while while the MBTA. They seem to see just how low they can wear the slacks or how high the panties can be worn. They guys also wear there pants very low, they seem to have alot of trouble keeping them up.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Divorce is just legalized child abuse. If you don't believe me... go to Harvard's most recent study on the long-term effects of divorce on children.

I believe what I see. I was all the time envying the peace and silence those of my friends had at home who were living with only one parent. Most of those friends (firstly, had more peace at home to study while they did not have to listen to the daily dramas, shouting, any time of argueing etc) are now in steady relationships, living with someone (married or not). What I saw and lived at home was a hell. My mum produced me beacause she believed she needed one more kid to save her marriage. I wish she had used a counselor. I have seen enough of argueing, shouting, been beaten up enough times by both of the parents, and have hoped all the years I lived with them to just divorce and leave me alone. I am that full of all it that I see the marriage like that even when it can be something else. I want to be like wind, come and be with someone if I like, but being not-married I feel more free and stronger against those abusive , dark, meaningless, painful relations. None of those friends who lived with one parent have a weddingfobia, I do, and a bad one.

Oh, and of course it all is only "for the children". We stay together for the children. We beat you up because we love you. Nice, just wait untill I'm a bit older to respond to your love...

[DesterWallaboo]

I believe what I see. I was all the time envying the peace and silence those of my friends had at home who were living with only one parent. Most of those friends (firstly, had more peace at home to study while they did not have to listen to the daily dramas, shouting, any time of argueing etc) are now in steady relationships, living with someone (married or not). What I saw and lived at home was a hell. My mum produced me beacause she believed she needed one more kid to save her marriage. I wish she had used a counselor. I have seen enough of argueing, shouting, been beaten up enough times by both of the parents, and have hoped all the years I lived with them to just divorce and leave me alone. I am that full of all it that I see the marriage like that even when it can be something else. I want to be like wind, come and be with someone if I like, but being not-married I feel more free and stronger against those abusive , dark, meaningless, painful relations. None of those friends who lived with one parent have a weddingfobia, I do, and a bad one.

Oh, and of course it all is only "for the children". We stay together for the children. We beat you up because we love you. Nice, just wait untill I'm a bit older to respond to your love...


I wasn't referring to divorce in the case of physical abuse. There are always cases where divorce is warranted. However, the majority of divorces in our day and age are due to purely selfish reasons. One person putting their own wants in front of the other persons needs. Making the other spouse feeling less than wanted or needed. Like everything in life... anything that is worthwhile takes work. Diligence is the only method for starting and maintaining a happy marriage and family relationship.

[DesterWallaboo]

By the way. The study from Harvard specifically referred to non-violent marriages. Even in instances where the parents argued frequently, the children were happier to have both parents than to have to go through the pains of divorce and 2nd marriages. Again, this study was about non-violent marriages.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Divorce is just legalized child abuse. If you don't believe me... go to Harvard's most recent study on the long-term effects of divorce on children.

Yes, and yelling and screaming will teach them any better.

Spare your children:
Stop fighting.

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
I grew up in a family of eight kids where my father discussed the pros and cons of premarital sex. Every one of us decided to wait until marriage to jump into the sack. Six of us eight are happily married, and the other two are still dating, etc. I'm going on 13 years of a happy marriage with 3 kids to boot. So something about this must be working right.

Just my 2¢
Obviously you are not a kid, but understand that much has changed since when you were a kid.

Dating is all fair game. And because of Sex Ed Teens are having sex safer and with more knowledge then (no offense) your day did.

Originally posted by Kyle?
and finally
@mrmacman
losing interest would seem to be covered by "falling out of love" and bad choice making could be covered by any of the scenarios. They're all bad choices. Give me a specific example.
*sigh*
My dad was divorced to a women before he meet my mother... his son, my step-brother hated my father.
Hated my father so much it drove my father to leave. His mother took the son's side in every argument, from simple to large.
Either it be what to eat or a curfew.

Don't say that was selfish. He did it out of love, he understood that even if his son didn't like anything about him my dad still loved him.

It look me 15 years to get that much information out of my dad. He hasn't talked much with the family, at all really. I meet him myself only once, in 93' at my grandmothers funeral.

