Thanks smashnewstuff because that got me thinking, (oh dear) about how society sees any sort of sex as evil. It doesn't celebrate it as the creation of new life. The reason I think is that without sexual attraction there is no life. But religions and philosophies come and go and life goes on and on and on regardless, or shall we say it disregards religions and philosophies and the people who think them up don't like this, because they think themselves to be extremely important and therefore they generally feel undermined by sex and think it's bad.

Elfman · 06-04-06 23:04:42

blissed wrote:

smashnewstuff wrote:
I dont think a church is a place for public mastrbation
Thanks smashnewstuff because that got me thinking, (oh dear) about how society sees any sort of sex as evil. It doesn't celebrate it as the creation of new life. The reason I think is that without sexual attraction there is no life. But religions and philosophies come and go and life goes on and on and on regardless, or shall we say it disregards religions and philosophies and the people who think them up don't like this, because they think themselves to be extremely important and therefore they generally feel undermined by sex and think it's bad.

I don’t think it’s the fundamental teachings of most religions that is the problem blissed. Problem is as I see it is that over the centuries organised religions have become political organisations rather than spiritual ones. The science of politics is in getting other people to do what you want them to do and a very powerful tool in achieving this end is guilt. Since sex is one of the most powerful forces which drives our species organised religions have gone out of their way to control it. They told us how, when, why, where and with who we should do it and threatened us with damnation and excommunication if we did not comply. I feel that thankfully however things are now beginning to change as many religious organisations are taking on a more spiritual rather than a secular role. Some faiths are now blessing same-sex marriages and ordaining openly gay clergy for instance. A long way to go yet I know but you can't overturn millenia of dogma overnight.

Elfman.

msnevil · 07-04-06 05:22:05

I guess Elfman, And Blissed Can't Be paladins Then? (Perhaps Chaotic Evil. The BlackGuard. )

Myself, I'm Neutral Good. I am neither Beholden To the Church nor Government. Nor am I beholden to my own inner Goodness. Instead everything is in moderation.

Back to Angband.

cynicism · 07-04-06 09:54:53

msnevil wrote:

I guess Elfman, And Blissed Can't Be paladins Then? (Perhaps Chaotic Evil. The BlackGuard. )
Myself, I'm Neutral Good. I am neither Beholden To the Church nor Government. Nor am I beholden to my own inner Goodness. Instead everything is in moderation.
Back to Angband.

You do seem addicted to spurious use of capitalisation, though.

Elfman · 07-04-06 23:22:22

msnevil wrote:

I guess Elfman, And Blissed Can't Be paladins Then? (Perhaps Chaotic Evil. The BlackGuard. )

Lawfull good mate. I never play anything else. (Got the highest alignment and race honour in the party).

By the way. Care to guess what race my character is?

Elfman.

Last edited by Elfman (07-04-06 23:41:18)

Skwewy_Wabbitt · 08-04-06 08:34:41

I think the reason that most societies view sex as "bad," especially most Western societies, is even more fundamental than their religious traditions. I think it stems from the fact that most of these societies are typically patriarchal/male-dominated societies, which have always sought to reaffirm the supremacy of men over women. Sexuality is a powerful aspect of this culture, because in order for men to maintain control, they must reduce women to objects for their control. Objectification means that the "object" cannot, or should not, have it's own thoughts or feelings. The idea of a woman expressing herself sexually is extremely dangerous, because it gives her a degree of control that is threatening to the male power structure. Men know that if given free-reign, women can control the sexual market. Therefore, it is very important that they not be allowed to do so. The idea that a women could have sex because she wants to, and that she might choose more than one partner over the course of her life, is so deeply frightening to the male notion of control, that men have compensated for this by creating sexually repressed and intolerant societies.

Along these lines, it is, of course, perfectly condoned for a man to have sex if he wants, because it is part of the way in which he asserts his power and control. In fact, men must have sex in order to do so. It must be on their terms, or again, they feel threatened. It is a short distance from this sort of primal thinking to the process of rape, and, conversely, to the problem that men face who are not interested in sex, or sex with women.

Interestingly, the abortion debate in intricately tied to this. Why would we need abortion (in cases other than rape, or where a woman's life is in danger)? Because a woman had an unwanted pregnancy. What does that mean? It means she had sex without the intent of having a child. That is, she had sex for pleasure. Therefore, abortion is part of the continuum enabling female sexual expression, and for the old world male-dominant thinking must be stopped.

msnevil · 08-04-06 10:37:31

Me thinks skwewy don't like men unless they submit to a matriarch.

