If someone says the term "sex-positive" on more time...

[Briareos]

I'M GOING TO SHOOT THEM IN THE FACE.. YOU HEARD ME IN THE FACE!!!!!

no this isn't freudian in any way nope not in any way whatsoever no freudian conotations here nope no siree IN THE FACE!!!

[Michael P]

"Sex-positive."

[PatrickG]

You're being a bit sexpository here.

Could you cut through all the sexposition and get to the point?

[Reverend Smooth]

Why so negative about sex, Briareos? ^^ Be positive!

[Tommy]

I have tested positive for Sexlexia.;)

[Briareos]

I hate the term *pulls out a glock* it's basically a pre-emptive ad-hominem attack on people *loads in a new cartridge* who would bring up the obvious downsides to the lifestlye *aims at Michael* choices that they know in their hearts are self destructive and *BANG* don't want to face up to it. I tend to see myself as "Not dying a horrible death from pneumonia or having a bunch of illegitimate children running around-positive". *looks at the bottom of his shoes* ick... *wipes bottom of shoe on curb*

[Reverend Smooth]

I like my sex-positive lifestyle and it's been nothing but (sex) positive. :3 Just because you can't handle the sex-positive lifestyle doesn't make it bad.

[Tommy]

I like my sex-positive lifestyle and it's been nothing but (sex) positive. :3 Just because you can't handle the sex-positive lifestyle doesn't make it bad.

Are you a member of the Sex-Men? Can I join?

[Reverend Smooth]

Sure! ^__^

[Tommy]

Now all we need is a bald guy in a wheelchair...

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm bald and in a wheelchair. :3

[Tommy]

I'm bald and in a wheelchair. :3

Problem solved! Let's move on to the hot red head!

[Reverend Smooth]

That would be Gail. :)

[David Bedlam]

Problem solved! Let's move on to the hot red head!

Here!

...

Okay, I'm not either, but I can get a wig, and I'll be hot when I've set myself on fire.

[the4thpip]

Someone seems to be bitter about not getting any.

[Buzz Dixon]

I like my sex-positive lifestyle and it's been nothing but (sex) positive. :3 Just because you can't handle the sex-positive lifestyle doesn't make it bad.So are you (Rev. Smooth) saying if you (rhetorical) can handle the sex-positive lifestyle that makes it good?

[the4thpip]

So are you (Rev. Smooth) saying if you (rhetorical) can handle the sex-positive lifestyle that makes it good?

It certainly shows that it is not automatically bad.

[Pia Guerra]

It seems to me those who would rather sex be a negative have issues with women enjoying themselves since it's women who suffer the most from negative views of sex (slut, slattern, slag etc).

"sex positive" means responsible, safe play between consenting adults. If you don't like it don't do it.

[Buzz Dixon]

It certainly shows that it is not automatically bad.It shows nothing of the kind. Jeffery Dahlmer could handle raping, murdering, and eating people. An ability/affinity for a behavior shows no reflection on the moral/ethical value of said behavior.

[Charles RB]

I'm bald and in a wheelchair. :3

I think Xavier's walking again at the moment.

This is, what, the sixth or seventh time he's regained the power to walk and inevitably loses it again? He must be really bored by now.

[Charles RB]

It shows nothing of the kind. Jeffery Dahlmer could handle raping, murdering, and eating people.

The difference is, if Reverend has sex with someone, they presumably consented and aren't going to die a horrible screaming death soon afterwards. That's a big difference.

Personally, I see no moral or ethical qualm with straightforward sex. Why should I?

[Reverend Smooth]

I hope that you aren't equating the definition of sex-positive with rape, murder, and cannibalism. Having been raped, I personally don't see the comparison. :)

It's good for me and a lot of people. It may be bad for Briareos (has he tried it, though?), but that doesn't mean it's bad by default, either-- though it may be bad for a lot of people.

A polyamorous, sexually-liberal lifestyle has worked out well for me because I handle my amorous relationships with honesty, integrity and respect-- same as the monogamous relationships I've been in. I didn't catch any diseases, I'm happier in this situation than I've been in any other, and I don't see the problem in pointing out that sex-positive relationships and lifestyles can indeed be healthy, fun, satisfying, and fufilling.

I've been with my husband for a decade and my girlfriend for about half that, and we seem to be going strong. Maybe we'll break up in the future, who knows? I'm a child of divorce, these things happen, though if everyone continues as they are, I don't see that happening.

I don't see how it's immoral or unethical by default, though it may be so in Briareos' belief system. :3

[Briareos]

"Sex-Positive" was a term made up by people who don't have a response to the fact that the lifestyle lived by the people who use the term has very negative consequences (High rates of VD and unplanned children). Of course sex can be a positive thing but it can be a negative one as well. There are some who wish to ignore or pretend that there can be no negative consequences to sex.

[PatrickG]

It seems to me those who would rather sex be a negative have issues with women enjoying themselves since it's women who suffer the most from negative views of sex (slut, slattern, slag etc).

"sex positive" means responsible, safe play between consenting adults. If you don't like it don't do it.

Never heard the word "slattern" before. And I always knew "slag" as relating to smelting metal and cyberpunks.

Bit shocked that I never heard these words before.

I suddenly have this weird feeling that DC has received pitches for "Green Slattern" now.

[Nick Soapdish]

It shows nothing of the kind. Jeffery Dahlmer could handle raping, murdering, and eating people. An ability/affinity for a behavior shows no reflection on the moral/ethical value of said behavior.

I'd argue that those behaviors were more representative of the idea that he wasn't handling his life very well, not that he was comfortable about it.

I think this thread is the first time that I've ever heard the phrase "sex-positive".

[Charles RB]

"Sex-Positive" was a term made up by people who don't have a response to the fact that the lifestyle lived by the people who use the term has very negative consequences (High rates of VD and unplanned children).

From what I hear, people who live that lifestyle tend to use contraceptives a lot.

And I always knew "slag" as relating to smelting metal and cyberpunks.

Bit shocked that I never heard these words before.

Slag's a British term, that's probably why.

[Reverend Smooth]

"Sex-Positive" was a term made up by people who don't have a response to the fact that the lifestyle lived by the people who use the term has very negative consequences (High rates of VD and unplanned children). I don't think that word means what you think it means. ^^

[Reverend Smooth]

Never heard the word "slattern" before. It's very victorian. XD

[Nick Soapdish]

"Sex-Positive" was a term made up by people who don't have a response to the fact that the lifestyle lived by the people who use the term has very negative consequences (High rates of VD and unplanned children). Of course sex can be a positive thing but it can be a negative one as well. There are some who wish to ignore or pretend that there can be no negative consequences to sex.

Like I said, I never heard the phrase before, but it sounds like the phrase implicitly acknowledges that there can be negative consequences to sex. It just also claims that there are positives.

Or maybe that's incidental like Dubya making a point of defining himself as a Compassionate Conservative.

[Pia Guerra]

"Sex-Positive" was a term made up by people who don't have a response to the fact that the lifestyle lived by the people who use the term has very negative consequences (High rates of VD and unplanned children). Of course sex can be a positive thing but it can be a negative one as well. There are some who wish to ignore or pretend that there can be no negative consequences to sex.

Dude, I've been sexually active for nearly 20 years now. Never gotten pregnant, never gotten an STD. Had lots of fun and interesting sex and little or no regrets (that one guy with the ponytail...ehn, it was the mid 90s).

I'm not going to pretend sex is devoid of negatives but you want to know where you find more negatives? Among self righteous prudes. These are people who can't handle their own libidos prefering to regard them as evil and therefore sex as an evil that must be fought. This results in ridiculous ideas about women being wanton seducers because it relieves the seducee from responsibility.

Get educated and get over it. It's all in your head.

[Briareos]

This is where I heard it

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/06/08/ny-asian-film-festival-lineup/

Something tells me in the movie that the characters have lots of meaningless sex.

[Briareos]

If you have to add -positive after something then it means your trying to justify it but aren't able to. I really really like burritos does that mean i'm burrito-positive?

[Briareos]

This kinda reminds me of how people for gay marriage try to compare themselves to the civil rights fight for voting rights. When blacks were trying to get equal voting rights they didn't call it black-voting. It's like the pro gay marriage people know instinctively they don't want equality they want something new created out of thin air.

[Reverend Smooth]

That's not what it means to the people who coined the term. :3

[Pia Guerra]

If you have to add -positive after something then it means your trying to justify it but aren't able to. I really really like burritos does that mean i'm burrito-positive?

Saying you were burrito-positive would imply that you knew where to draw the line with the sour cream (that stuff can be fattening). Also, that were you to share a bed with a partner that night you would limit your bean intake out of consideration for their comfort.

Careless burrito eating only brings harm to yourself and others!

[Pia Guerra]

This kinda reminds me of how people for gay marriage try to compare themselves to the civil rights fight for voting rights. When blacks were trying to get equal voting rights they didn't call it black-voting. It's like the pro gay marriage people know instinctively they don't want equality they want something new created out of thin air.

You really don't want to go there man. You are so completely in the wrong.

[Reverend Smooth]

This kinda reminds me of how people for gay marriage try to compare themselves to the civil rights fight for voting rights. Martin Luther King's wife made the comparison. So has Desmond Tutu. I think they know what they're talking about.

[Charles RB]

Something tells me in the movie that the characters have lots of meaningless sex.

I think it might be the fact it's called Dasepo Naughty Girls and the review mentions kinky sex that's giving you that impression.

[Charles RB]

Briareos may have a point - some of comicdom's greatest icons are exposed to deviancy, after all!

http://www.2000adonline.com/covers/megazine/hires/213.jpg

[Buzz Dixon]

I hope that you aren't equating the definition of sex-positive with rape, murder, and cannibalism. Having been raped, I personally don't see the comparison. :)No, I was merely pointing out that just because person A has a good experience with a certain behavior and person B has a bad experience, neither experience in and of itself proves the moral/ethical worth/detriment of the behavior in question.

It's good for me and a lot of people.That's the "40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument. For most of human history, slavery was tolerable. That does not mean slavery is morally/ethically correct.

A polyamorous, sexually-liberal lifestyle has worked out well for me because I handle my amorous relationships with honesty, integrity and respect-- same as the monogamous relationships I've been in. I didn't catch any diseases, I'm happier in this situation than I've been in any other, and I don't see the problem in pointing out that sex-positive relationships and lifestyles can indeed be healthy, fun, satisfying, and fufilling.And I smoke and drink without ill-effect (indeed, with a lot of positive effects from my POV), but I couldn't say they were morally/ethically positive acts. Conversely, if I were required medically/legally/culturally/financially to stop smoking and drinking I would and could.

[Tom]

This is where I heard it

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/06/08/ny-asian-film-festival-lineup/

Something tells me in the movie that the characters have lots of meaningless sex.

You just heard the term two days ago and this is your response to it? Jesus, I've seen some overreactions to new ideas in my time but this has got to be one of the best.

"Best," meaning "outrageously entertaining in its backwardness."

[Briareos]

no i've heard the term before. This was just the most recent time.

[Tom]

Unh-hunh.
___

[Charles RB]

That's the "40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument. For most of human history, slavery was tolerable. That does not mean slavery is morally/ethically correct.

But as with cannibalism, if you have a one-night stand or swing with someone, they're not being sold into enforced servitude to another (except in the case of BDSM fringe people who scare me). The two examples you've used - Dahmer and slavery - both have one person benefitting at the deliberate and knowing cost of another, which is where the immorality comes in. In most cases, you can't say the same about meaningless sex as both parties are getting the same thing out of it.

[Larime]

No, I was merely pointing out that just because person A has a good experience with a certain behavior and person B has a bad experience, neither experience in and of itself proves the moral/ethical worth/detriment of the behavior in question.

Except that, under no circumstances, has rape, murder and cannibalism been a beneficial act (well, cannibalism has kept plane crash survivors alive). So yes, you are equating consensual sex with rape, murder and cannibalism.

That's the "40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument. For most of human history, slavery was tolerable. That does not mean slavery is morally/ethically correct.

Cool! Now we can add slavery to the list! Work Hitler in and you have the trifecta!

And I smoke and drink without ill-effect (indeed, with a lot of positive effects from my POV), but I couldn't say they were morally/ethically positive acts. Conversely, if I were required medically/legally/culturally/financially to stop smoking and drinking I would and could.

Except that smoking and drinking damage the organs. It may not do so enough to kill every person who indulges in them, but the organ damage is simply unavoidable. Birth control, STD screening and other protective measures CAN make sex safe to those involved.

You're comparing apples to elephants.

[BlairH]

This is the first time I've ever heard the term "sex positive".

I think it's a fairly lame term. I like sex, but I'd be willing to bet that I'm not considered "sex positive" (in order to be considered "sex positive", you must obtain a certificate from the local "sexual positivist" authority. You have to pass a fairly hard sexual exam, but I hear you get a nice card and ID badge at the end of the course.) As such, it's a completely redundant and meaningless term.

By the way Bri, a Glock is a poor choice for a sidearm. Real men use Sig 220s or Colt 1911s.

[Pia Guerra]

But as with cannibalism, if you have a one-night stand or swing with someone, they're not being sold into enforced servitude to another (except in the case of BDSM fringe people who scare me). The two examples you've used - Dahmer and slavery - both have one person benefitting at the deliberate and knowing cost of another, which is where the immorality comes in. In most cases, you can't say the same about meaningless sex as both parties are getting the same thing out of it.

There's nothing enforced about the BDSM community as they are consenting adults too. And probably the safest amongst the sexually active since everything is discussed before (limitations, safe words, contraception, equipment, etc.) and after (what worked, what didn't, what would be done again).

At least try and understand a group before comparing them to truly despicable people.

[Jack Zodiac]

Dude, I've been sexually active for nearly 20 years now. Never gotten pregnant, never gotten an STD. Had lots of fun and interesting sex and little or no regrets (that one guy with the ponytail...ehn, it was the mid 90s).

:(

Get educated and get over it. It's all in your head.

Why get educated when you can overreact? Dat don't make no sayence!

[Charles RB]

There's nothing enforced about the BDSM community as they are consenting adults too.

True, the general basis is nothing's truly forced.

24/7 slavery still scares the living shit out of me though. It's scary like Steve Moffat Doctor Who's.

[Pia Guerra]

True, the general basis is nothing's truly forced.

24/7 slavery still scares the living shit out of me though. It's scary like Steve Moffat Doctor Who's.


heh.