:(

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
By the way. The study from Harvard specifically referred to non-violent marriages. Even in instances where the parents argued frequently, the children were happier to have both parents than to have to go through the pains of divorce and 2nd marriages. Again, this study was about non-violent marriages.
Give me the link to the study, in my free time I'll read it.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Dating is all fair game. And because of Sex Ed Teens are having sex safer and with more knowledge then (no offense) your day did. more knowledge about what? do kids (teens) really know how treating sex casually will affect them? Sex Ed can give you insight into your body, its functions, and the physical risks sex can place you in, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell me that it gives you insight into your psyche and how sex will affect you in that respect. and speaking of respect, i think that's really the issue at stake. why would you abstain from having sex without making a commitment? because you respect the person you want to sleep with, whether you respect yourself or not. that respect bit is just my opinion, though, maybe.

[kylos]

MrMacMan, sometimes divorce is a sad necessity, and as illustrated in your dad's case, the individual initiating the divorce is not always the one to blame. But when marriages fail it's always serious. So maybe I'm too altruistic, but I sure wish people would think seriously about what they're doing before ever considering marriage.

[Giaguara]

if you as a teeanger are not psychically well equipped to having sex, nothing will change once you get married. you still will be of the same age + 1 day you were the day before. you still have the same psyche you had the day before. nothing changes untill you have sex and have psychically dealed with it.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
if you as a teeanger are not psychically well equipped to having sex, nothing will change once you get married. you still will be of the same age + 1 day you were the day before. you still have the same psyche you had the day before. nothing changes untill you have sex and have psychically dealed with it. psychically? you mean like consulting a psychic? that's kind of odd :p

i don't think you understand marriage. it's a commitment, and it's an integral part of being truly ready for sex, psychologically. i don't think humans were designed to just give themselves to one another in an act of sensuality and then split. i think that that act of sex is an intimate physical expression of a lasting love, one that is properly expressed by making the commitment of marriage. to teach a teenager that they should get ready for sex or marriage by screwing a lot of people is just a way to screw them up emotionally later.

[Giaguara]

psychically = i did mean with / by your psyche. with your forever living part of soul etc. not psychologically as that is how jung, freud etc explain how the western man's mind works according to them. so by your eternal spirit kind of psyche. not by something some german scientist said 70 years ago. pardon for english not being my first or even second language.

right shadowfax. i don't understand marriage, as when i was 18 years and one day i walked to the church registries and signed a paper to sign me off from anything that has to do with any church (not just catholic). love is love. you don't need to make love with someone to love him/her/them. i don't understand marriage you say, but according to the same statement i would like to suggest maybe you don't completely understand sex: it is not only (in) the marriage. i do plan to get married, and for a purpose. if my purpose for doing it isn't only to get laid, it still can have a purpose and it is not necessarily 'wronger' than the more 'justifiable' reasons to get l.. married.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by wdlove
I have seen a lot of teenage girls dressed like that here in Boston while while the MBTA. They seem to see just how low they can wear the slacks or how high the panties can be worn.

My suggestion would be to stop looking so much at teenaged girls.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by shadowfax
more knowledge about what? do kids (teens) really know how treating sex casually will affect them?
No.

Only in eyes of the president does Sex Ed create more kids from having sex. Sex Ed (as boring as it is) is usefull to try to scare kids away from sex, or atleast take healthier ways in doing so if and when it happens.

Sex Ed can give you insight into your body, its functions, and the physical risks sex can place you in, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell me that it gives you insight into your psyche and how sex will affect you in that respect. and speaking of respect, i think that's really the issue at stake. why would you abstain from having sex without making a commitment? because you respect the person you want to sleep with, whether you respect yourself or not. that respect bit is just my opinion, though, maybe.

Gah, brining myself back into this it shaped my mind differently.

Its a choice, atleast you know know there are choices. If you pick one of the other is your way of choosing.

Originally posted by Kyle?
MrMacMan, sometimes divorce is a sad necessity, and as illustrated in your dad's case, the individual initiating the divorce is not always the one to blame. But when marriages fail it's always serious. So maybe I'm too altruistic, but I sure wish people would think seriously about what they're doing before ever considering marriage.
I'l typing right now, I am a product of a Fine Marriage.