Wait, they do. Its called marriage, and we're doomed.

They get the money, They get the dog, and we get stuck paying for the Beast called "shopping."

Yeah, Patriarchical society my a$$.

"Because a woman had an unwanted pregnancy. What does that mean?"

She\he forgot to use "birth control", And if the man wants the Child. It doesn't matter. For its her body, her baby, And its All the man's fault. Or so it's Said.

And simple logic is. It takes two to tangle, Both should be responsible for the pregnacy. And abortion is a cop out for two adults being lazy and making the unborn baby suffer for thier laziness.

Of course, you all proberly didn't want to hear that. So Yah, abort the male as well. Lets kill two birds with one stone. Or perhaps play with a dildo. And forget the man.

Oh, welcome to the forum.

ElmoWatching · 09-04-06 03:38:38

Yes, welcome, wabbitt. We are getting vewwy, vewwy comfortable just speaking our minds here -- respectfully, of course. And without fear of alienating ourselves. More on that thought a little later.

msnevil wrote:

And simple logic is. It takes two to tangle, Both should be responsible for the pregnacy. And abortion is a cop out for two adults being lazy and making the unborn baby suffer for thier laziness.
Of course, you all proberly didn't want to hear that.

Actually, I'm very glad to hear that. (surprise ?)

I almost never hear the two-person and cop-out comments, except from myself. (I also rarely hear strong advocates use the word "abortion" to refer to what they're advocating -- the word is usually only used by those who strongly oppose it or who are trying to hash out a level-headed discussion. It's reassuring to hear it called what it is).

I personally do not consider abortion to be a part of female sexual expression. While its ready availabity may well appear to enable "sex for pleasure" for women, it certainly does so at least as much for men. It's yet another excuse for irresponsible men not to take responsibility for their actions, and, ironically, yet another opportunity for men to dominate a woman's life -- by insisting the woman have the abortion so that the pregnancy is not an inconvenience to the man!

I actually think the "old world male-dominated thinking" would be strongly supportive of abortion (in actuality, regardless of what gets said in public), and that is why it has had the success it has had in the U.S. At the very least, support for it would be evenly split -- it is simply too much of an advantage for those men who are already powerful.

And here's another point I rarely see brought up: why is the automatic, instinctive answer to the harmfulness of male promiscuity -- greater female promiscuity? I don't get it. If it really is all about responsibility (independent of sexual activity level or preferences), then responsibility is what should be the prime focus, not equal opportunity to be irresponsible sexually. That way, the discussion stays on productive goals most people agree on -- like avoiding the spread of diseases and avoiding unwanted pregnancies -- rather than degenerating into an "our team, their team" squabble.

I also think it's worth pointing out that all four of these comments (two to tangle, cop out / laziness, advantageous to men, and focus on preventing problems / promoting responsible behavior) do not include anywhere in them any mention of God, or any dependence on tenants founded on theology.

I think it's understandable my first "long" post is about this. I'll say more as I see fit, but I really am more interested in what other people have to say. I think discussions around topics like this would be far more productive if more people made taking a closer look their main goal.

coolbrick · 09-04-06 05:53:46

i grow very tired of the "he said, she said" means of debate.

the bottom line is that if people were more honest with each other, so many things (not just an unwanted pregnancy) would be cleared up much more easily and without any lasting harm. i think the bane of failed relationships and unwanted conceptions and gender biases all originates from a lack of communication. really, i think it's that simple (and complicated, so to speak).

men and women, with all of our differences, have one very specific thing in common: we are human beings and we are capable of making huge mistakes. once we've truly accecpted this idea, we can begin actually fixing these problems as opposed to laying more blame on the shoulders of others.

and i'll be honest - being a man presents a variety of biases on my part. for instance, i do think it's the choice of a woman when any child is born. i do not like the way marriage and divorce are handled (legally) in america. i don't really agree with many of the values of feminism. i do not particularly like it when men are always blamed for a failed relationship. but these are my own grievances. while i have these opinions and support my right to have these critiques, i understand fully that a greater debate is at large. our opinions alone rarely solve the problems.

so, in the end, let us actually be fair to each other and not bicker about who's right and who's wrong. it's getting us nowhere.

coolbrick · 09-04-06 06:04:06

ah, i forgot to address the original thread...

religion certainly has done its share to limit the pleasures and fruits of sex. but i think that it goes beyond that. sex is such an immense pleasure, and so i gather that people - as a whole - have made sex a big 'ole deal and have generated self-imposed limitations on their pleasure. religion is only one outlet. but people have always imposed limitations on themselves. for instance, the fear of the homosexual is something that exists within the religious and atheistic community. i think that alone speaks volumes about our fear of tapping into a more panoramic view of human sexuality.

msnevil · 10-04-06 05:16:45

Lindra, What represents a possible "neglect" case?