Yeah, the 24/7 thing isn't my cuppa but those involved seem to be very happy so I'm not about to slam them.

No matter how much they'd like me to.
;)

[Cam63]

I like Bri's posts.

Dey funny.

Ha.

Ha.

Ha.

[Charles RB]

Yeah, the 24/7 thing isn't my cuppa but those involved seem to be very happy

I'd bloody hope so.

There's quite a few extreme & fringe fetishists that make me reach for a long pointy stick, just in case.

[Infra-Man]

So if there's sex-positive and sex-negative, is there sex-indifferent or sexually indifferent? The latter sounds like some people I've dated in the past.

First time I've heard the phrase "sex-positive" and I hope that this post marks the only time I'll use it.

[Corrina]

The pony people scare me.

They all looked quite happy. Just really, really, really silly.

Then again, no one is filming my sex acts for an HBO special, so perhaps I look ridiculous as well but I'll just continue to live in denial.

What were we talking about anyway? Bri is against sex for himself? Or against other people having sex and not inviting him? Or against non-married people having sex? Though he's against marriage for gays and lesbians, meaning he's for them having sex outside of marriage. Or maybe he's against them having sex at all.

Or...um...I'm lost.

What the hell did you mean, Bri?

[TomStillwell]

I'm positive I like sex. That's all that counts.

[Cam63]

The pony people scare me.

They all looked quite happy. Just really, really, really silly.

Then again, no one is filming my sex acts for an HBO special, so perhaps I look ridiculous as well but I'll just continue to live in denial.

What were we talking about anyway? Bri is against sex for himself? Or against other people having sex and not inviting him? Or against non-married people having sex? Though he's against marriage for gays and lesbians, meaning he's for them having sex outside of marriage. Or maybe he's against them having sex at all.

Or...um...I'm lost.

What the hell did you mean, Bri?

Look to The Force, Corrina....

*Closes eyes in concentration*

[Michael P]

This is where I heard it

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/06/08/ny-asian-film-festival-lineup/

Something tells me in the movie that the characters have lots of meaningless sex.

And what's wrong with that?

[Michael P]

The pony people scare me.

They all looked quite happy. Just really, really, really silly.

Then again, no one is filming my sex acts for an HBO special, so perhaps I look ridiculous as well but I'll just continue to live in denial.

I'd wager most people look ridiculous during sex. I know I do.

What were we talking about anyway? Bri is against sex for himself? Or against other people having sex and not inviting him? Or against non-married people having sex? Though he's against marriage for gays and lesbians, meaning he's for them having sex outside of marriage. Or maybe he's against them having sex at all.

Or...um...I'm lost.

What the hell did you mean, Bri?

I think he's against people enjoying sex.

[Hybrid2]

ooookay....

I have no idea what's everyone talking about here.
First time I hear the term sex-positive.

And from the site.it's just sound like there's lot's of sex in the movie.
Porn with a good storie?

[Jack Zodiac]

I'd wager most people look ridiculous during sex. I know I do.

Yeah... but most people don't wear a huge fake mustache and cowboy hate while they're having sex.

[Reverend Smooth]

Yeehaw! ^_^

[Cam63]

What didst thou calleth me !?

[Ian Boothby]

This kinda reminds me of how people for gay marriage try to compare themselves to the civil rights fight for voting rights. When blacks were trying to get equal voting rights they didn't call it black-voting. It's like the pro gay marriage people know instinctively they don't want equality they want something new created out of thin air.

They call it a civil right because it's a civil right. Nothing new is being created it's just another group of people fighting against the same old ignorance again. Too bad they have to.

It's called Sex Postitive because sex often has a negative portrayal. It makes things clearer. It makes sense as a term.

[Buzz Dixon]

The following reflects the facts in the vast majority of case; exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule:

The best environment in which to raise children is a stable marriage with two parents, one of each sex.

This has been proven time and time again.

Anything which does not foster the formation of stable marriages with two parents male/female is harmful to a culture in that it dramatically increases the chances of succeeding generations facing problems such as an inability to form long lasting relationships, a greater inclination towards drug and alcohol abuse, lower levels of education and income, and a host of other troubles as well.

The universal default for marriage in a male and female pairing. Societies and cultures that have permitted alternatives to this, notably polygamous cultures, are more likely to find increased problems re familial jealous and rivalries, problems of sons relating to fathers (and vice versa), and a denigration of the value of women as individuals.

When a culture encourages (not "enforces") sexual relations to be expressed solely in the context of marriage, it increases the moral, emotional, and spiritual value of sexual relations. Furthermore, it encourages such relations to be expressed in an emotional bond of love, which in turn encourages and bolsters the strength of that love.

The greater the true love between two parents, the more stable their relationship, the better home environment for their children, the better chances the future generation has.

When a culture denigrates marriage it puts future generations at risk, and hence the culture itself.

When a culture denigrates love, it puts the immediate generation at risk.

Casual sex (i.e., sexual relations purely for the purpose of pleasure with no lasting emotional bond) is not beneficial to a culture. While any particular sexual act may not be the tipping point, a culture that discourages and denigrates love and marriage is retrogressing dangerously.

Just because some members of a culture can do something with no ill effects to themselves does not mean their behaviors should be encouraged or equated with acceptable cultural norms. As stated elsewhere, I smoek and drink. Smokers have less incidence of Alzheimer's than non-smokers. They has fewer stress related diseases. The number of people in their 80s and 90s who are pack-a-day smokers with no long term effects to their health is considerable.

That being said, for most people smoking presents some significant health hazards. Assume I am one of the ones who, because I am moderate in my habit, suffers no long term ill effects and in fact enjoys some positive ones. Would it be morally and ethically correct for me to encourage others to try, or for that matter to even fail to warn others of the health risks involved?

Dahmer didn't think his actions were immoral; most serial killers tell themselves their victims deserve it. He would have argued at the time he was committing them that he might actually be helping society by removing the weak and the stupid. In that aspect he was no different from Margaret Sanger.

A lot of people mock arguments that show the logical progression of "progressive" ideas ending up in the realm of Dauchau. This is because it's easier to sneer and make fun than to face the reality of where certain trains of thought inevitably lead.

[Ian Boothby]

The following reflects the facts in the vast majority of case; exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule:
.

But broad generalizations often lead to prejudice and ignorance.

Maybe two parents of opposite sexes are better in general but so what? Families are two parents, one parent, grandparents and parents, foster parents, adopted parents and so on and so on...

You can tell me all the "facts" you want about what are the best odds for a child but I know gay people who are amazing parents and straight folks who are shitty at it. I'm sure the oppostite is often true. But so what?

Children do best when they are loved and feel safe. Everything else is doesn't matter. Everything else is just justification for tradition. Tradition is just the way things have been done in the past. You can still get from New York to London by boat if you want to follow tradition but I'd say take a plane, even though I'm sure many people found that unnatural at one point (and some still do).

Things change. They change for a reason.

And ten points off for bringing up the Nazis in a debate.

[Cam63]

Gay parents rock and I raise my beer to them.

[the4thpip]

It shows nothing of the kind. Jeffery Dahlmer could handle raping, murdering, and eating people. An ability/affinity for a behavior shows no reflection on the moral/ethical value of said behavior.

Wow, what an unbelievable statement. How about an apology after you've slept on it?

[Ian Boothby]

And in defense of casual sex...

What's wrong with people giving each other pleasure? Even if there isn't what you define as love there's contact and kindness and isn't that healthy? Isn't that a good thing for people to do with each other? Connect on that level and try to make each other happy?

Now if one person expects more from the encounter than the other and it's based on a lie that's another story. But with consenting adults using protection I don't see problem.

[the4thpip]

"Sex-Positive" was a term made up by people who don't have a response to the fact that the lifestyle lived by the people who use the term has very negative consequences (High rates of VD and unplanned children).

Yes, if you are an idiot and do it in an irresponsible way. I had rather wild 20s, but I know the basics of taking care of myself, and I am probably one of the healthiest people on this board. But it sure is easier to demonize a liberated sexuality than to learn how to put on a rubber, isn't it?

[the4thpip]

But as with cannibalism, if you have a one-night stand or swing with someone, they're not being sold into enforced servitude to another (except in the case of BDSM fringe people who scare me). The two examples you've used - Dahmer and slavery - both have one person benefitting at the deliberate and knowing cost of another, which is where the immorality comes in. In most cases, you can't say the same about meaningless sex as both parties are getting the same thing out of it.

That's because he was just a vacuous statement that ineffectively tried to shame people into sharing his point of view. Right wingers do that sometimes.

He also thinks his smoking has no ill effect on him, so he clearly does not get out much, nor reads the newspaper.

[the4thpip]

The pony people scare me.

They all looked quite happy. Just really, really, really silly.

Then again, no one is filming my sex acts for an HBO special, so perhaps I look ridiculous as well but I'll just continue to live in denial.

What were we talking about anyway? Bri is against sex for himself? Or against other people having sex and not inviting him? Or against non-married people having sex? Though he's against marriage for gays and lesbians, meaning he's for them having sex outside of marriage. Or maybe he's against them having sex at all.

Or...um...I'm lost.

What the hell did you mean, Bri?

I think we should have a poll whether we want Bri to procreate or not.

[the4thpip]

The following reflects the facts in the vast majority of case; exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule:

The best environment in which to raise children is a stable marriage with two parents, one of each sex.

This has been proven time and time again.



Except that it's been disproven again and again.

As this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data.

Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges is one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, with grandparents, and with mothers' adult friends-both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.


Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Lots of info here:
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

So, what again have we proven time and time again? That you make statements that you pull out of your posterior?

[PatrickG]

They call it a civil right because it's a civil right. Nothing new is being created it's just another group of people fighting against the same old ignorance again. Too bad they have to.

It's called Sex Postitive because sex often has a negative portrayal. It makes things clearer. It makes sense as a term.

So... Basically... Sex-Positive is designed to convince all those people who slept with World of Warcraft geeks to give up their vows of celibacy and try it again?

Seriously, I've never heard anyone complain about sex or call it a bad thing. I mean, it's the best thirty seconds of most people's lives... and some people, I hear, have it almost as often as they have birthdays and Christmases.

I mean, the trembling sucks. And so does the hour and a half of crying and apologies.

But aside from that, sex is almost as good as CSI marathons on Spike, if a bit more infrequent.

I don't get where anyone would get off portraying sex in a negative way. I mean, as long as you take medicine for the warts and remember to leave a tip on her (at least, I think it's a "her") nightstand, then she won't call the cops or send her male friend in the stunning purple suit after you.

Sex is a wonderful thing!

Now... Root canals...

I hear those are better.

[Ian Boothby]

So... Basically... Sex-Positive is designed to convince all those people who slept with World of Warcraft geeks to give up their vows of celibacy and try it again?
.

What WOW players have time for sex?

[PatrickG]

What WOW players have time for sex?

Have you ever heard the term "Real Life Tuesdays"?

[PatrickG]

Also... Battleground queues... Which are coincidentally under a minute at peak hours.

You think that's any accident?

[PatrickG]

FYI: "Real Life Tuesday" is when the server goes down for maintainence and all the players cross their fingers that their add-ons and plugins still work.

Also... Blizzard shuts down the game for four hours.

[Buzz Dixon]

But broad generalizations often lead to prejudice and ignorance.

Maybe two parents of opposite sexes are better in general but so what? Families are two parents, one parent, grandparents and parents, foster parents, adopted parents and so on and so on...

You can tell me all the "facts" you want about what are the best odds for a child but I know gay people who are amazing parents and straight folks who are shitty at it. I'm sure the oppostite is often true. But so what?

Children do best when they are loved and feel safe. Everything else is doesn't matter. Everything else is just justification for tradition. Tradition is just the way things have been done in the past. You can still get from New York to London by boat if you want to follow tradition but I'd say take a plane, even though I'm sure many people found that unnatural at one point (and some still do).

Things change. They change for a reason.

And ten points off for bringing up the Nazis in a debate.When you quote someone, quote the pertinent parts. I said: "The best environment in which to raise children is a stable marriage with two parents, one of each sex."

Clearly this is not the only type of environment in which healthy (in every sense of the word) children can be raised, but it is the one which most often produces the better results.

Stable = no emotional turmoil
Marriage = a culturally sanctioned relationship that can't be ended by simply walking out
Two parents = marriage
One of each sex = a positive role model in each gender

Exceptions do no disprove the rule: You (rhetorical) can drawn into an inside straight on occasion but the smart money doesn't bet that way.

And as stated previously, the reason people like to dismiss posts in which the Nazis get mentioned is because the Nazis are the embodiment of the human will vs. moral and ethical traditions. What the Nazis wanted they got, and they did so by deliberately flouting the laws and mores of their times, either by ignoring them or repealing them with laws they liked.

What happened in Germany is the logical conclusion of doing what feels good as opposed to what is morally and ethically right. Ignore the lesson at your (rhetorical) own peril.

[Buzz Dixon]

Wow, what an unbelievable statement. How about an apology after you've slept on it?Since the statement is not in error, there is no need for an apology.

The morality of the action is not determined by the ability or emotional state of the person doing it.

A grumpy lifeguard who saves a drowning person is better than a pleasant one who lets the person drown.

A skilled marksman shooting people at random is worse than one shooting paper targets on a range.

A person liking a particular behavior, or showing a particular aptitude for said behavior does not confer a moral or ethical status on said behavior, it only show the person enjoys it and is skilled at it.

[PatrickG]

I'm gonna side with Buzz here to some extent.

People in a wheelchair are not crippled or social pariahs but it would be nice if both legs worked.

People raised by same sex parents or single parents are not unhealthy or deserving of stigma...

... But it would be nice if the biological parents were healthily involved in an intimate, familial capacity beyond sperm donor or surrogate womb.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. I fully support gay adoption.

But it sucks that people have kids they have to put up for adoption. It sucks that kids get orphaned. Ideally, gay people would never be closeted to the point of having a child with a partner of the opposite sex if they were not so inclined. And I believe that biological parents should be genuine parents in practice regardless of whether they're married to the custodial parent.

[the4thpip]

Since the statement is not in error, there is no need for an apology.



The statement doesn't even make a lot of sense, so whether or not it is in error is open to debate. The point is that you were being rude and offensive, and that is what we apologize for where I'm coming from.

[PatrickG]

Since the statement is not in error, there is no need for an apology.

The morality of the action is not determined by the ability or emotional state of the person doing it.

A grumpy lifeguard who saves a drowning person is better than a pleasant one who lets the person drown.