How was my dad to know that his wife would defend his son so much that it led to the marriages demise.

Originally posted by pseudobrit
My suggestion would be to stop looking so much at teenaged girls.
Excuse me...

PWNED!

;)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
right shadowfax. i don't understand marriage, as when i was 18 years and one day i walked to the church registries and signed a paper to sign me off from anything that has to do with any church (not just catholic). love is love. you don't need to make love with someone to love him/her/them. i don't understand marriage you say, but according to the same statement i would like to suggest maybe you don't completely understand sex: it is not only (in) the marriage. i do plan to get married, and for a purpose. if my purpose for doing it isn't only to get laid, it still can have a purpose and it is not necessarily 'wronger' than the more 'justifiable' reasons to get l.. married. no, sex is not "only in marriage." it doesn't take more than a 10 second survey of television to observe that. whether sex is "good" without marriage (read for anyone who must connect marriage with religion: without permanent commitment) is not something you have gone on to explain. and as to "marrying to get laid," that's asinine. and i never even remotely suggested that that was what sex was for. good sex is inseperable from love. love, however, is neither defined by nor limited by sex. and it doesn't always have to include sex. sure. i never disagreed with that. but sex without love is base and foolish. you send signals to people without meaning it, and can hurt them severely. are you seeing the high school guy that tells his girlfriend he loves her so he can get some, and then dumps her the next day? that lack of respect, that treating sex as just a physical feeling you can extract from anyone you can get it from, is wrong.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Excuse me...

PWNED!

;) like a dutch boy :eek:

[QCassidy352]

I grew up in a family of eight kids where my father discussed the pros and cons of premarital sex. Every one of us decided to wait until marriage to jump into the sack. Six of us eight are happily married, and the other two are still dating, etc. I'm going on 13 years of a happy marriage with 3 kids to boot. So something about this must be working right.


sorry, but that's called a case study, and it isn't proof of anything.

Try as I might, I just can't see this "no sex until marriage" stuff as anything but well... rubbish.

i don't think humans were designed to just give themselves to one another in an act of sensuality and then split.

Actually, marriage is the artificial human construction, not extramarital sex. If humans acted "naturally," i.e. like the apes that we are so closely related to, people would have many sexual partners and it would be no big deal.

i think that that act of sex is an intimate physical expression of a lasting love, one that is properly expressed by making the commitment of marriage.

and I think sex is a biological process that evolution has made pleasurable so that humans will want to engage in it and perpetuate the species.

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by shadowfax
good sex is inseperable from love. ... but sex without love is base and foolish. you send signals to people without meaning it, and can hurt them severely. are you seeing the high school guy that tells his girlfriend he loves her so he can get some, and then dumps her the next day? that lack of respect, that treating sex as just a physical feeling you can extract from anyone you can get it from, is wrong.

sorry, no way. First, good sex is not inseparable from love. It's just not.

Second, sex without love is *not* "base." This is one of the great lies of human civilization: that sex is dirty and wrong. No, it's not. If two people have sex with each other because they both want to, how is that wrong, totally regardless of whether or not they are married?

Now, if you dishonestly use someone to get sex, that's wrong because someone is getting hurt. Just as it would be wrong to dishonestly use someone to get other sorts of favors. But it's not the sex that is bad, only the dishonesty and manipulation.

ps. sorry for the double post, didn't see shadowfax's later reply when I wrote the first one.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by shadowfax
good sex is inseperable from love. love, however, is neither defined by nor limited by sex. and it doesn't always have to include sex. sure. i never disagreed with that. but sex without love is base and foolish. you send signals to people without meaning it, and can hurt them severely. are you seeing the high school guy that tells his girlfriend he loves her so he can get some, and then dumps her the next day? that lack of respect, that treating sex as just a physical feeling you can extract from anyone you can get it from, is wrong.

well well. i think love can be completely separable from making love: i can love someone, and even passionately and still decide to not have or just not want to get in any sense sexually involved with it.

a better example of the lack of respect would be the prostitutes. i'm not against them, they serve a purpose but all the men i know that frequent them, are either married or long-term committed to someone.