Should the State Judge Which person is viable or Not? (Please remember that many Parents who Neglect or abuse children. Chose to be parents to begin with.)

Is "Designer Babies" the wave of the future?

aven frey · 10-04-06 05:39:33

speaking of designer babies
http://www.patriciapiccinini.net/

Elfman · 10-04-06 08:57:35

coolbrick wrote:

the fear of the homosexual is something that exists within the religious and atheistic community.

Liandra wrote:

Fear of the homosexual is a societal thing, and our "western society" is grounded in Christian religious origins that atheists who fear homosexuality are obviously still linked to, whether they believe in god or not they are still raised in a society where the influence of that god and that religion is incredibly prevalent.

Being involved in community theatre I work closely with several church drama groups and personally I find virtually no evidence of homophobia in any of the religious communities that I am associated with today. I recently directed a play for one group (United Reformed) and due to the size of the cast had to bring in two actors from outside the church community. Both men are openly gay and were warmly welcomed by the rest of the cast and by the church in general. Their homosexuality was not considered relevant. Several of my gay friends of both sexes are active members of various churches and their experience is the same. I think that today (In the North of England at least) fear/prejudice of homosexuality exists mostly outside religious organisations, not within them (and I am delighted to say is definatley on the decline in general).

Elfman.

PS.
Deviating from the thread I know but I came across this song a few days ago called "Stand up for Judas" and since we are discussing religious matters and it's Easter week I just thought that I'd throw it in here. I'm not trying to make any point by the song. It just interested me (and my socialist/revolutionary leanings have always led me to have a sneaking sympathy with Judas). Sorry if I have broken any sacred forum rules by including it here. Click the hyperlink below for the lyrics.

http://www.youareatree.com/?p=2081

Last edited by Elfman (10-04-06 10:47:53)

cynicism · 10-04-06 12:03:41

Elfman wrote:

<snip>
Elfman.
PS.
Deviating from the thread I know but I came across this song a few days ago called "Stand up for Judas" and since we are discussing religious matters and it's Easter week I just thought that I'd throw it in here. I'm not trying to make any point by the song. It just interested me (and my socialist/revolutionary leanings have always led me to have a sneaking sympathy with Judas). Sorry if I have broken any sacred forum rules by including it here. Click the hyperlink below for the lyrics.
http://www.youareatree.com/?p=2081

I find it interesting that you mention this now. Are you aware of the publicity being given to a recently discovered manuscript called "The Gospel of Judas"? (apparently it's one of many "gospels" that was decried in the early centuries AD, but it sounds kinda interesting nonetheless)

Besides, I always thought Judas got the coolest songs in JC Superstar

Elfman · 10-04-06 12:29:46

cynicism wrote:

I find it interesting that you mention this now. Are you aware of the publicity being given to a recently discovered manuscript called "The Gospel of Judas"? (apparently it's one of many "gospels" that was decried in the early centuries AD, but it sounds kinda interesting nonetheless)

No I wasn't aware of this. I will have to do some google trawling. Thanks for that cynicism.

Liandra wrote:

In my opinion, neither the state, or any of you here on the forum, have the right to judge in such sweeping generalities what is a legitimate reason for a woman to have an abortion. It is a complex issue and decision for any indivual but one that is entirely their private business. If you think it is wrong then don't do it and don't ever take a chance where you may put someone in a position where they may have to do it. Other than that leave other people to their own choices and consequences.