A skilled marksman shooting people at random is worse than one shooting paper targets on a range.

A person liking a particular behavior, or showing a particular aptitude for said behavior does not confer a moral or ethical status on said behavior, it only show the person enjoys it and is skilled at it.

To be fair, Buzz, the term IS "sex-positive" and not "sex-good".

Personally, I think most people in this world are deserving of "sex-neutered". No birth control is 100% and most of the people I see with kids, married or otherwise, seem to have more than they're qualified to parent, even if they only have one.

[Spike-X]

Forget it. Not in the mood to argue.

[PatrickG]

The statement doesn't even make a lot of sense, so whether or not it is in error is open to debate. The point is that you were being rude and offensive, and that is what we apologize for where I'm coming from.

To be fair, pip... You only apologize if you have no desire for offense not to be taken.

There's nothing universally wrong with offending people, hurting people's feelings or disagreeing with them.

However, you MAY come across as a dick on some issues if you don't care.

[Pia Guerra]

And as stated previously, the reason people like to dismiss posts in which the Nazis get mentioned is because the Nazis are the embodiment of the human will vs. moral and ethical traditions. What the Nazis wanted they got, and they did so by deliberately flouting the laws and mores of their times, either by ignoring them or repealing them with laws they liked.

What happened in Germany is the logical conclusion of doing what feels good as opposed to what is morally and ethically right. Ignore the lesson at your (rhetorical) own peril.

Actually the Nazis were crazy about tradition and if featured highly in their propaganda. Blonde, blue-eyed workers toiling the land and in the factories, bravely opposing 'threats' from the outside: gypsies, gays, money hoarding Jews, and even the drain of the elderly and infirm. They closed down the Jewish-run avant garde design houses and replaced them with quaint little shops selling the national costume of lederhosen and farmer's outfits. The risque clubs of the 30s where many of the contemporary artists of the time could be seen displaying their alternative lifestyles were shut down for the sake of traditional morals and sanctity of the family.

Every family was encouraged to have prints of Albrecht Durer's Praying Hands in their homes, and a scultp of that piece sat right on Hitler's desk.

But please by all means continue rewriting history all together. You're still dead wrong.

[Buzz Dixon]

Except that it's been disproven again and again.http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

So, what again have we proven time and time again? That you make statements that you pull out of your posterior?I have made no statements against persons with homosexual orientation being parents: I know some excellent gay and lesbian parents.

What has been proven again and again -- and in journals and studies without a political axe to grind -- is that stable marriages between two people of the opposite sex provide the best opportunities for children to grow up healthy.

It has nothing to do with the children being teased by peers; it has everything to do with the children seeing up close on a daily basis two people of the opposite sexes interacting in a civil and respectful manner to one another.

It takes us back to the inside straight analogy (no pun intended): I'm not saying one can't draw into an inside straight, I'm saying the odds favor drawing into an open straight.

Gays and lesbians can make excellent parents and raise perfectly healthy (in every sense of the word) children. So can single parents, grandparents and other relatives, divorced parents, and even strangers who adopt (formally or not) children.

Nonetheless, the best odds are with stable marriages between two people of the opposite sexes.

By definition this excludes "shitty" parents since in order to have a stable relationship one has to be able to moderate one's behavior well enough to avoid needless emotional turmoil.

[Buzz Dixon]

The statement doesn't even make a lot of sense, so whether or not it is in error is open to debate. The point is that you were being rude and offensive, and that is what we apologize for where I'm coming from.I have said nothing offense or denigrating others.

As opposed to accusing someone of "...just a vacuous statement that ineffectively tried to shame people into sharing his point of view" or "He also thinks his smoking has no ill effect on him, so he clearly does not get out much, nor reads the newspaper."

A re-reading of my posts will show nothing of the kind. You may disagree with my opinions and conclusions, but they are not vacuous. And you certainly know nothing of my intent re making such a statement.

I am intelligent enough to recognize some people are beyond shame, so attempting to motivate them through that tactic is futile.

If you don't feel you can shame people into sharing your point of view, why do you use such derogatory comments?

[Buzz Dixon]

To be fair, pip... You only apologize if you have no desire for offense not to be taken.

There's nothing universally wrong with offending people, hurting people's feelings or disagreeing with them.

However, you MAY come across as a dick on some issues if you don't care.Oh, come now, Patrick: If I say I like Burger King because its burgers are broiled instead of fried, have I done anything wrong if a MacDonald's afficinado deliberately takes offense?

The MacDonald's fan could state his or her case as to why McD offers a superior burger, even going so far as to disagree with my conclusions 100%, without feeling I have in anyway set out to cause deliberate harm or offense.

[Buzz Dixon]

The statement doesn't even make a lot of sense, so whether or not it is in error is open to debate. The point is that you were being rude and offensive, and that is what we apologize for where I'm coming from.If a person takes offense at the truth of a statement, I submit the problem lies with the offended.

I made a factual statement re stable marriages between two people of the opposite sex having the best chance of producing healthy children.

I have clarified that statement by specifying there can be healthy children raised by all sorts or people in all sorts of relationships.

The fact that B exists does not invalidate the correctness of A.

For example: People with healthy 20-20 vision do better at determining the distance of an object than people with poor eyesight and/or a single eye.

This doesn't mean that people with 20-20 eyesight can never make mistakes in judging distance, or that people with poor eyesight or a single eye are incapble of making an accurate judgment.

[PatrickG]

I think my comment may have come across as unintentionally scathing to both sides there, Buzz.

However... Using the burger analogy, sure. Some people MAY think you're a dick for saying that because they see what they perceive as a jab buried in that comment.

I don't think there's a right or wrong way for you to act.

And while I DO agree with Pip on surpirsing issues and disagree with him on other surprising issues from time to time, I do think the tack of, "You disagree with me. Apologise!" is weak and would be disturbingly so if ever directed at a real, unabashed homophobe.

I think more or less he's accusing you of being a homophobe who doesn't want to admit it and then blackmail you into agreeing with him or confessing to being a homophobe.

But it's a bit like trying to make someone choose between being a holocaust denier and a Volkswagon enthusiast in this case.

[Buzz Dixon]

Translation:

There is only one Approved way to live one's life. Anyone who does not live their life in the Approved fashion is a Bad Person and should be shunned.



Got a news flash for ya, Buzz; There are many different people in the world, and there are many different ways to live one's life.Japan and Russia are experiencing negative population growth: Their countries are aging and there are not enough children being born to replace the older ones as they die off. The same thing is happening in many places in Europe as well.

For the Europeans and the Russians, they are faced with the challenge of outside cultures that do encourage stable families moving in and drastically changing their society and values. For the Japanese, they may soon hit a point where there are not enough young people to pay the taxes to keep the apparatus of government working.

Yes, there are many different kinds of people in the world and many different ways to live one's life. Some ways result in cultures flourishing, others result in the culture dying.

[Alan Lynch]

I've never heard the phrase "sex positive" in my life. But I do like sex. Positively so.

[BnL]

I have made no statements against persons with homosexual orientation being parents: I know some excellent gay and lesbian parents.


LOL, how charitable of you. Yes, not all of those gays are bad. Some of them are ok.


What has been proven again and again -- and in journals and studies without a political axe to grind -- is that stable marriages between two people of the opposite sex provide the best opportunities for children to grow up healthy.


Actually, I've found quite the opposite to be true: there are some "scientific" "studies" on this subject that came up with the foregone conclusion that gays are bad parents (and that most gays die in their 30's, and that gays eat feces, and lots of other boogeyman horrors about gays, in order to demonize them), and fixed the research to support the claim, for political or "religious" reasons. You say there are journals and studies that make this claim though, so I hope you don't mind my asking you to supply them? Every such study I've seen has been proven illegitimate and been debunked by respected agencies, like the APA (both of them) and the ASA. Pip provided the links earlier.


It has nothing to do with the children being teased by peers; it has everything to do with the children seeing up close on a daily basis two people of the opposite sexes interacting in a civil and respectful manner to one another.


Pip's links addressed these issues as well, so it seems odd that you are ignoring them here in order to make that point. The most respected organizations have all concluded that that isn't an issue for kids raised by gay couples.


Nonetheless, the best odds are with stable marriages between two people of the opposite sexes.


As someone said earlier, I think it's more about "safe, stable homes" in general than the number or sexes of the parties involved. However, I think there's an interesting (shitty) dynamic in society, where we condemn certain things by tradition, like gay marriage/gay parenting/gayness in general, etc, and these negative images and ideas about gay people become so pervasive, that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A kid might not turn to drugs, for example, if the whole world didn't treat him or her like an outsider who has no place in society, and therefore comes to think of themselves as not being held to the same rules of society as everyone else, giving them license to act out. But no, it's easier just to demonize things based on nothing other than the fact that they make some people feel uncomfortable, because they are different from "the norm," and then point the finger after we've set them up to fail.

[Buzz Dixon]

Actually the Nazis were crazy about tradition and if featured highly in their propaganda. Blonde, blue-eyed workers toiling the land and in the factories, bravely opposing 'threats' from the outside: gypsies, gays, money hoarding Jews, and even the drain of the elderly and infirm. They closed down the Jewish-run avant garde design houses and replaced them with quaint little shops selling the national costume of lederhosen and farmer's outfits. The risque clubs of the 30s where many of the contemporary artists of the time could be seen displaying their alternative lifestyles were shut down for the sake of traditional morals and sanctity of the family.

Every family was encouraged to have prints of Albrecht Durer's Praying Hands in their homes, and a scultp of that piece sat right on Hitler's desk.

But please by all means continue rewriting history all together. You're still dead wrong.Any adequate history of the Nazis and/or WWII will show they were drastically trying to re-order German society. Sometimes they did this openly, sometimes under false colors, but the intent is clear.

Most top ranking Nazis were athiests and considered Christianity a weak, Jewish based religion (the ones who weren't athiests were neo-pagans). They recognized that the bulk of the German people were Catholic or Protestant and since they were branding communism as godless, they attempted to subvert the churches of Germany to do their bidding. (Tragically, they succeeded far more often than they failed.)

They gave lip service to traditional German families, but set up breeding programs where young women were eugenically matched with selected party members but not married to them.

German society was tolerant of the Jews prior to WWI; after the First World War anti-Semitism erupted again. Jews served in government and the military of Germany prior to the Nazis taking over; they were effectively banned from public life after that.

Once they gained control of the Reichstag (spl?) they passed laws by simply refusing to recognize opposition party members.

And they did it all so they could feel good about themselves.

[BnL]

I think more or less he's accusing you of being a homophobe who doesn't want to admit it and then blackmail you into agreeing with him or confessing to being a homophobe.

Yeah, or, you know...maybe he was genuinely offended. Because all this talk about what gay people should and shouldn't do, and how gay people are harming society, just by living their lives....well, it's not all just abstract ponderings to all of us. For some of us who are gay, this is about the lives we live every day, trying to be good people, not hurting anyone, just going about our business. And then to come here and read someone opining that I'm destroying society? It hurts like a punch in the stomach. I almost didn't even bother to post in this thread because of it, but I couldn't let it go. It's offensive because, intentional or not, it is an attack on who I am.

Fuck, man.

[PatrickG]

Thing is, I can't fault somebody for saying a child should have a parent of both genders.

In my case, I don't think that means it can't be a gay couple who raises the kid.

But the people with the plumbing to make the kid ought to own up and take some kind of parental responsibility whether they're the couple that raises the kid or not... and kids DO need strong role models from both genders, IMO.

I also think kids need strong role models from different races and backgrounds to their own too.

I don't necessarily agree with the way Buzz said certain things but the things he did say seem predominantly fair and earnest.

I'm talking about the parent thing.

The negative population growth thing...

... and this is directed more at Buzz...

Well, I'd say that has a whole lot less to do with homosexuality which is, y'know, a minority, and more to due with all kinds of awful social, political and ecological pressures coupled with adults who had mixed up childhoods and have a range of issues that keep them from breeding to survive.

Last I checked, most gay people I know are happy that straight people breed. Some breed for the sake of procreation. I know several gay males who would like biological children but can't get past the idea of asking a woman to be a surrogate mother or having sex with a woman.

So I don't think lack of breeding is a problem perpetuated by gays or that homosexuals want the species to end.

And quite frankly, this planet could stand to have about six billion less people on it as far as I'm concerned so I'm cool with negative population growth even if I do hate to see cultures die out and wars potentially erupt as relatively few people wind up sitting on resources that overcrowded countries might decide to take.

[Buzz Dixon]

BnL, people with homosexual orientation are not the problem. Heterosexuals who do not form stable relationships for the purpose of raising children are the problem. Even if every gay and lesbian person on the planet decided to become a parent and did a great job raising their kids, there still wouldn't be enough gay and lesbian families to counterbalance the damage being done by heterosexuals who don't form stable relationships.

The problem is not with your team, it's with ours.

[Charles RB]

Anything which does not foster the formation of stable marriages with two parents male/female is harmful to a culture in that it dramatically increases the chances of succeeding generations facing problems such as an inability to form long lasting relationships, a greater inclination towards drug and alcohol abuse, lower levels of education and income, and a host of other troubles as well.

Are there any statistics or studies showing that two parents/guardians of the same gender lead to those problems? I haven't seen or heard of any, and I'm seeing 4pip link to somewhere which claims there aren't any and existing studies say the opposite; I'm presuming based on this post you can link me to some studies that support you. What about statistics comparing people who were adopted by a gay couple to those who were never adopted?


Casual sex (i.e., sexual relations purely for the purpose of pleasure with no lasting emotional bond) is not beneficial to a culture.

As above - any statistics or studies showing it's actually having a negative effect? An objectively negative one? (The effect on "spirituality" is hardly objective)

Dahmer didn't think his actions were immoral; most serial killers tell themselves their victims deserve it. He would have argued at the time he was committing them that he might actually be helping society by removing the weak and the stupid.

But he killed people. He committed acts where it's immediately obvious that they're having a negative impact, as being raped, killed and eaten is a negative thing to happen to you, and there is no situation where him doing that would've not been negative. So it's not comparable.

What happened in Germany is the logical conclusion of doing what feels good as opposed to what is morally and ethically right.

Except it's not, because the Nazis condemned and banned things for reasons of them being immoral; any sort of creative art that wasn't traditional (i.e. jazz music) got banned. Very big on Traditional Family Values too, where the man works and the woman raises many babies. Traditional and traditional morality were big things for the Nazis, which didn't stop them exterminating swathes of people for not being part of that tradition.