sex without love? some people are married and still have sex with each other! :eek: (joking). well. even if my points in this topic seem really far from yours, i would not make love with anyone unless i love them. at least on that moment. what happens later in the life you never know, you can die or or whatever.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
sorry, no way. First, good sex is not inseparable from love. It's just not. you should come join our debate about fundamentalism in the poli forum ;)Second, sex without love is *not* "base." This is one of the great lies of human civilization: that sex is dirty and wrong. No, it's not. If two people have sex with each other because they both want to, how is that wrong, totally regardless of whether or not they are married? i see you have defined morality without logic, based rather on darwinistic interpretations of human origin. i disagree with you at the very base of your conception of existence; humans are not just a step up from apes, just another animal. so i'm not even going to waste our time debating sex or nature with you... i hope you feel the same way :)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
well well. i think love can be completely separable from making love: i can love someone, and even passionately and still decide to not have or just not want to get in any sense sexually involved with it.that's exactly what i said--you don't have to love someone erotically to love them. there is platonic love as well. my point was, that having sex without love--sex devoid of love, not love devoid of sex, do you understand?--is wrong and cheap. like frequenting a prostitute.a better example of the lack of respect would be the prostitutes. i'm not against them, they serve a purpose but all the men i know that frequent them, are either married or long-term committed to someone. it's not a better example, it's just another one. sex without love? some people are married and still have sex with each other! :eek: (joking). well. even if my points in this topic seem really far from yours, i would not make love with anyone unless i love them. at least on that moment. what happens later in the life you never know, you can die or or whatever. i have to say, you can ruin marriage too--marriage without love is irksome! as to "what happens later," death is different from "changing your mind with the wind." true love, the kind that truly warrants sex, is constant. death is a separation that love transcends as well, but obviously you can't continue a relationship of any kind after that.

[Giaguara]

Well. Sometimes you can truly love someone, and you will not be separated but still by simply growing apart. That happened to my sister's marriage. They loved each other but after years they were aliens to each other.

[Giaguara]

Oh - some want to prevent this growing apart .. "you can't ever change". I remember a horrible song with a title something like that (not in english). it may prevent falling apart because of not falling in love with someone else etc .. but not be able to change ever? that is so cruel. if someone loves me they better let me change.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
Oh - some want to prevent this growing apart .. "you can't ever change". I remember a horrible song with a title something like that (not in english). it may prevent falling apart because of not falling in love with someone else etc .. but not be able to change ever? that is so cruel. if someone loves me they better let me change. Originally posted by the Bard
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved. hehehe....

eat that, QCassidy ;)
biological interpretations of human morality are so limited and ugly compared to things like this.

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by shadowfax

biological interpretations of human morality are so limited and ugly compared to things like this.

Certainly. But just because something is ugly doesn't make it wrong.

you should come join our debate about fundamentalism in the poli forum

ha, I had kinda sworn off of the politcal forum, as it used to eat all of my time ;) , but fundamentalism is right up there on the list of debates that I just can't say no to. ;) So maybe I will check it out; thanks.

i see you have defined morality without logic, based rather on darwinistic interpretations of human origin. i disagree with you at the very base of your conception of existence; humans are not just a step up from apes, just another animal. so i'm not even going to waste our time debating sex or nature with you... i hope you feel the same way

I strongly disagree with you about the nature of human existance, but indeed, to have that discussion would be fairly pointless, not to mention well off topic.

I am going to defend myself on one other point however. You say that I have defined morality based on darwinian philosophy and without logic; neither part of that assertion is correct.

My understanding of human nature is darwinian, but my morality is not (and I'm not sure where you got that). Darwinian morality is "survival of the fittest," which is not what I believe is right.

My morality is perfectly logical: nothing is immoral except in so far as it does harm to another person. This idea is in no way based on evolutionary theory. Whether humans are glorified apes or higher beings makes no difference.

I see your morality as the entirely illogical one. You say that sex devoid of love is "wrong and cheap," but I doubt you can tell me *why* it is so. Any time I tell someone that something is wrong, I can also tell them why: because it does harm to a person. You may not agree with my definition of morality, but surely you can see the logic?