I tend to avoid the discussion of highly emotive subjects (such as abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia for example) like the plague but I think that I must ally myself to the Liandra camp on this one. I have always believed that a person has the final jurisdiction over their own body and support a woman’s right to abortion. I do not of course condone the use of abortion as simply another method of birth control. That would be irresponsible. I do recognise that a prospective father also has rights and the problems that arise when those rights and wishes conflict with those of his “mate” are tortuous to say the least. In the majority of cases I feel I would have to side with the woman but there are no moral absolutes for me in this matter. (I certainly feel that a state has to be very careful about passing arbitrary statutes which can cause misery for a great many women).

Elfman.

Last edited by Elfman (10-04-06 13:24:05)

blissed · 10-04-06 12:50:11

msnevil wrote:

Is "Designer Babies" the wave of the future?

We have to get as many like maxie as we can
Love the site BTW http://www.patriciapiccinini.net/

Anyway, abortion is a tortured decision and if you have one and later regret it thats bad as well. You absolutely must have the right to a free choice, I know the dads views are very valid but possession here is ten tenths of the law. Anyway, if theres any love there at all, I'd say have the baby.

Well this is a forum the whole world can read and I wish some people out there wouldn't load their hate onto people who get pregnant accidentally. You might break a leg one day and I'm not going to crap on you for it.

msnevil · 11-04-06 00:38:38

Summery of positions.

Woman’s Right Vs. Personal Responsibility.

No where do I see anybody outlawing abortion.

What I do see though, Is the personal responsibility of both mother\father To take responsibility of their mistake. Weather it be Abortion, or Birth.

I don't support "forced abortions" nor do I support "elective abortions". Except by informed consent by the "Mother and Father". (Forced abortions- Incest, rape, etc)

Simple : I oppose the law that allows woman to abort babies with out the father's knowledge\Consent. And I also opposed the law that allows teens to abort babies without the parents approval.

Such a decision of Abortion is a tortured decision that should evolve all participants. Not just the mother.

Of course, such a position is used by pro advocates as a “attack” on Female sexual freedom. And the Anti as a leaping stone for the complete Ban on Abortions.

Neither willing to see the moderate position unless it benefits their own.

aven frey · 11-04-06 01:44:01

msnevil wrote:

Of course, such a position is used by pro advocates as a “attack” on Female sexual freedom.

I wouldn't say that possition believes anti abortion laws are an attack on womens sexual freedom more so an attack on womens freedom of choice and control over their own bodies, which is a very different thing.

whoops I just re read that. All fixed now.

Last edited by max (11-04-06 06:26:48)

blissed · 11-04-06 03:32:57

msnevil wrote:

Simple : I oppose the law that allows woman to abort babies with out the father's knowledge\Consent. And I also opposed the law that allows teens to abort babies without the parents approval.
Such a decision of Abortion is a tortured decision that should evolve all participants. Not just the mother.

I see parents who go shoplifting, hiding the goods in the back of their childs push chair. When you have the title parent it's assumed your responsible but thats very often not true. So what ever their ideology or religious or moral values I wouldn't give them the right to force their 14 year old daughter to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want. The arguments for having a child where there's someone to love and care for them are strong enough, So I think it's better they use those arguments to try and persuade her along with a secular state care worker who can advise her independently too.

All the participants have the right to be heard, but I think it's the mother who has the basic human right to decide what she wants to do with her own body, or her life.

Just my 22 cents.

.

Last edited by blissed (11-04-06 03:39:33)

dauphinb · 11-04-06 05:23:47

Elfman wrote:

I think that today (In the North of England at least) fear/prejudice of homosexuality exists mostly outside religious organisations, not within them (and I am delighted to say is definatley on the decline in general).

I think, sadly, that it's different in the U.S., on both counts. I'm afraid we still have a great deal of homophobia (witness the debates over gay marriage in recent years), and much of the push for restrictions not only on gays but also on all sorts of sexual expression comes largely from the so-called "religious right."

That's not to say all American Christians support sexual repression, of course: Many are decent, tolerant folks, and many are politically liberal. But when you do hear anti-sex politics... whether it's anti-gay rights, or opposition to sex education in schools, or restricting the rights of unmarried partners, or banning sex toys and porn... it invariably comes wrapped in a cloak of alleged godliness. And don't even get me started on abortion politics in the U.S.

msnevil · 11-04-06 06:31:06

""""""All the participants have the right to be heard, but I think it's the mother who has the basic human right to decide what she wants to do with her own body, or her life.""""""""

Agreed, The woman should have the final say. But the others should be allowed to speak!