For the Europeans and the Russians, they are faced with the challenge of outside cultures that do encourage stable families moving in and drastically changing their society and values.

There are people from those "outside cultures" (so outside we've had them here for decades!) who engage in arranged marriages, abuse of spouses & children, and "honour killings". I see no sign they're inherently more stable. You could argue that encouragement of a rigid family unit is causing its own problems, in regards to getting out of an abusive marriage (which would require either divorce, hiding, or - and this has happened - homicide).

Unless you're talking about Eastern Europeans, who AFAIK tend to come over as single individuals rather than with families for the most part.

Either way - for the most part and on average? Society in the UK hasn't changed and non-Muslims/East Europeans/Martians are behaving the same as before.

[Spike-X]

Heterosexuals who do not form stable relationships for the purpose of raising children are the problem.

Maybe some of us just aren't emotionally equipped to do so? You can't force a square peg into a round hole, and you can't force every human being on the planet to live the same way you do.

Jesus, not only am I an emotional wreck, I'm also directly to blame for the downfall of Western Civilisation? Might as well just go slash my wrists and be done with it.*
















*No, I'm not serious about that. My kids (who don't live with me becuase I'm incapable of...etc...) would miss me too much.

[PatrickG]

Maybe some of us just aren't emotionally equipped to do so? You can't force a square peg into a round hole

Your mother sure did last night...

C'Mon... We invoked Goddard's law. We worked in Nazis.

What this thread was missing was a good "your mother" slam.

[BnL]

Thing is, I can't fault somebody for saying a child should have a parent of both genders.


That's fine, as long as people aren't stating that opposite sex parents are better at raising kids than same sex parents as fact. All credible evidence contradicts that.


But the people with the plumbing to make the kid ought to own up and take some kind of parental responsibility whether they're the couple that raises the kid or not... and kids DO need strong role models from both genders, IMO.


I don't really feel like that's necessary, since the parties involved can make their own contracts and agreements that can leave everyone happy. That may include one or both biological parents having no role in raising the kid. Hey, as long as they're comfortable with it, who am I to argue?

As for kids needing "strong role models from both genders," I kind of feel like that's not as important as a lot people believe. First of all, I think it's the basis of the kind of rampant, enforced gender roles that I hate. Kids learn to treat people differently based on their sex, and instructed about what kinds of behavior they can expect from people of the same and opposite sex (and by extension, what's expected of themselves, as a member of one of those sexes). I personally find that to be an unhealthy, and potentially damaging scenario, and would rather kids choose role models based on general positive characteristics, rather than ascribing certain characteristics to each gender to aspire to. I don't see the value in placing so much emphasis on culturally constructed ideas about gender.


I also think kids need strong role models from different races and backgrounds to their own too.

Now that I agree with. :D

[BnL]

BnL, people with homosexual orientation are not the problem. Heterosexuals who do not form stable relationships for the purpose of raising children are the problem. Even if every gay and lesbian person on the planet decided to become a parent and did a great job raising their kids, there still wouldn't be enough gay and lesbian families to counterbalance the damage being done by heterosexuals who don't form stable relationships.

The problem is not with your team, it's with ours.

Well, a lot of this goes back to the whole "sex-positive" thing that started this thread. I think sex has value other than just being a means of procreation, even for straight couples. It's also a form of bonding/socialization/communication. So even if it's "casual," it doesn't have to be meaningless, or unsafe.

And yes, there are a lot of people who are very stupid about sex. People who don't protect themselves or their partners, who engage in all kinds of risky behaviors. I think this phenomenon has to do with the fact that, in America, children are being sexualized younger and younger. A few months ago, I saw a little girl in the mall, who couldn't have been older than 6, wearing low-rise jeans. Why the fuck do they even make low-rise jeans for 6-year olds? That shit is ridiculous and disgusting. But it's happening. But that's just one half of the issue. The other half, ironically, is that kids are not being properly informed about sex. There really is no more sex education in many places in this country. No honest information. Kids are just told not to have it, to wait until marriage. Empty platitudes. As you can see, that combination has been disastrous.

[Corrina]

What has been proven again and again -- and in journals and studies without a political axe to grind -- is that stable marriages between two people of the opposite sex provide the best opportunities for children to grow up healthy.



Well...define stable. :)

Marriages and families are inherently unstable, as are all relationships. They can have a grounding that makes some more stable than others but to set up a 'stable relationship between two people of different genders' as the ideal is to basically set up an ideal that most people never reach. First off, you lose half of those stable relationships to divorce.

There is no such thing as perfect parenting.

Besides which, there are not enough studies of gay and lesbian parenting, certainly not long term studies, that will allow the definitive conclusion that two parents of the same gender are less effective than parents of different genders. There are some indications this is the case in certain short term studies but to really state it as a fact, you need long term studies that follow the children of both into adulthood. And we don't have those yet.

[hellokittykat]

By the way Bri, a Glock is a poor choice for a sidearm.

Ha!
I wasn't really interested in the rest of the post, but I noticed that too!:D

[the4thpip]

What has been proven again and again -- and in journals and studies without a political axe to grind -- is that stable marriages between two people of the opposite sex provide the best opportunities for children to grow up healthy.


(...)

Nonetheless, the best odds are with stable marriages between two people of the opposite sexes.


Repeating a claim does not make it true. I already showed you studies that showed that you were wrong and that there is no scientific evidence to support your wild claims.

So please, put up or shut up. Show us where it's been proven "time and time again" other than in your head.

[Buzz Dixon]

Repeating a claim does not make it true. I already showed you studies that showed that you were wrong and that there is no scientific evidence to support your wild claims.

So please, put up or shut up. Show us where it's been proven "time and time again" other than in your head.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/index.cfm
http://www.familydynamics.net/benefitsofhealthymarriages.htm
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03J02
http://www.futureofchildren.org/newsletter2861/newsletter_show.htm?doc_id=297111
http://www.foreverfamilies.net/xml/articles/benefitsofmarriage.aspx
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8aWTc0ChKPEJ:www.bcft.co.uk/The%2520public%2520benefits%2520of%2520marriage.pd f+benefit+of+marriage+on+children&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1131/2/
http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/research/?d=%7BA502C24C-C9EC-420F-A0E3-77C579BA6440%7D
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/Pub%20Whitehead%20Testimony%20Apr%2004.htm
http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/research/research_document.asp?d=%7BEDB9144A-4647-4738-8708-524BA356817F%7D
http://www.2-in-2-1.com/university/publicbenefit/index2.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_why_marriage_is.html
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2003/Nov03/r111003a

[Buzz Dixon]

double post

[Eliseu Gouveia]

What does sex positive mean? :confused:

[Charles RB]

I'm reading the links from bottom-up.

The Michigan University one mentions married VS cohabiting parents, but doesn't have anything on same-gender parents. It also states "For never-married cohabiting Hispanic and Black mothers, marriage after the birth of a child does not provide an advantage in terms of stability", which doesn't seem to suggest marriage is inherently more stable.

The City Journal one also doesn't mention gender, just marriage - so that also doesn't seem to suggest same-gender parents are a problem. I'm also confused about this bit about "It's safer", when it mentions divorced women are more likely to be victims of abuse than married women... from former husbands. Surely that'd be a factor in the divorce, and if not surely a husband who resorts to violence post-divorce would've done so if they'd stayed together? (I wish I knew how the longer life bit works too!) The "you will make more money" bit is a bit obvious.

2-in-2-1 also has no mention of the gender of those married. It also says married stepfamilies are more likely to be abusive - that's hardly a point in favour of the stability of marriage or two-gender parents!

Continuing on, I'm finding much of the same info on each article (I presume some of them are using the same study) and I don't find anything on same-gender parents.

I also find Forever Families saying 40-50% of marriages end in divorce; this does call the studies and quoted marriage statistics into question if that many people divorce! Few people are going to go "I'm happier, richer, healthier, the kids are doing well and I'm having great sex... Better get divorced!", are they? Such a high divorce rate would suggest a large number of marriages aren't increasing happiness or stability/lack of violence (which would explain the "divorced women get hit more" thing from earlier).

Now, having skimmed through them all, unless I've accidentally skipped over lines - there's nothing on gender. It mentions marriages and two-parent families working well (if we ignore the aforementioned divorce statistics et al), but the gender of the parents are not brought in at all. What these articles are saying to me though is that gay marriage clearly must be brought in, because look how much it would apparently benefit the couple and any adopted/fostered children!

It also, as far as I can see, doesn't mention any problems resulting from married couples who swing.

[wishlish]

What has been proven again and again -- and in journals and studies without a political axe to grind -- is that stable marriages between two people of the opposite sex provide the best opportunities for children to grow up healthy.

Cite your research, Buzz, or I'm considering this to be BS. I've never seen this.

It's amazing. I never thought that the term "sex-positive" would be so controversial. And yet, the thought of people having sex and enjoying it seems to bug so many people! I've never understood why someone wants to mandate what's acceptable and what's not in someone else's sex life. As long as everyone's an adult and consenting, really, where's the harm?

[BlairH]

Ha!
I wasn't really interested in the rest of the post, but I noticed that too!:D

It's so true! I don't know why anybody would want to carry the plastic "wonder pistol" over something like a Sig or a 1911.

[Buzz Dixon]

Charles -- my position was never that same gender parents are bad, or that single parent families were bad, but that the best chance a child has for a happy future is with a stable marriage of mother and father.

(It occurs to me some people reading this thread may not be poker players, so I will explain my earlier analogy to an inside straight. A straight is five cards in sequence -- 5-6-7-8-9, f'r instance. An open straight is three or four cards in a sequence which can be completed by adding cards to either end -- 5-6-7, which can be filled out as 3-4-5-6-7, 4-5-6-7-8, or 5-6-7-8-9. An inside straight is three or four cards with a gap in the sequence -- 5-6-8-9. The odds of finding the necessary cards to complete an open straight are greater than the odds of finding the cards to fill an inside straight. It does not mean an inside straight can not be filled.)

Another poster raised a question as to how to define a stable marriage: I believe I answered elsewhere but to repeat myself, it's a relationship where the two partners can relate to one another with enough respect and civility to avoid needless emotional turmoil. It doesn't mean no disagreements or arguments but that the partners keep their feelings in balance.

[Charles RB]

Charles -- my position was never that same gender parents are bad, or that single parent families were bad, but that the best chance a child has for a happy future is with a stable marriage of mother and father.

But the quoted links don't support that, they just support that the best chance is parents in a stable marriage. There's nothing about the gender of those parents, no comparison of two-gender and same-gender parents to statistically prove the former is the better option. People for asking for statistics that supported the premise that heterosexual parents provide more stable homes than homosexual ones.

They also do have some interesting bits that most of the websites don't seem to deal with and none have much of explanation - like why black & Hispanic co-habs who marry are apparently seperating as much as those who don't, or the whole issue of divorced women being more at risk of assault (seemingly by former spouses), or why step-families are apparently more likely to be abusive.

None seem to give an answer for why, if all the statistics show marriage is the best option, so many people get divorced. Maybe the reason the statistics are like that is because of the divorce rate, people in bad marriages breaking them up so they're never surveyed?

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm reading the links from bottom-up.

The Michigan University one mentions married VS cohabiting parents, but doesn't have anything on same-gender parents. It also states "For never-married cohabiting Hispanic and Black mothers, marriage after the birth of a child does not provide an advantage in terms of stability", which doesn't seem to suggest marriage is inherently more stable.


Well, there you go.

Same-gender parents can't legally marry so obviously they're just cohabiting so obviously same-gender parent families are less stable.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. ;)

[Charles RB]

Same-gender parents can't legally marry so obviously they're just cohabiting so obviously same-gender parent families are less stable.

Therefore, we have to force through gay marriage to bring about order!

[Buzz Dixon]

Charles RB -- I agree the problem is heterosexual parents divorcing or not even getting married in the first place. We as a culture need to do something about that. Again, I refer to encouraging marriages to work as opposed to trying to enforce laws against divorce.

In order for a divorce to occur, at least one member of the marriage must be unwilling to make the necessary changes in their behavior in order for the marriage to succeed. A spouse who refuses to stop drinking, for example, or one who insists on pursuing their own interests at the cost of the other spouse or family members. Ideally divorce should be limited to the four A's: Abandonment (i.e., permanent refusal to return to a marriage), Abuse (either physical, sexual, or extreme mental cruelty), Addiction (drugs or alcohol), or adultery (unilateral behavior as opposed to consensual behavior).

Stepfamilies tend to be more abusive because often the step parent is unable or unwilling to accept the stepchildren as their own. There is a parallel to this in the animal kingdom where new alpha males will kill the cubs of the previous alpha male in the pack.

[the4thpip]

I'm reading the links from bottom-up.

The Michigan University one mentions married VS cohabiting parents, but doesn't have anything on same-gender parents. It also states "For never-married cohabiting Hispanic and Black mothers, marriage after the birth of a child does not provide an advantage in terms of stability", which doesn't seem to suggest marriage is inherently more stable.

The City Journal one also doesn't mention gender, just marriage - so that also doesn't seem to suggest same-gender parents are a problem. I'm also confused about this bit about "It's safer", when it mentions divorced women are more likely to be victims of abuse than married women... from former husbands. Surely that'd be a factor in the divorce, and if not surely a husband who resorts to violence post-divorce would've done so if they'd stayed together? (I wish I knew how the longer life bit works too!) The "you will make more money" bit is a bit obvious.

2-in-2-1 also has no mention of the gender of those married. It also says married stepfamilies are more likely to be abusive - that's hardly a point in favour of the stability of marriage or two-gender parents!

Continuing on, I'm finding much of the same info on each article (I presume some of them are using the same study) and I don't find anything on same-gender parents.

I also find Forever Families saying 40-50% of marriages end in divorce; this does call the studies and quoted marriage statistics into question if that many people divorce! Few people are going to go "I'm happier, richer, healthier, the kids are doing well and I'm having great sex... Better get divorced!", are they? Such a high divorce rate would suggest a large number of marriages aren't increasing happiness or stability/lack of violence (which would explain the "divorced women get hit more" thing from earlier).

Now, having skimmed through them all, unless I've accidentally skipped over lines - there's nothing on gender. It mentions marriages and two-parent families working well (if we ignore the aforementioned divorce statistics et al), but the gender of the parents are not brought in at all. What these articles are saying to me though is that gay marriage clearly must be brought in, because look how much it would apparently benefit the couple and any adopted/fostered children!

It also, as far as I can see, doesn't mention any problems resulting from married couples who swing.