I honestly can't see the reason that you think sex without love is wrong. To assert a truth in the absence of a reason is the antithesis of logic; it is dogma.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
I am going to defend myself on one other point however. You say that I have defined morality based on darwinian philosophy and without logic; neither part of that assertion is correct.i don't mean darwinian as "survival of the fittest" so much as "anything goes; do as you please."My understanding of human nature is darwinian, but my morality is not (and I'm not sure where you got that). Darwinian morality is "survival of the fittest," which is not what I believe is right.

My morality is perfectly logical: nothing is immoral except in so far as it does harm to another person. This idea is in no way based on evolutionary theory. Whether humans are glorified apes or higher beings makes no difference.the only thing that makes that illogical is that it's based on an unknowable. how do you know "what does harm to another person?" e.g.: you want to have sex. you're with a woman. she likes you, but doesn't really want to "go that far." nevertheless, liking you, and realizing that you want to, she sleeps with you, hoping maybe it will make you like her more, or something. which, of course, is not necessarily how it plays out. suppose you decide later than things aren't going to work out. you leave her. she's devastated! what did she do wrong? made a mistake? whose fault is that? hers, ultimately, yes. but wouldn't you feel like you misled her? you sure did.

the problem in this situation is that your morality, which would have condoned it ("consenting adults"), has led to a situation where both parties have done wrong, but only one party is really, thoroughly damaged. i don't see a way, within your morality, to resolve the situation.I see your morality as the entirely illogical one. You say that sex devoid of love is "wrong and cheap," but I doubt you can tell me *why* it is so. Any time I tell someone that something is wrong, I can also tell them why: because it does harm to a person. You may not agree with my definition of morality, but surely you can see the logic?i don't see the logic in your morality, again, because i think you're overconfident in your faculty of determining when harm is done to someone and by whom.

of course, you can doctor up a scheme to pass out blame in certain situations and not in others and end up with the marital laws that america's got running today...

as for the moral system that i advocate, it's logic lies in a systematic set of laws about marriage as ordained by god... of course, you're welcome to hack at the logic of believing in god, but from that axiom the rest follows quite logically.I honestly can't see the reason that you think sex without love is wrong. To assert a truth in the absence of a reason is the antithesis of logic; it is dogma. kind of like sorry, no way. First, good sex is not inseparable from love. It's just not. ;)
the reason is that sex is an intrinsically mutual, intimate activity that is as intimate as two people can get--you literally connect with someone. sex as such takes on meaning between people that they may not even realize if they are defaming the act by practicing it casually, with no care for the other person, just to get a rise from the feeling of climax. did you see Vanilla Sky? think about what Cameron Diaz said--when you sleep with someone, your body makes a commitment to them, whether you do or not. crazy as she was, i believe that she is right, that this commitment is an intrinsic aspect of sex. thus, to have sex knowing in your mind that you're not going to make good on the commitment you're letting your body make to the person you are sleeping with (read:not to have any love for the person) is to betray the person. now, in the case of the situation you cited, two people not in love having sex, the consequences of this act don't come through immediately--they betrayed each other, and as such won't feel the pain of the other's betrayal of their person for a long time, if ever. but that doesn't make it good or right.

and i don't know this from experience, but have often heard it from people who do: having sex with someone you truly love and trust makes screwing the first person you meet on the street as about pleasurable as masturbation.

maybe, though, you're better of not knowing that and thinking that's as good as it gets.

[DesterWallaboo]

Actually, marriage is the artificial human construction, not extramarital sex. If humans acted "naturally," i.e. like the apes that we are so closely related to, people would have many sexual partners and it would be no big deal.


Dang... what a great pick-up line for bars! I'll have to tuck this one away for future reference. :)

[DesterWallaboo]

Jane Austen is rolling over in her grave.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Jane Austen is rolling over in her grave.

Whoop dee do.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Whoop dee do. yeah. exactly. who cares what she thinks. only you can judge yourself, right? at least, when you do things that only affect your life.

ultimately, you do what you want with your life and accept the consequences, right? if you don't believe something is wrong and you do it, well, you'll find out at some point, when and if you have to pay for any wrong you have done. maybe you don't believe you'll ever be called to account for things. maybe you're right.