Elfman · 11-04-06 11:30:45

dauphinb wrote:

That's not to say all American Christians support sexual repression, of course: Many are decent, tolerant folks, and many are politically liberal. But when you do hear anti-sex politics... whether it's anti-gay rights, or opposition to sex education in schools, or restricting the rights of unmarried partners, or banning sex toys and porn... it invariably comes wrapped in a cloak of alleged godliness. And don't even get me started on abortion politics in the U.S.

I realised at a fairly early age that the people to fear most in this world are those who KNOW that they are right. A beleif in Moral and ethical certainty (whether based on a religious faith or not) is a dangerous thing. It is capable of gassing jews, enslaving Africans, burning heretics, suppressing human rights and perpetrating acts of terrorism. In nearly forty years of political and social activism I have marched against the war in Vietnam and for womens and gay rights, Fought facists on the the streets of Britain and actively campaigned as a member of Amnesty International. In all of these struggles I have fought the same enemy. A beleif in moral certainty and ethical superiority.

Elfman.

blissed · 11-04-06 13:25:24

blissed wrote:

So I think it's better they use those arguments to try and persuade her along with a secular state care worker who can advise her independently too.
All the participants have the right to be heard, but I think it's the mother who has the basic human right to decide what she wants to do with her own body, or her life.

That's what I had in mind. Whether that would be strong enough to take care of any bullying, would depend on the skill of the social worker I think.

blissed · 11-04-06 14:32:42

I might be wrong but I think you might have misunderstood me a bit, Anyway this is what I said earlier in the thread just to clarify.

blissed wrote:

All the participants have the right to be heard, but I think it's the mother who has the basic human right to decide what she wants to do with her own body, or her life.

So I think any law that forces someone to have a child is obscene.

I think it's how she can make a free and fair decision that's the aim. Social workers are nearly always involved and if I was a social worker I would advise her to make her decision in another environment away from where she lives (and this isn't a flippant suggestion) possibly to stay at a Buddhist commune for a while prior to any op. where she can stay for free and make her decision without being got at by any interested party. Actually there are 2 Buddhist communes less than a mile from me. They get laughed at, but their some of the few people who aren't trying to make money out of you or conquer your mind.

Last edited by blissed (11-04-06 16:15:24)

blissed · 12-04-06 02:02:17

Thats true. I'm using "right to be heard" as a figure of speech really as in "it's only fair" that they should be heard. But in practice their usually gonna be living with the person who's pregnant anyway. It's much better if everyone is amicable, but if theres lots of ill feeling, thats where if a persons under 16 a social worker could have the the right of guardianship so that someone could leave a bad environment and be in a good, peaceful one to make their decision. I haven't got a clue what happens in real life though, this is all my wishful thinking. and I have got an acquaintance who's a social worker too, so when I see him about, I might ask him about this one.

OMG 8 spell checks

acquaintance
decision
speech (speach)
amicable
environment
guardianship
wishful (wishfull)
peaceful

Is that a record, or has anyone done any worse than that

.

Last edited by blissed (12-04-06 02:05:26)

#1 06-04-06 19:18:59

Sex

#2 06-04-06 23:04:42

Re: Sex

#3 07-04-06 05:22:05

Re: Sex

#4 07-04-06 09:54:53

Re: Sex

#5 07-04-06 23:22:22

Re: Sex

#6 08-04-06 08:34:41

Re: Sex

#7 08-04-06 10:37:31

Re: Sex

#8 09-04-06 03:38:38

Re: Sex

#9 09-04-06 05:53:46

Re: Sex

#10 09-04-06 06:04:06

Re: Sex

#11 10-04-06 05:16:45

Re: Sex

#12 10-04-06 05:39:33

Re: Sex

#13 10-04-06 08:57:35

Re: Sex

#14 10-04-06 12:03:41

Re: Sex

#15 10-04-06 12:29:46

Re: Sex

#16 10-04-06 12:50:11

Re: Sex

#17 11-04-06 00:38:38

Re: Sex

#18 11-04-06 01:44:01

Re: Sex

#19 11-04-06 03:32:57

Re: Sex

#20 11-04-06 05:23:47

Re: Sex

#21 11-04-06 06:31:06

Re: Sex

#22 11-04-06 11:30:45

Re: Sex

#23 11-04-06 13:25:24

Re: Sex

#24 11-04-06 14:32:42

Re: Sex

#25 12-04-06 02:02:17

Re: Sex

Board footer