As I said, he has nothing.

[Larime]

The problem is not with your team, it's with ours.

Charles RB -- I agree the problem is heterosexual parents divorcing or not even getting married in the first place. We as a culture need to do something about that. Again, I refer to encouraging marriages to work as opposed to trying to enforce laws against divorce.

Then let's let gays marry and adopt to help out while 'your side' gets their shit together.

[Charles RB]

Charles RB -- I agree the problem is heterosexual parents divorcing or not even getting married in the first place.

Except presumably people are getting divorced because their marriages aren't increasing happiness et al. Has there been a study comparing how people felt in continuous marriages to how those who divorced felt when married? Because I'd bet money the two conflict (explaining said divorce).

I'm also not seeing a study comparing monogamous marriages to open marriages; since the topic is about "sex-positive", those'd be relevant figures. If open marriages share the same statistics as regular ones, that would go against the idea of traditional Judeo-Christian sexual values being superior in the long-term.

Stepfamilies tend to be more abusive because often the step parent is unable or unwilling to accept the stepchildren as their own.

Which, again, doesn't say much for the idea that married parents are inherently a more stable way of raising children. Or is it only first-time marriages that this works for? (Widows and those who divorced on abuse/adultery grounds are fucked then)

Then let's let gays marry and adopt to help out while 'your side' gets their shit together.

So gay people are like the substitute Fantastic Four members?

[Larime]

So gay people are like the substitute Fantastic Four members?

Hee! No. I think gays and lesbians should (and one day will) have full marriage and adoption rights.

I'm just asking Buzz why, if it's his team that fucked marriage and families up, we don't let the other team take a shot at it.

[Pia Guerra]

What does sex positive mean? :confused:

This may have been answered already but sex positive is a relatively new term applied to erotica and porn and general sex play that is consensual and non-exploitive. Suicide Girls is a classic example where the girls let their freak flag fly and have a great time throwing off their clothes for a camera. They also make good money as they run everthing themselves.

The idea is to remove the shame from sex and make it into a positive, fun and safe activity.

Examples of negative sex are those purely for male enjoyment with no consideration for the woman's pleasure or where negative stigmas are primarily heaped on the woman so the man can get some kind of superiority kick out of screwing some girl's brains out, responsibility free. If a porn starlet needs to get really high before, during or after to take her mind of what's she's doing bareback, chances are it's negative. If the girl is giggling like crazy and obviously having a good time (and the guys are wearing condoms) chances are it's positive.

[Michael P]

This may have been answered already but sex positive is a relatively new term applied to erotica and porn and general sex play that is consensual and non-exploitive. Suicide Girls is a classic example where the girls let their freak flag fly and have a great time throwing off their clothes for a camera. They also make good money as they run everthing themselves.


Beg pardon, but no they don't.

[Jack Zodiac]

Same-gender parents can't legally marry so obviously they're just cohabiting so obviously same-gender parent families are less stable.

So, it's sort of like saying that the divorce rate among homosexuals is significantly lower than it is among heterosexuals. Plus one, homos!

[Pia Guerra]

Beg pardon, but no they don't.

So the site wasn't started by a group of models?

[Michael P]

So the site wasn't started by a group of models?

No, it was started by Sean Suhl and his girlfriend, Selina Mooney, who own the site's parent company with two other people. The models are and always have been contract employees.

[Jeff Brady]

[Drive-by snark]It's awesome to see Bri & Buzz with their heads so far up their own asses, it's coming out of their mouths again.

And that's really hard to do. Good job, guys![/drive-by snark]

[Cam63]

It's so true! I don't know why anybody would want to carry the plastic "wonder pistol" over something like a Sig or a 1911.

I'm a bit of a fan of this bad boy:

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/imgPart/Percussion_revolver_wanted_1.jpg

[Night Swordsman]

Bri and Buzz have the right to their opinions. As do all of us. It is when we stand as our opinions are the only correct ones for everyone and do anything and everything to hold all to our point of views that we are finally wrong.

Do i agree with what Bri and Buzz have said? No,but i will defend their right to say it. But launching attacks on EITHER side because of what they believe in,in EITHER direction,is where this situation is showing that it is going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

Debate the facts,in a pleasant and non-insulting manner. Seriously.
Or i will sing Barry Manilow songs.
Including Mandy.

I mean it. :evilsmile

[Charles RB]

Or i will sing Barry Manilow songs.
Including Mandy.

Do your worst, I've got an ocean between you and me! :evilsmile

[Cam63]

*Pistol whips Night several times*

[BlairH]

I'm a bit of a fan of this bad boy:


It wasn't made by the Swiss, and/or John Moses Browning (if only John Browning were Swiss, he'd have designed the best handgun ever!) so it isn't a hangun worth bothering with in my opinion!

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/sig_220.jpg

[Cam63]

That's the SAS's preferred sidearm these days.

That and the good ol' Browning Hi-Power 9mm.

[Reverend Smooth]

http://www.randymays.com/sw162502.jpg
*___* Now, that's sexy.

[Corrina]

The night goes into morning
Just another day
Happy people pass my way
I look in their eyes
And I see a memory
I never realized
How happy you made me

Oh, Mandy
You came and you gave without taking
And I sent you away
Oh, Mandy.....

Yes, yes. I have Manilow on my iPod. Doesn't everyone?

[BlairH]

http://www.randymays.com/sw162502.jpg
*___* Now, that's sexy.

Not that I'd like to be hit by a .38, but I'm of the opinion that the ol' .38 is ill suited as a personal defense round, and lacks the range and finesse of a proper sport-target shooting round (unless it's being shot from a lever-action carbine or something)

That said, a gun in the hand is worth more than 10 left at home.

My preference is for the AR15.

http://file017b.bebo.com/5/large/2007/05/16/16/11330704a4396451012b241917597l.jpg

[Cam63]

http://www.randymays.com/sw162502.jpg
*___* Now, that's sexy.

...Oh, so it WAS a gun in your pocket.

[Reverend Smooth]

...I was still happy to see you. <3

[Jeff Brady]

Bri and Buzz have the right to their opinions. As do all of us. It is when we stand as our opinions are the only correct ones for everyone and do anything and everything to hold all to our point of views that we are finally wrong.

Do i agree with what Bri and Buzz have said? No,but i will defend their right to say it. But launching attacks on EITHER side because of what they believe in,in EITHER direction,is where this situation is showing that it is going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

Debate the facts,in a pleasant and non-insulting manner. Seriously.
Or i will sing Barry Manilow songs.
Including Mandy.

I mean it. :evilsmile

Sing all ya like, Nancy. Facts are superior to opinions and beliefs.

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20070502opinions.png

[BlairH]

Yes, yes. I have Manilow on my iPod. Doesn't everyone?

Nope. I have Manilow on my Creative Zen.

[Cam63]

The night goes into morning
Just another day
Happy people pass my way
I look in their
And I see a memory
I never realized
How happy you made me

Oh, Mandy
You came and you gave without taking
And I sent you away
Oh, Mandy.....

Yes, yes. I have Manilow on my iPod. Doesn't everyone?

Well, you sound better than Night.

[Buzz Dixon]

I'm just asking Buzz why, if it's his team that fucked marriage and families up, we don't let the other team take a shot at it.First, just to make sure everybody -- even the most literal minded -- understands: The use of "your team" and "our team" is jocular and not intended as a deliberate slight.

Second, thank you for the kind offer, but alas there are not enough gays and lesbians to matter. 50% of all marriages end in divorce* so even if your team (:D ) all got married and stay married and adopted kids or had them through artificial insemination** there wouldn't be enough to make a significant dent in the real problem.


* This includes second, third, and beyond marriages as well as first marriages. Since second and third marriages have a higher rate of failure than first marriages, it may be that a smaller group of heterosexuals is screwing up the success curve by marrying and divorcing repeatedly.

** Perhaps gays who wish to marry and have children should find a similarly inclined lesbian couple to share a home with; heterosexual activity could be limited just to those times when the female/s desiring to become pregnant ovulate. The children would thus have biological parents living together in the same family home, just not sharing the same sleeping quarters.

[Ian Boothby]

All the studies don't matter to me.

As long as a child is loved and safe and has encouragement then they're going to be all right. I don't care about odds or percentages.
Loving and secure people in the child's life give the child what they need. Period.
Nothing else matters. It doesn't matter how many people raise the child, what sex they are, what religion, what sexual orientation. There is no ideal.

[Night Swordsman]

Well, you sound better than Night.

Yes,yes she does. Sigh,all the good ones are married. :p

[Reverend Smooth]

** Perhaps gays who wish to marry and have children should find a similarly inclined lesbian couple to share a home with; heterosexual activity could be limited just to those times when the female/s desiring to become pregnant ovulate. The children would thus have biological parents living together in the same family home, just not sharing the same sleeping quarters.Or, just let gays marry and they can adopt, since adoptive parents seem just as good as biological ones.

There's no need to complicate it all up with unnecessary stuff, particularly when there's an excess of unwanted kids and a dearth of hetero families who want to adopt them.

[Spike-X]

...there are not enough gays and lesbians to matter.

...until they want to get married and/or raise kids. Then it's suddenly such a huge priority that we have to pass laws and Constitutional Amendments to make sure they can't.

[the4thpip]

Oh, and here is my favorite gun:



http://www.gimpcity.com/collection/batman.jpg

I love it because it is so sex-positive. Zap!

[Cam63]

" Holy...um...You're on you own here, Bruce ! "

[hellokittykat]

The revolver is nice, not a big fan of .38s, but the sig...that's a hot gun.
Heh.

In a thread about sex, I'm getting worked up talking about guns.:rolleyes:

[Hybrid2]

Sing all ya like, Nancy. Facts are superior to opinions and beliefs.

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20070502opinions.png

LOL
Brilliant

[Charles RB]

** Perhaps gays who wish to marry and have children should find a similarly inclined lesbian couple to share a home with; heterosexual activity could be limited just to those times when the female/s desiring to become pregnant ovulate. The children would thus have biological parents living together in the same family home, just not sharing the same sleeping quarters.

Wait.

You're saying children should be born into a home where, not only are the parents not married, they actively in love with someone else whilst still living together. Presumably you view this as being beneficial to the child.

Doesn't this completely contradict everything you've been saying about the superiority of heterosexual marriages and all of the studies you've been linking to?

[Alix Harrower]

Wait.

You're saying children should be born into a home where, not only are the parents not married, they actively in love with someone else whilst still living together. Presumably you view this as being beneficial to the child.

Doesn't this completely contradict everything you've been saying about the superiority of heterosexual marriages and all of the studies you've been linking to?

NEWSFLASH: Right-winger says something that completely falls apart into a pile of contradictions and illogic after five seconds' critical thought. Film at 11!

[Buzz Dixon]

Originally Posted by Buzz Dixon View Post
** Perhaps gays who wish to marry and have children should find a similarly inclined lesbian couple to share a home with; heterosexual activity could be limited just to those times when the female/s desiring to become pregnant ovulate. The children would thus have biological parents living together in the same family home, just not sharing the same sleeping quarters.
Wait.

You're saying children should be born into a home where, not only are the parents not married, they actively in love with someone else whilst still living together. Presumably you view this as being beneficial to the child.

Doesn't this completely contradict everything you've been saying about the superiority of heterosexual marriages and all of the studies you've been linking to?I thought it would be presumptuous of me to suggest a male homosexual marry a lesbian for the purpose of producing children, even if both of them would have their regular partners living with them in the same menage-a-quatre.

After all, some might take offense at the merest suggestion marriage should be between two people of the opposite sex only...

If two gay males -- Al and Chuck -- wish to marry and have biological children, they could perhaps find a lesbian couple -- Betty and Donna -- who wish to do the same.

Al could then marry Betty and Chuck could marry Donna (or Al + Donna & Chuck + Betty; it's kinda immaterial from their POV). Al and Betty would produce biological children; Chuck and Donna would be regarded as uncle and aunt; and vice versa.

That would keep the relationships clearest, but one assumes the couples could then divorce and marry the former spouses of the other, so that we end up with a situation where there are biological children who would regard A&B as their parents, A&D as their parents, C&D as their parents, and C&B as their parents.

That might cause more confusions than it would solve...

[the4thpip]

I thought it would be presumptuous of me to suggest a male homosexual marry a lesbian for the purpose of producing children, even if both of them would have their regular partners living with them in the same menage-a-quatre.

After all, some might take offense at the merest suggestion marriage should be between two people of the opposite sex only...

How old are you again?

[Reverend Smooth]

If you're going to make accusations of offense, it should be pointed out that social consrvatives are the ones so offended by gay marriage that they are legislating against it and amending constitutions to prevent it from happening?

That's taking offense. Asking to be allowed to metaphorically drink at the same fountain is only offensive to the oversensitive.

Trying to paint people who support more than one form of marriage as taking offense to opposite-sex marriage is nonsense. What's with this repeated intellectual dishonesty? I support marrying my girlfriend, that doesn't mean I'm offended by my marriage to my husband.

Your point is so weak that you need to make stuff up instead of just outright admitting, 'Look, I just think my flavor of christianity's view on homos is that they're committing an abomination,' and being done with it.

[Reverend Smooth]

NEWSFLASH: Right-winger says something that completely falls apart into a pile of contradictions and illogic after five seconds' critical thought. Film at 11!

ZOMG LEBIANZ !!1one

[Buzz Dixon]

Rev., we have marriages and relationships falling apart and leaving millions of distressed children in their wake to create more broken marriages and relationships.

The distintegration started in the 1950s and 1960s when the philosophy most typically referred to then as "the Playboy philosophy" but now referred to as "sex-positive" began being espoused; it picked up speed with no-fault divorce. Throw in the Lee Marvin case that established the case for palimony, thus negating even that legal necessity for marriage.

Let us not feign surprise that this did not undermine the cultural foundation of marriage. Whereas prior to this marriage was regarded as something permanent that was intended to forge a new family, now it has created an idea where marriage is just a formal way of going steady.

There is no societal penalty for being a divorcee, even if you (rhetorical) are the one responsible for the marriage breaking up because of a selfish refusal to alter one's behavior for the benefit of one's spouse or children.

"Sex-positive" behavior (former called "promiscuity" but that hurt people's feelings since it sounded judgmental) has resulted in making it more and more difficult for people to bond emotionally. Not impossible, more difficult. Whereas previous the ideal of marriage held that the couple marrying should not have had partners prior to getting married (admittedly more often honored in the breach than in the observance by far too many men, and immaterial when talking about widows and widowers), now numerous sexual partners before marriage is purportedly the norm.