"this one's optimistic"

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Dang... what a great pick-up line for bars! I'll have to tuck this one away for future reference. :)

Won't work for me.

[vniow]

Originally posted by shadowfax
my point was, that having sex without love--sex devoid of love, not love devoid of sex, do you understand?--is wrong and cheap.

Ah well, that leaves more room for us who believe in a difference in having sex and making love, I'm going to rather enjoy my body as soon as I get over some insecurities thank you very much...

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by DesterWallaboo
Jane Austen is rolling over in her grave.

No one cares.


And can you please not post Back2Back in posts, it called edit for a reason.

:rolleyes:

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by vniow
Ah well, that leaves more room for us who believe in a difference in having sex and making love, I'm going to rather enjoy my body as soon as I get over some insecurities thank you very much... i don't understand what you're saying, v... :(

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i don't mean darwinian as "survival of the fittest" so much as "anything goes; do as you please."


again, my morality is not "do as you please," or "anything goes." But even if it were, I don't see how that has anything to do with Darwin.


the only thing that makes that illogical is that it's based on an unknowable. how do you know "what does harm to another person?"

Intent my friend, intent. Just because an action has unfortunate consequences does not mean that it was immoral of the actor to take that action in the first place. The question is whether there was *intent* to harm another person. In your example, there was no such intent, hence the action was not immoral. [though you say "you sure did (midlead her)" at the end. From your example, I don't see the intent to mislead, but if there was such an intent, then the action would be immoral.]

It doesn't matter if you *know* whether your actions will harm another person; who can *know* anything for 100% certain??

Say I have a new drug that treats depression. I do all the tests you can think of, and it seems safe. So now I sell it to the public. But it turns out that in very rare cases, which clinical trials could not detect, it kills people. There was no way for me to know this. Am I a bad person? My action certainly had negative consequences, just as in your example! So my action may have been a mistake in retrospect, but certainly you wouldn't consider me an immoral person??

the problem in this situation is that your morality, which would have condoned it ("consenting adults"), has led to a situation where both parties have done wrong, but only one party is really, thoroughly damaged. i don't see a way, within your morality, to resolve the situation.i don't see the logic in your morality, again, because i think you're overconfident in your faculty of determining when harm is done to someone and by whom.

The point of being an adult is that you make your choices and you live with the consequences. If an adult consents to have sex and later regrets it... well, that's unfortunate, but it's also life. You seem to be saying that anytime something doesn't turn out as you wanted/ planned, someone is to blame.

What if a married person has sex with his/ her spouse and later regrets is because he/ she stayed up too late, overslept, and missed work? Was that sex immoral?

as for the moral system that i advocate, it's logic lies in a systematic set of laws about marriage as ordained by god... of course, you're welcome to hack at the logic of believing in god, but from that axiom the rest follows quite logically.

well, I must admit, if you're going to the "because God says so" line of reasoning, then I really can't argue with that. :rolleyes:

kind of like ;) "sorry, no way. First, good sex is not inseparable from love. It's just not"

Nope, not like that at all. My statement has a reason behind it. I don't want to get too personal here, but let's just say that I have it on good authority that sex without love can be great.

the reason is that sex is an intrinsically mutual, intimate activity that is as intimate as two people can get--you literally connect with someone. sex as such takes on meaning between people that they may not even realize if they are defaming the act by practicing it casually, with no care for the other person, just to get a rise from the feeling of climax. did you see Vanilla Sky? think about what Cameron Diaz said--when you sleep with someone, your body makes a commitment to them, whether you do or not. crazy as she was, i believe that she is right, that this commitment is an intrinsic aspect of sex. thus, to have sex knowing in your mind that you're not going to make good on the commitment you're letting your body make to the person you are sleeping with (read:not to have any love for the person) is to betray the person. now, in the case of the situation you cited, two people not in love having sex, the consequences of this act don't come through immediately--they betrayed each other, and as such won't feel the pain of the other's betrayal of their person for a long time, if ever. but that doesn't make it good or right.

Ok, it's clear that we're not going to reach an agreement here. Once again, you are simply asserting opinions as fact. -You assert that due to mutuality and intimacy sex has inherent significance. But a boxing match is intrinsically mutual and intimate; the boxers are almost naked, sweating and bleeding together, in extremely close physical proximity. Does that make boxing inseparable from love? -You assert that commitment is an intrinsic aspect of sex. -You assert that sex without love is an act of betrayal.

But you don't have the slightest *proof* for these assertions.

and i don't know this from experience, but have often heard it from people who do: having sex with someone you truly love and trust makes screwing the first person you meet on the street as about pleasurable as masturbation.


I'm guessing you heard that from someone trying to convince you not to have premarital sex. :rolleyes:

If it were true, why would anyone have casual sex or use prositutes? Don't you think that they'd do it once, then say, "hey, I can just stay home, save some money, and have as good a time by myself." There are physical realities to sex as opposed to other forms of gratification... let's just leave it at that.


maybe, though, you're better of not knowing that and thinking that's as good as it gets.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your last sentence is a general "you" and not targeted at me specifically. But if it was targeted at me, I would say to you that you haven't the slightest idea about my life or experiences, so don't presume to tell me what I think. I never denegrated loving sex; I never said it was inferior to unloving sex, much less bad. I only said that it's not the only game in town.

Unless you post something that I really feel I must repond to, I'm going to stop debating this now. First of all because it's way too time consuming, but second of all because it's become clear that everything you believe is based on religious faith. I learned a long time ago that arguing with someone about their religious beliefs is not only pointless, but likely to cause trouble.

[vniow]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i don't understand what you're saying, v... :(

Ah well, I'm not sure if I care anywayz, MacRumors is starting to become less and less important now that I actually have a social life worth talking about and some serious issues I need to deal with so my sincerest apoligies if nothing I say makes any sense whatsoever, then again I'm not sure how much I really care so maybe it would be best to ignore me, bah.

[groovebuster]

Just one thing to think about...

The people who say that it is natural to have loads of sex outside a serious relationship and with changing partners forget one aspect when they refer to it as a basic instinct...

Sex as an instinct originally was meant for reproduction. So if I really melt it down to the argument that it is normal, then it equals: "I mate that girl, because I want to have a baby with her!"

I don't feel to elaborate for long about it, but I just want to show, that those typical arguments these days that it is just following the "stone-age program" in our backbones is not valid. In the past centuries science figured out how to avoid a pregnancy, but that doesn't change the initial meaning of the act itself if we only look at the instinct.

Things only have the value we give to them, they don't have an initial value by themselves. If Sex is consumed just like a MacPuke burger then it doesn't have a lot of value, right? The differentation between animals and humans is exactly, that animals are driven by pure instinct, humans actions are driven by instincts filtered by morals. Values are what make our lives enjoyable and make a society working.

People who endorse that sex without love can be great and is the way to go normally come out of disturbed families. They start differentiate between love and sex because they are not able to make a commitment to a person and to take the responsibility for a "full scale" relationship. (No offense intended against anyone in her!) They always need a back-door to get out.

Just one more thing! ;)

Sex is never 100% safe. Considering that it is unreasonable to have sex with a person you are not deeply commited to. A one-night-stand which results in a baby is something that happens on a daily basis. Since in my opinion abortion is not acceptable (but that's another subject) it leads to a lot of questions about the future of the kid. So in my opinion people only should have sex with a person they could imagine to have a kid with and to take the responsibility together to raise it. That normally involves two people being deeply in love with each other or being married (if they want that ritual).

That whole subject of teenagers having sex way too early is complicated. I think everybody should have Sex whenever he/she feels ready and is in a working relationship. That's not really related to age. I know a girl that is married (she is 27 now) to her boy-friend she met when she was 11. They had sex the first time when she was 12. On the other hand I know people (adults in their 30's or 40's) who (in my opinion) are still not mature enough to have sex with anybody. I think it depends more on how the kids are educated in their families and what kind of role-models the parents are. Kids only have the values that their parents are showing them iin daily life as their role-models.

And to say it is disgusting when two kids have sex is just prude. What is disgusting about it? Explanation please? Is it also disgusting when 10 y.o. girl would masturbate? Even little babies have a phase when they masturbate after they found out that it feels good to touch down there. It is just a normal part of development and there is nothing disgusting about it. What is more disgusting about it than if a 20 y.o. person is doing that? Sex is a totally normal part of our human nature, no matter at which age. Just when someone else starts to be involved it brings in responsibilities and commitments towards myself and another person that push it onto a totally different level.