Doesn't make the act very special, now does it?

Let's put this in terms comic book geeks can understand:

What's more valuable, Action Comics #1 or Todd MacFarlane's Spider-Man #1?

The "sex-positive" philosophy reduces what should be the most profound physical interaction between two people to what the movie THE GRADUATE referred to as "just like shaking hands." Instead of bonding people together more closely, it tells them they should be looking for a new thrill.

It mistakes falling in love -- a good and pleasurable experience, without a doubt, and a necessary step along the way to marriage -- with the reality of love.

I have been married 33 years. My parents have been married 54. I can assure you that as topsy head-over-heels as I was in love with my wife when we were first married, and as much intimate fun as we had together, the quality of love she and I share today is vastly superior to the love we had in the 1970s.

You (rhetorical) will never understand that, much less enjoy it, if you are part of a sex-positive culture that denigrates permanent, close bonding by valuing physical intimacy over emotional intimacy.

The difference between falling in love in the 1970s and loving my wife today? The difference between striking a paper match and sitting in front of a warm, roaring fire.

As long as people are encouraged to rush about striking matches, they will never stick around long enough to bank the flames and grow a little spark into a permanent, lasting hearth.

That is why I think as a culture we need to discourage the sex-positive philosophy from being accepted as a societal norm. That is why I think we need to do everything possible to encourage marriage and to forestall divorce.

I have been to the other side. I know what awaits those who are willing to make the effort. Those who espouse sex-positive behavior are not merely denying themselves a profound and emotionally satisfying joy, they are keeping others from the same.

And of course, to say so makes me the villain of the piece in their eyes...

[Larime]

Long post about how marriage is being screwed up and his is so wonderful and everyone should do it.

According to YOU.

You. Not fact, not studies, not science. YOU.

YOU are attempting to enforce YOUR morals and what YOU think is best on everyone else.

I think swiss cheese is best on hamburgers. I've had cheddar, I've had american, but I like swiss. By putting american cheese on your burgers, you are "not merely denying yourself a profound and emotionally satisfying joy, you are keeping others from the same."

See? Look how silly that sounds.

Why is YOUR opinion SO important it should trump anyone else's?

You're not God, Buzz, and I don't think (S)he'd like you presuming to be.

[Reverend Smooth]

Um, Buzz? Larime and I have been married for over ten years and together for eleven, and so far seem unlikely to divorce. My girlfriend -- you, and people like you, have made it so I can't legally call her my wife -- has lived with us for half that time (I've known her for about eight years). We also don't seem likely to break up soon.

My heterosexual, ostensibly-monogamous parents, on the other hand, got divorced.

You are full of shit. I slept around before I got married. So what? I used protection and birth control. I slept with Larime the second day I met him in person. Yes, that fast. That quickly, senselessly, self-gratifyingly fast.

That meaninglessly fast.

We got married a year later.

I was the only one who stuck by my girlfriend as she struggled through monogamous relationship after monogamous relationship. The only person who didn't treat her like crap, tell her she was worthless, make her conform to how they thought she should be. So she came to stay with us about five years ago, like I came to visit Larime, and never left.

I've been in monogamous relationships before. They didn't work out. It's not my style. I love Larime and my love for Lii doesn't diminish that. And likewise for her.

You act like your version of a relationship is better than mine, more loving, more fulfilling. It's not. I love Larime as much as you love your wife, and I know that he loves me deeply enough to stick with me despite things like abject poverty, terminal illness, and my damaged libido.

So stop shitting on other peoples' marriages and claiming it's for the children's sake, please, and just admit that you disapprove because your religious views tell you it's wrong.

We all know that's the case. You're not fooling anyone and you're just coming off as dishonest-- and Scripture says NOT to be dishonest in Jesus' name.

[wishlish]

Let's put this in terms comic book geeks can understand:

What's more valuable, Action Comics #1 or Todd MacFarlane's Spider-Man #1?
--
As long as people are encouraged to rush about striking matches, they will never stick around long enough to bank the flames and grow a little spark into a permanent, lasting hearth.
--
That is why I think as a culture we need to discourage the sex-positive philosophy from being accepted as a societal norm. That is why I think we need to do everything possible to encourage marriage and to forestall divorce.


First of all- you're using COMIC BOOKS as an analogy to shoot down gay marriage?

And then you use matches...

By the way, the current, non-sex-positive model that the country's using? The one where gay marriage is forbidden, swinging and polygamy as looked upon as fruitloopish, and heterosexual couples get legal rights that are denied to others? The one you're championing?

Not exactly working so well.

(I also find it interesting that "sex-positive" is horrible and evil, but sexy photos of guns are A-OK. Just another example that in the US, violence > sex.)

[Reverend Smooth]

It's funny that he basically called me a slut whose relationships -- and marriage -- aren't as valuable as his.

Talk about judging others, well, unjustly. That is SO christlike. XD

[Buzz Dixon]

It's funny that he basically called me a slut whose relationships -- and marriage -- aren't as valuable as his.

Talk about judging others, well, unjustly. That is SO christlike. XDI don't know what Bible you are reading, but Christ was pretty explicit on marriage being between a single male and a single female exclusively:

Matthew 19:3-9 NIV):
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

-----

I have been keeping the Bible and theological beliefs out of this for a reason: Those are matters of the spirit and rightfully should not be imposed on others.

What can be shown and should be shown is how changing from one cultural norm to another has caused more harm than good for the culture as a whole.

[Cam63]

What would work for you in a relationship doesn't necessarily work for others and you shouldn't look down your nose at them, Buzz.

Just accept they are happy who they are.

[Buzz Dixon]

First of all- you're using COMIC BOOKS as an analogy to shoot down gay marriage?

And then you use matches...

By the way, the current, non-sex-positive model that the country's using? The one where gay marriage is forbidden, swinging and polygamy as looked upon as fruitloopish, and heterosexual couples get legal rights that are denied to others? The one you're championing?

Not exactly working so well.

(I also find it interesting that "sex-positive" is horrible and evil, but sexy photos of guns are A-OK. Just another example that in the US, violence > sex.)
In reverse order:

I didn't bring up the gun/shooting analogy used to kick off this thread.

I have posted no images of guns, nor do I find them germaine to this discussion.

My problems with the current state of heterosexual marriage and how it affects this culture is why I'm posting.

The matches analogy was to demonstrate how the transitory feeling of being in love differs from genuine, true love; having experienced both, I know and can describe the difference.

My use of comic books was not in regards to homosexual behavior but to casual sexual behavior of any stripe vs. a more meaningful relationship with just one partner.

[Reverend Smooth]

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but Christ was pretty explicit on marriage being between a single male and a single female exclusively
How long did it take you to look up that quote on the internets? Five minutes?

If you were fully versed in scripture, you'd also remember a couple other important parts that you seem intent on ignoring.

You know the one where Jesus talked down some jerks who were gonna stone an adultress? Because that was the law and he told them that they were hypocrites?

Or the bits about not judging what lies between a man and his Master?

How about planks in eyes?

Who people fuck is between themselves and God, not you. People's sins are between themselves and God, the NT talks about that several times.

But you don't seem willing to do those things. You just seem to like blaming a lot of people with false accusations, which is ALSO not scripturally-backed.

And considering that no one in my household is Christian and that Christian laws only apply to Christians, I really don't see why you should get to decide if I can marry my girlfriend or not. That's not even scripturally-backed, mans, that's just your own hubris.

You're not a good christian, not by Jesus' standards. You're just some sanctimonious fundie old guy who dun like that them thar gay kids are fucking on your lawn.

[Larime]

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but Christ was pretty explicit on marriage being between a single male and a single female exclusively:

Matthew 19:3-9 NIV):
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

-----

I have been keeping the Bible and theological beliefs out of this for a reason: Those are matters of the spirit and rightfully should not be imposed on others.

What can be shown and should be shown is how changing from one cultural norm to another has caused more harm than good for the culture as a whole.

But you have been proven wrong on that point, and ultimately you're trying to find anecdotal evidence to back up a decision you had already made beforehand.

Kind of like when we invaded Iraq.

Your decision is based ultimately on your religion. Your religion is not my religion. I am not bound by it in America.

[Buzz Dixon]

What would work for you in a relationship doesn't necessarily work for others and you shouldn't look down your nose at them, Buzz.

Just accept they are happy who they are.Using that logic, if I have benefited from wearing a seatbelt, I shouldn't tell other people to wear them?

[Reverend Smooth]

My use of comic books was not in regards to homosexual behavior but to casual sexual behavior of any stripe vs. a more meaningful relationship with just one partner.It was a bad example. Putting out early never damaged my marriage or made it less meaningful, and it's not doing so to plenty of others, either.

In fact, it seems like the highest divorce rates (http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/1_12/pages/divorce.html) occur where evangelicals (http://www.logcabin.org/lef/divorce_rates_higher_in_red_states.html?member_key =we3ge6i217nkxn5) are the most concentrated...

It ain't my house you should be trying to clean. It's yours. So far, people like me are better at marriage than your team. :3

[Buzz Dixon]

According to YOU.

You. Not fact, not studies, not science. YOU.

YOU are attempting to enforce YOUR morals and what YOU think is best on everyone else.

I think swiss cheese is best on hamburgers. I've had cheddar, I've had american, but I like swiss. By putting american cheese on your burgers, you are "not merely denying yourself a profound and emotionally satisfying joy, you are keeping others from the same."

See? Look how silly that sounds.

Why is YOUR opinion SO important it should trump anyone else's?

You're not God, Buzz, and I don't think (S)he'd like you presuming to be.First off, I have specifically said we should not create laws to be enforced but as a culture we should do what we can to encourage marriage. There is a wide variety of non-obtrusive ways of doing this.

My desire is not to stop people from doing the worse thing but to encourage them to do the better thing.

Second, not all opinions are equal in value. "I like swiss" vs. "I like cheddar" are opinions of equal value; "I think swiss cheese has more holes in it" vs. "I think cheddar has more holes in it" are opinions where one is correct and the other is not.

[Cam63]

Oh and not everyone cares to follow life's rules according to the Bible.

[Buzz Dixon]

It was a bad example. Putting out early never damaged my marriage or made it less meaningful, and it's not doing so to plenty of others, either.You'll never know, will you? That's the trouble with history: We can speculate on how things might have been different, but we can never really know.

And I am trying to clean my house -- but it's easier to do if people who don't live in it would stop tracking through it.

[Cam63]

Using that logic, if I have benefited from wearing a seatbelt, I shouldn't tell other people to wear them?

Come on, now.

You're hitting nothing but air with that silly statement.

[Reverend Smooth]

First off, I have specifically said we should not create laws to be enforced but as a culture we should do what we can to encourage marriage. Well, among straights, anyway.
My desire is not to stop people from doing the worse thing but to encourage them to do the better thing.How's your way better when my marriage seems just as solid and loving as yours? :)

Second, not all opinions are equal in value.So, even though my marriage, based on, omg, promisculous sex early on, and a nonmonogamous setup, has lasted a decade and is still very strong, it is still in some way inferior even though... we get along great, we're partners, we even work together after ten years of marriage, we love each other, and we're not likely to break up?

Wow. Not being equal sure feels awesome.

[Buzz Dixon]

Oh and not everyone cares to follow life's rules according to the Bible.I'm accutely aware of that and have not cited the Bible as a moral, ethical, or legal authority here; my post above to the Rev. was to demonstrate she was mistaken re what Christ taught on the matter.

Moving over to purely cultural terms: There are also people who don't like following traffic laws. Are they not to be held accountable for the accidents, deaths, and injuries they cause?

[Larime]

You'll never know, will you? That's the trouble with history: We can speculate on how things might have been different, but we can never really know.

And I am trying to clean my house -- but it's easier to do if people who don't live in it would stop tracking through it.

We can't help but track through it when you are determined to make everyone live under your roof.

[Reverend Smooth]

You'll never know, will you? That's the trouble with history: We can speculate on how things might have been different, but we can never really know.That's a cheesy answer. Great marriage, but 'we never know'...

...Hrm. Sweetie, if I hadn't put out, what would be different? You'd've had to wait until after we got married to know that I'm okay with the oral?

I feel so EMPTY. T_T

...Oh wait. That's just my stomach growlings for lunch. Q.Q

[Cam63]

Whooooooooooosh.

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm accutely aware of that and have not cited the Bible as a moral, ethical, or legal authority here
Yes, you have. You just couched it in pseudo-science in an attempt to try to gain more legitimacy for what are still dumb statements.

[Buzz Dixon]

Come on, now.

You're hitting nothing but air with that silly statement.How so?

My core statement has always been "the best environment in which to raise children is a stable marriage between two parents of the opposite sex."

I have specifically stated that does not preclude healthy (in all sense of the word) children from being raised in other environments.

I have never voiced an opinion on this thread re gay marriage or adoption by gays.

To say I think people should use their sexuality to bond more closely with their spouse in order to produce a better home environment for their children to grow up in is not a selfish statement. One may argue it is self-serving in the sense that I see the outcome of such behavior as being more (both numerically and percentage wise) children who will be more productive (in all senses of the word) members of society; that would help alieviate the current tax loads and/or free up tax revenues for other purposes that might benefit me, but since I have no specific agenda in that realm we'll let it slide.

But that would probably occur long past the point where I would be able to enjoy it. For right now I'd be content if we could get heterosexuals to behave better.

[Reverend Smooth]

How so?

My core statement has always been "the best environment in which to raise children is a stable marriage between two parents of the opposite sex."Prove it. :)

[Nick Soapdish]

I thought it would be presumptuous of me to suggest a male homosexual marry a lesbian for the purpose of producing children, even if both of them would have their regular partners living with them in the same menage-a-quatre.

After all, some might take offense at the merest suggestion marriage should be between two people of the opposite sex only...

If two gay males -- Al and Chuck -- wish to marry and have biological children, they could perhaps find a lesbian couple -- Betty and Donna -- who wish to do the same.

Al could then marry Betty and Chuck could marry Donna (or Al + Donna & Chuck + Betty; it's kinda immaterial from their POV). Al and Betty would produce biological children; Chuck and Donna would be regarded as uncle and aunt; and vice versa.

That would keep the relationships clearest, but one assumes the couples could then divorce and marry the former spouses of the other, so that we end up with a situation where there are biological children who would regard A&B as their parents, A&D as their parents, C&D as their parents, and C&B as their parents.

That might cause more confusions than it would solve...

Wow. I missed that bit earlier.

So you're advocating that for a more stable home environment for children, two couples should shack up together and have sex with the other couple's significant others all to ensure that the biological parents are present and that there is a two-gender parental structure?

Is this a serious suggestion or are you trying to make a point by taking something to the point of insanity or something?

Honestly, it sounds like something I would suggest when pointing out how ludicrous some of the arguments to same-sex marriage are.


How so?

My core statement has always been "the best environment in which to raise children is a stable marriage between two parents of the opposite sex."


The links that you posted before didn't back any of the statement about "opposite sex" part up.

[Cam63]

How so?

Equating others' personal preferances to driving without a seatbelt.

For right now I'd be content if we could get heterosexuals to behave better.

No argument there.

[Buzz Dixon]

That's a cheesy answer. Great marriage, but 'we never know'...

...Hrm. Sweetie, if I hadn't put out, what would be different? You'd've had to wait until after we got married to know that I'm okay with the oral?

I feel so EMPTY. T_T

...Oh wait. That's just my stomach growlings for lunch. Q.QNo one has ever suffered because they refrained from sexual activity. They may not have experienced a particular type of physical pleasure, but there are other pleasures one could enjoy instead.

Contrary wise, many people have suffered because they experienced sexual relations too early in their emotional growth and/or because they have had too many partners which has dulled the specialness of the act to them, thus making it harder to bond.

While my wife and I have enjoyed our marriage in every aspect over the years, if something happened that precluded sexual activity for us, I would still remain married to her: My love -- a thing of emotion and the spirit -- overshadows any physical aspect of our relationship.

One other thing: It is far easier for a relationship between two people to be reciprocal than a relationship among three or more. The more people involved, the greater the risk of jealousy and/or favoritism.

If you, Rev., have a relationship of that nature that works, good for you. Knowing such relationships are riskier for most people than traditional pairings, which is the better form of relationship to advocate if one desires a culture where the most children have the best shot at life?

[Nick Soapdish]

No one has ever suffered because they refrained from sexual activity. They may not have experienced a particular type of physical pleasure, but there are other pleasures one could enjoy instead.

Contrary wise, many people have suffered because they experienced sexual relations too early in their emotional growth and/or because they have had too many partners which has dulled the specialness of the act to them, thus making it harder to bond.


Actually, marriages and other relationships have broken up over just that. I think it even used to be grounds for divorce.

I think that for many people, that is exactly true that sex with too many partners may diminish the bond.

I don't think that's the case for everybody and maybe not even a majority.

[Larime]

No one has ever suffered because they refrained from sexual activity. They may not have experienced a particular type of physical pleasure, but there are other pleasures one could enjoy instead.

Contrary wise, many people have suffered because they experienced sexual relations too early in their emotional growth and/or because they have had too many partners which has dulled the specialness of the act to them, thus making it harder to bond.

Except that one reason so many evangelical (and other marriages) fail is because the couple is not sexually compatible or fulfilling to each other. It adds stress in other areas of the marriage, leads to infidelity and divorce. If they had known they weren't compatible before getting married, they wouldn't have to break up a marriage.

Or, to use the car analogies you seem to like: You don't buy a car without knowing what's under the hood and how it handles, right? :)

[Reverend Smooth]

Contrary wise, many people have suffered because they experienced sexual relations too early in their emotional growth and/or because they have had too many partners which has dulled the specialness of the act to them, thus making it harder to bond.Proof, please.

If you, Rev., have a relationship of that nature that works, good for you. Knowing such relationships are riskier for most people than traditional pairings, I've never found it so.which is the better form of relationship to advocate if one desires a culture where the most children have the best shot at life?By the numbers? Mine, if I had to choose. Evangelicals have higher divorce rates.

Of course, I -- and I am clergy, mind you -- am not the kind of person who tells people that they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they don't share my views on which big man in the sky is right.

Instead, I encourage people of all orientations and lifestyles to treat their partners with honesty, integrity, and respect.

[Buzz Dixon]

[ Originally Posted by Buzz Dixon]
For right now I'd be content if we could get heterosexuals to behave better.
No argument there.Good! See, we can agree on things!

What can be done to encourage better heterosexual marriages?

1) Encourage people to get to know their potential partners better emotionally, with a particular emphasis on their character and personalities, before getting married.

2) Encourage people to think about the long term effects of said character/personality/behavior traits; what might be cute in a 21 year old can become really tiresome in a 51 year old (my wife will verify!)

3) Encourage people not to behave in ways that put the marriage at risk: Don't abuse drugs and alcohol, absolutely do not abuse one another, be willing to work out differences, etc.

4) Encourage people not to voluntarily become pregnant out of wedlock.

5) Encourage people who are married with children to maintain as emotionally stable a home environment as possible; even if the parents are having difficulty relating to one another they need to present a secure, united front to the children (at least until they reach their later teen years).

6) Remind people that there is more to life than the pursuit of self-satisfaction, and that as spouses, parents, members of a family, and members of a culture they own a certain responsibility to others and should not lightly ignore their duty to make the world a better place for those people.

[Reverend Smooth]

I think that for many people, that is exactly true that sex with too many partners may diminish the bond.There is no such thing as too much hollandaise.

[Reverend Smooth]

and members of a cultureMost western nations pride themselves on the freedom of allowing many cultures, religions, beliefs, and lifestyles to coexist in one nation.

[Jack Zodiac]

Every one of those points isn't just applicable to heterosexual marriage. Any marital union, regardless of sexuality, could benefit from getting to know their partners better before marriage, staying away from self-destructive lifestyles such as alcoholism, or outwardly destructive characteristics like abusiveness, and to create a stable environment for that couple to grow as a family. Although I don't particularly see the need of number four as that's purely a religious ideal, the rest are all things that could help any marriage.

[Larime]

4) Encourage people not to voluntarily become pregnant out of wedlock.

Would this include condom use?

[Buzz Dixon]

Actually, marriages and other relationships have broken up over just that. I think it even used to be grounds for divorce.

I think that for many people, that is exactly true that sex with too many partners may diminish the bond.

I don't think that's the case for everybody and maybe not even a majority.After you posted this but before I read it, I made the post above listing thing heterosexuals could do to strength marriage.

Sexual compatibility can be determined prior to engaging in sexual relations. "Honey, when we get married, I want to jump up and down on pogo sticks."

"I hate pogo sticks! Is that going to be a deal breaker?"

[mulls it over] "I really do like pogo sticks, but I'll settle for a trampouline."

[mulls it over] "I don't particularly like trampoulines, either, but for you I'll bounce up and down on one. But absolutely no pogo sticks! Deal?"

"Deal."

There are any number of variations to the above: "I don't think I'd like pogo sticks but I'll try it for you; however, if I still don't like it you have to agree that we won't use them" etc.

And I will agree that a person who says "I love pogo sticks, too" when they actually don't has lied to their spouse. That (the lying) is bad, and may be grounds for divorce if there are no children involved (otherwise, the other spouse should just retire to a private place and think about pogo sticks...).

Either that or they need to learn to tolerate pogo sticks.

I will add this: If you (rhetorical) tell your potential spouse you love them but you don't want to bounce around on pogo sticks, and they say that's a deal breaker and move on, then they didn't really love you enough to deserve your love in return.

[Jack Zodiac]

Just the rhythm method, brother!

[Reverend Smooth]

Sexual compatibility can be determined prior to engaging in sexual relations. "Honey, when we get married, I want to jump up and down on pogo sticks."How would they know if they've never jumped up and down on one?

[Buzz Dixon]

Would this include condom use?Absolutely! I would prefer people prevent pregnancies from happening rather than terminate them when they occur or raise children in a less than ideal environment.

It can mean spermicides, birth control pills, vasectomies, even alternate forms of sexual intimacy.

Mind you (Larime), the preferred method of avoiding pregnancy is for you (rhetorical) not to engage in behavior that will result in pregnancy unless you are ready, willing, and able to raise a child in a stable marriage relationship. This includes close-but-no-cigar behaviors that might result in accidental pregnancy as well.

[Reverend Smooth]

Absolutely! I would prefer people prevent pregnancies from happening rather than terminate them when they occur or raise children in a less than ideal environment.Define less than ideal?

It can mean spermicides, birth control pills, vasectomies, even alternate forms of sexual intimacy....You're aware that oral, anal and handjobs count as sodomy, right?

Mind you (Larime), the preferred method of avoiding pregnancy is for you (rhetorical) not to engage in behavior that will result in pregnancy unless you are ready, willing, and able to raise a child in a stable marriage relationship. This includes close-but-no-cigar behaviors that might result in accidental pregnancy as well.Such as, say, birth control, spermicides, vasectomies...

Also, if you're advocating alternative sexuality, what's the problem with homosexuality and homosexuals raising kids?

[Buzz Dixon]

How would they know if they've never jumped up and down on one?Fair question, and the answer should be: "I don't think I'd like it; are you willing, when we are married, to forego it if we try it and I find I don't like it?"

Because trying it before marriage is...well...cheapening sex and love in a way. The other person can then just begin an ever escalating set of demands: "Well, how about pogo sticks with bicycle horns attacked? How about pogo sticks on a high wire? How about pogo sticks and...?" etc., etc., and of course etc., until one reaches the point where the other party backs out of the relationship.

The loving answer would be: "I am willing to give up pogo sticks if it means we can be together."

In other words, if you (rhetorical) need pogo sticks more than you need the love of your intended, you are the one with the problem.

[Night Swordsman]

Ok. I am confused. WHAT the hell does pogo sticks and louisville sluggers HAVE to do with sex,beyond the obvious phallic symbolism???? :confused:

[Reverend Smooth]

Why is it cheapening them? You've never said why, just that it does.

[Buzz Dixon]

Or, to use the car analogies you seem to like: You don't buy a car without knowing what's under the hood and how it handles, right? :)I don't have an inherent problem with people seeing each other naked before marriage -- which would be the equivalent of looking under the hood -- or kissing and embracing, which is the equivalent of a test drive.

If you try to touch or caress your intended spouse and they recoil in horror at your touch, I don't think you have to go any further than that to see there's going to be a compatibility problem.

Likewise, I wouldn't buy to minivan to drive into the high desert, nor would I buy a sports car to carry roofing supplies. When I shop for a car I am looking for one that is already compatible with my needs, not trying to make one do something it's not designed to do.

[Buzz Dixon]

Ok. I am confused. WHAT the hell does pogo sticks and louisville sluggers HAVE to do with sex,beyond the obvious phallic symbolism???? :confused:For those who came in late; I recognize a faulty analogy and withdrew it re louisville sluggers; Night Swordsman (don't talk to me about phallic imagery, pal;) saw the post in the brief 5 or 10 minute gap between the time it went up and the time I re-edited it.

[Reverend Smooth]

There's a big difference between kissing, being naked, and fucking. :)

Can you explain to me how that's a christian way of doing things, though? You're supposed to be modest, even towards your intended spouse, I thought.

[Buzz Dixon]

Why is it cheapening them? You've never said why, just that it does."I won't love you and/or marry you unless you promise to [blank]" cheapens both the emotion of love and the act in question, whatever it is.

"I would like you to cut your hair shorter than it is now when we are married; if you keep it long I will not marry you" means "to me our marriage is worth no more than a haircut."

To say, "You say you like [blank], I feel I'm going to have a problem with [blank] if we are married. How do we resolve that?" treats the other person as an equal. There may indeed be some give and take back and forth on the matter, but it is not a unilateral declaration/demand.

The mutual agreement re [blank] is the result of discussing the matter in question, not actually doing it.

[Jack Zodiac]

Isn't it... you get AIDS from kissing, pregnant from being naked together, and die from fucking?

[Corrina]

There is an option besides:

1. Crazy monkey sex for recreation.

Or

2. Celibacy.

Behind curtain number three, we have....

3. Where you care for each other deeply and the sex is an expression of that love, marriage contract or not.

[Reverend Smooth]

The mutual agreement re [blank] is the result of discussing the matter in question, not actually doing it.
Or, you can just decide that you like your yaks and astroglide and she can decide that she likes monkeys and fisting and find a partner who likes them as much as you do and she, likewise, before marriage contracts are signed.

You know, since you're hung up on the kids and the intercourse thing, I dunno what the issue with gays is. They do the alternative sex thing too and they're likely not to get accidentally pregnant.

[Buzz Dixon]

There's a big difference between kissing, being naked, and fucking. :)

Can you explain to me how that's a Christian way of doing things, though? You're supposed to be modest, even towards your intended spouse, I thought.Modesty comes from within; while some Christians feel there are specific guidelines re clothing, hair, etc., others do not. Christians in the San Fernando Valley where I live, for instance, are comfortable coming to church in T-shirts, jeans, and shorts; Christians in my parents church in N.C. would find that immodest in context (though acceptable in other venues).

There is a difference between a courting couple (i.e., one intending to get married) and a dating couple (one trying to find a potential partner). In the former case, certain areas of discussion are not merely open, but require to be talked about.

One of the problems with contemporary culture is that too many people think everybody should discuss everything explicitly in all venues.

Going back to courting couples (i.e., those serious about getting married): By that stage, physical appearances should not be a criteria in the relationship. It's fair to say, "I've got bad scarring under my clothes; if that is going to be a problem for you we need to stop this relationship right now." It might also be fair to say, "I have an unrealistic expectation of physical perfection; if you don't match that goal I need to know before we're married" because then the other party can invite the speaker to take the proverbial long walk on the proverbial short pier.

[Night Swordsman]

There is an option besides:

1. Crazy monkey sex for recreation.

Or

2. Celibacy.

Behind curtain number three, we have....

3. Where you care for each other deeply and the sex is an expression of that love, marriage contract or not.

Or 4. Cheeseburgers. :) Tastes Great,and you can have as many as you can afford and eat. And no next day regrets. :D

But in all seriousness,Corrina is correct. Folks,the word for today(and EVERY day): BALANCE. Even if you HAVE formed a viewpoint,keep in mind there will always be another side,and attempt at a happy medium.

[Buzz Dixon]

Or, you can just decide that you like your yaks and astroglide and she can decide that she likes monkeys and fisting and find a partner who likes them as much as you do and she, likewise, before marriage contracts are signed.

You know, since you're hung up on the kids and the intercourse thing, I dunno what the issue with gays is. They do the alternative sex thing too and they're likely not to get accidentally pregnant.I have not discussed gays at all; you and others are the ones continually bringing them up. I suggest you may be projecting too much.