FYI, I am 33, happily married, have a 2 y.o. daughter and my wife is the 3rd girl in my life I had sex with. And actually, if it would be possible, I would give a lot to make the two other sex-partners unhappen, even though they were long-term relationships. What I am sharing with my wife is so special that it still hurts me that I gave away a part of me to somebody else. I couldn't give her the 100% anymore... I guess some people will understand what I mean...

groovebuster

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Things only have the value we give to them, they don't have an initial value by themselves.

You're absolutely right. But I don't think you and I take the same significance from that statement... :eek:

People who endorse that sex without love can be great and is the way to go normally come out of disturbed families. They start differentiate between love and sex because they are not able to make a commitment to a person and to take the responsibility for a "full scale" relationship. (No offense intended against anyone in her!) They always need a back-door to get out.

You may say "no offense," but how exactly am I not supposed to take offense? That's very close to a personal attack. :mad:

It's also ************. Your argument does not logically follow. How does enjoying non-loving sex prove a lack of ability to make a commitment??

I'm capable of seeing sex as either linked to love or separate from love. Both forms can be good, but perhaps in different ways. It's not one or the other! Why is that so hard to understand?? If you can only view sex in one limited way, regardless of whether that's linked to love or separate from love, that's your loss.

[ExoticFish]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
Actually, marriage is the artificial human construction, not extramarital sex. If humans acted "naturally," i.e. like the apes that we are so closely related to, people would have many sexual partners and it would be no big deal.
[/B]

so what do you have to say about the species in the animal kingdom that ARE monogomous... did you even know that there were any? well there are! there are some species of monkey's (so which monkey's ARE we related to?), and turtles or something, and others... i'm forgetting the couple that i knew about and i'm sure there's plenty that i don't know about. so if you look at other animals that stay with one mate, where is the lame excuse about us being animals so we can sleep around if we want? I dunno... i just woke up so this may not make any sense. :p

[Rower_CPU]

We've already covered the monogamy in the animal kingdom angle...

Our culture has turned it into a social/governmental/religious institution where some species in the animal kingdom treat it as the best way to ensure the propagation of the species.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
If you can only view sex in one limited way, regardless of whether that's linked to love or separate from love, that's your loss.

See, that's the problem. You don't get that it is not a limitation from my point of view and also definately not a loss. And believe me, I am not missing anything. Is THAT so hard to understand?

It is just funny that all(!) the people I know that had a principles like you do, earlier or later became very frustrated with relationships or turned into the most monogamous people you can imagine.

A good friend of mine told me once (after she had sex with about 40 men already) that she somehow always tried to find the final kick in having sex with guys without any responsibilities. But she never was really satisfied mentally. She said that she found out over the years that good sex is not a question of technique or if the guy has a big or a small wiener, it is about getting spiritually onto a higher level with your partner. And that is only possible with somebody you know very well and that is very close to you.

To just have sex with "somebody" somehow always feels the same she said. It's always the same little game: foreplay -> shoving it in -> moving -> orgasm -> over... It's like masturbating together, but not really connecting. If you want the real thing, you only can have that with somebody you love deeply and that you know very very well.

Meanwhile she is married since 3 years and she is very happy with her husband... and she is monogamous now and since I know her pretty well, I believe her when she tells me that she never could imagine to have sex again with another guy than her husband.

So I experience exactly what she described with my wife and even though I didn't screw around because I never felt it was right, I can tell you that I just know that I could never have that kind of sex with a stranger or just somebody who's a platonic friend.

Very often people don't get, that what they see as freedom at first is actually limiting them and the other way around. Don't worry, I don't want to take away your "freedom". Do whatever you like to. But what I definately don't need from you is pity to make yourself feeling better. I'm totally happy with how it is now. Something that you don't seem to be, considering your emotional reaction... so who's loss it seems to be then?

groovebuster

P.S.: The story about my friend was just an example for many similar ones I was told over the years... Maybe we should talk in 10 or 15 years again, would be very interesting to hear your point of view then! ;)