And I agree; if my wife had cared for anything more than me, I wouldn't have wanted to marry her. Likewise if I had preferred anything above her, she would not have wanted to marry me.

If you (rhetorical) like [blank] so much you are unwilling to give it up in order to be with a person your profess to love, then you clearly love [blank] more than the other person. And [blank] refers to anything: Sexual acts, gum chewing, home ownership, music, you name it.

It's a good idea not to marry someone who doesn't care enough about you to be willing to sacrifice for you.

Gowrsh, as Goofy would say, d'ya suppose this might have sumthin' to do with the high rates of divorce? D'ya suppose if more people spent more time making the people they loved feel happy than in trying to feel happy themselves, that maybe more marriages would work?

[Night Swordsman]

For those who came in late; I recognize a faulty analogy and withdrew it re louisville sluggers; Night Swordsman (don't talk to me about phallic imagery, pal;) saw the post in the brief 5 or 10 minute gap between the time it went up and the time I re-edited it.

What's new pussycat? Woah, Woah
What's new pussycat? Woah, Woah
Pussycat, Pussycat
I've got flowers
And lots of hours
To spend with you.
So go and powder your cute little pussycat nose!
Pussycat, Pussycat
I love you
Yes, I do!
You and your pussycat nose!
What's new pussycat? Woah, Woah
What's new pussycat? Woah, Woah
Pussycat, Pussycat
You're so thrilling
And I'm so willing
To care for you.
So go and make up your cute little pussycat face!
Pussycat, Pussycat
I love you
Yes, I do!
You and your pussycat face!
What's new pussycat? Woah, Woah
What's new pussycat? Woah, Woah
Pussycat, Pussycat
You're delicious
And if my wishes
Can all come true
I'll soon be kissing your sweet little pussycat lips!
Pussycat, Pussycat
I love you
Yes, I do!
You and your pussycat lips!
You and your pussycat eyes!
You and your pussycat nose!

For two reasons. You need to lighten up just a tiny itty bitty bit. And NO ONE puts Phallic Imagery in a corner :D

[Buzz Dixon]

Isn't it... you get AIDS from kissing, pregnant from being naked together, and die from fucking?You can get AIDS from kissing if both parties have cold sores and one is HIV+; transmission has been verified through this method. You can't get pregnant from being naked together unless sperm is released; conversely, there are documented pregnancies from "dry humping" and heavy petting.

You die from the heart attack, not the sex itself. ;)

[Reverend Smooth]

I have not discussed gays at all; you and others are the ones continually bringing them up. I suggest you may be projecting too much.Except that you were discussing how marriage should be between opposite-sex partners, mans. Don't disavow it when you bring it up, it's dishonest (and dishonesty only makes people reject your message).

Crappy sidestep: why is it ok for straight couples to get their freak on, but not the homos?

Gowrsh, as Goofy would say, d'ya suppose this might have sumthin' to do with the high rates of divorce? D'ya suppose if more people spent more time making the people they loved feel happy than in trying to feel happy themselves, that maybe more marriages would work?I dunno. Why don't you ask the members of your congregation, since they seem to be better at getting divorced than my iniquitous compatriots? ^^

[Charles RB]

I thought it would be presumptuous of me to suggest a male homosexual marry a lesbian for the purpose of producing children

I'm sorry but that's not just presumptious, it's totally idiotic and goes against what you're arguing for, unless you seriously want to argue that people who don't love each other should marry simply to breed, then go into cohab relations with someone else who are their actual partners and thus have a constant & inevitable battle over who the 'real' parents are. I thought you wanted healthy relationships to raise children in - it's pretty obvious that two gay men/women on their own (and cohabbing on their own) would be a healthier relationship than what you've proposed.

I am not seeing your point here.

There is no societal penalty for being a divorcee

Unless you were abusive or adulterous, why should there be?

What can be shown and should be shown is how changing from one cultural norm to another has caused more harm than good for the culture as a whole.

Except your studies so far haven't shown this entirely. They leave out homosexual couples, especially those under civil partnerships (UK) or married (Canada). They leave out whether the married couples are monogamous and don't consentingly swing/have a third partner etc. They don't even suggest marriage is always going to be the optimum option, as the Michigan one says the opposite for non-white couples surveyed and another shows stepfamiliy marriages to be more at risk from abuse!

That's not even going into the divorce rate allegedly being hire in evangelist areas of the States, which should - going by your views - be having better marriages due to being into old-school values and lack of pre-marital sex.

You'll never know, will you?

Presumably she does know her marriage isn't less meaningful because she shagged other people before, as she's actually in said marriage.

Moving over to purely cultural terms: There are also people who don't like following traffic laws

As with the Dahmer comparison, hardly the same thing. Driving through a red light at a busy junction automatically has a negative effect & we can see it as it happens. You can not say the same thing - many people manage pre-marital sex with no negative effects at all.

My core statement has always been "the best environment in which to raise children is a stable marriage between two parents of the opposite sex."

But the studies you are quoting do not show that the parents need to be of the opposite sex.

No one has ever suffered because they refrained from sexual activity.

Personally speaking, I have had exceedingly low levels of sexual activity and while I haven't suffered, it leaves me very frustrated and occassionally angsty. I'd personally be far happier and less irritable if I had more of that activity.

1) Encourage people to get to know their potential partners better emotionally, with a particular emphasis on their character and personalities, before getting married.

Thing is, sexual activities & interests seem to be part of that.

even if the parents are having difficulty relating to one another they need to present a secure, united front to the children (at least until they reach their later teen years).

Except the children can presumably notice if the parents are having difficulties and are keeping it secret. What sort of effect do you think that will have on them? I don't see it being a very good one.

and members of a culture

The United Kingdom is a multicultural nation (multiple different religions, four countries in the UK, immigrants...) and AFAIK the United States are too, so I don't see "members of a culture" being as important.

even alternate forms of sexual intimacy.

Those have a higher risk of spreading STDs though.

[Buzz Dixon]

What's new pussycat? [lyrics omitted for space]

For two reasons. You need to lighten up just a tiny itty bitty bit. And NO ONE put Phallic Imagery in a corner. :DThe Scotsman
written by Mike Cross 1979, copyright Vic Ray Publishing (ASCAP)

Oh a Scotsman tried and true left the bar one evening fair
And one could tell by how he walked he'd had more than his share
He stumbled round 'til he could no longer keep his feet
Then he stumbled off unto the grass to sleep beside a stream.
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddle-aye-oh
Oh he stumbled off unto the grass to sleep beside a stream.
Well about that time two young and lovely ladies happened by
And one said to the other, with a twinkle in her eye
"Oh see yon sleepy Scotsman, so strong and handsome built?"
"Well I wonder if it's true what they don't wear beneath their kilts."
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
"Oh I wonder if it's true what they don't wear beneath their kilts."
Well they snuck up to that sleeping Scotsman, quiet as could be
And they lifted up his kilt a little bit so they might see
And there for them to behold, beneath that Scottish skirt,
Was nothing more than God had graced him with upon his birth.
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
Was nothing more than God had graced him with upon his birth.
Well they marveled for a moment, then one said, "We must be gone."
"Well let's leave a present for our friend before we move along."
As a gift, they left a blue silk ribbon tied into a bow
Around the bonnie sword the Scotsman's kilt beneath did show.
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
Around the bonnie sword the Scotsman's kilt beneath did show.
Well the Scotsman a little later, he awoke to nature's call
And as he lifted up his kilt, what he got and what he saw,
And in a strangled voice, he said, "I can't believe me eyes!"
"I don't know where ye been, me lad, but I see ye took first prize!"
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
"I don't know where ye been, me lad, but I see ye took first prize!"

Light enough for ya? ;)

[Night Swordsman]

The Scotsman
written by Mike Cross 1979, copyright Vic Ray Publishing (ASCAP)

Oh a Scotsman tried and true left the bar one evening fair
And one could tell by how he walked he'd had more than his share
He stumbled round 'til he could no longer keep his feet
Then he stumbled off unto the grass to sleep beside a stream.
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddle-aye-oh
Oh he stumbled off unto the grass to sleep beside a stream.
Well about that time two young and lovely ladies happened by
And one said to the other, with a twinkle in her eye
"Oh see yon sleepy Scotsman, so strong and handsome built?"
"Well I wonder if it's true what they don't wear beneath their kilts."
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
"Oh I wonder if it's true what they don't wear beneath their kilts."
Well they snuck up to that sleeping Scotsman, quiet as could be
And they lifted up his kilt a little bit so they might see
And there for them to behold, beneath that Scottish skirt,
Was nothing more than God had graced him with upon his birth.
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
Was nothing more than God had graced him with upon his birth.
Well they marveled for a moment, then one said, "We must be gone."
"Well let's leave a present for our friend before we move along."
As a gift, they left a blue silk ribbon tied into a bow
Around the bonnie sword the Scotsman's kilt beneath did show.
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
Around the bonnie sword the Scotsman's kilt beneath did show.
Well the Scotsman a little later, he awoke to nature's call
And as he lifted up his kilt, what he got and what he saw,
And in a strangled voice, he said, "I can't believe me eyes!"
"I don't know where ye been, me lad, but I see ye took first prize!"
Ring-ding diddle diddle aye-dee-oh
Ring di-diddlee-aye-oh
"I don't know where ye been, me lad, but I see ye took first prize!"

Light enough for ya? ;)

Yep. :) Silly rabbit,trix are for kids.

[Buzz Dixon]

Except that you were discussing how marriage should be between opposite-sex partners, mans. Don't disavow it when you bring it up, it's dishonest (and dishonesty only makes people reject your message).I don't believe you'll find any post from me that says that. What I have said repeatedly is that an emotionally stable marriage between two parents of the opposite sex has the better chance of producing healthy children. I repeatedly said it was not impossible for healthy children to be raised in other family groupings, only that the better chances came from a stable etc., etc.

Crappy sidestep: why is it ok for straight couples to get their freak on, but not the homos?If by this you mean "married people having sex" since we have not addressed the issue of homosexual marriage, I would have to say in those states where such unions are recognized, by all means, let them get it on. Otherwise, as stated before, there just aren't enough gays and lesbians to counterbalance the destructive behaviors in the heterosexual community. I would like all people -- straight, gay, bi-and/or-asexual -- to treat one another unselfishly with respect and compassion. Past that general desire, my concern is not what the gay and lesbian community does but what the heterosexual community does. There is where then problem lies.

[Reverend Smooth]

I don't believe you'll find any post from me that says that.Wrong. Go back to where you tried to say it... without admitting you actually said it, in your shitty little snipe.

You don't look clever when you act disingenuous. This is the internet, people can and do read back to see what you said.

And as for your focus on heterosexuality: I also remember when you said that was only the first part of the 'problem'. You are backtracking.

[Night Swordsman]

I really hate getting into political issues such as this,as this thread was all about a term used to describe,iirc,a semi-naughty Anime motion picture. Now we are discussing gay parenting and other hotbed issues. ALOT of people are going to have views that are NOT going to set well with others on these issues,and alot of mud slinging can and WILL get involved. So far,everyone is for the most part behaving well and for that,you all deserve cookies and milk.

But just remember,it is not ok to start insulting people on here folks. These topics just INVITE hostility in some people on both sides,and the best thing you can do is look at this at a objective manner,even if you feel extremely attached to one side of the arguement. Points can be made for the side you choose with a clear rationality and you end up debating the issues,not the debaters. Plus you will all win points for keeping it clean at the end.

And i will not have to sing Barry Manilow songs.

We now return to your daily scheduled YABS hot topic of the day. Please make sure you keep your feet straight and your seats are in a upright position while in flight. :D

[Ian Boothby]

Oh and not everyone cares to follow life's rules according to the Bible.

Thank God.

[Night Swordsman]

Thank God.

I know! For the longest time i thought Bible Thumper was the bunny from Bambi tapping his foot on the Book. :)

[Buzz Dixon]

Wrong. Go back to where you tried to say it... without admitting you actually said it, in your shitty little snipe.

You don't look clever when you act disingenuous. This is the internet, people can and do read back to see what you said.

And as for your focus on heterosexuality: I also remember when you said that was only the first part of the 'problem'. You are backtracking.Well, that's kinda like claiming I alluded to pink elephants even though I nowhere used the terms "pink" or "elephant" or even "pachyderms of a particular color."

How I wish I had that Pinteresque ability in writing...

I can not stop you from reading whatever you will into whatever I write. If you are determined to twist anything I post that you disagree with into an attack, you will do so.

[Reverend Smooth]

In the words of Christopher Titus: Why don't you climb down off the cross, take the wood to build a bridge, and get over it.

[Corrina]

Presumably she does know her marriage isn't less meaningful because she shagged other people before, as she's actually in said marriage.




Marriage is about both physical and emotional intimacy. (Otherwise, you might as well just be best buds, because, hey, no lovemaking.)

I still don't get the marriage being more meaningful because people have 'saved' themselves for a wedding night. What about widows and widowers who remarry? Is their second marriage less meaningful than their first?

Rape victims? (Of both genders?)

Are they spoiled since they've not been able to save themselves?

But what do I know? I've only been happily married for 20 years and had four kids, and wasn't a virgin on my wedding night. I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that I would not be less meaningful had I been a virgin. In fact, my experiences previous allowed me to know what I really needed from a relationship, including the physical part.

For those who don't want to have sex before marriage, bully for them. Whatever works and I'm as happy for them as those making other choices about intimate partners.

But they should stop pretending this is morally superior to other choices that consenting adults make. One can easily make the logical judgment that this is better than rape (which harms someone) or forced marriages (which also harms someone) but comparing one type of consenting relationship to another and calling one superior is just, well, it says more about the person doing the judging than the relationship they are judging.

[Reverend Smooth]

only that the better chances came from a stable etc., etc.
Oh, and once again: Prove it. You haven't yet.

[Cam63]

Isn't it... [Edited]and die from fucking?

Depends on whether the husband/boyfriend comes home early.

[BnL]

No one has ever suffered because they refrained from sexual activity.

That's completely false. Sexual repression can have downright deadly results.

http://www.clogo.org/Archives/prd/repr/suicide.html

http://www.clogo.org/Archives/prd/repr/aggression.html

That's what happens when you advocate condemning and demonizing (otherwise healthy and natural) sexual feelings and activity, except for a certain very narrow idea of what it "should" be.

[Nick Soapdish]

Fair question, and the answer should be: "I don't think I'd like it; are you willing, when we are married, to forego it if we try it and I find I don't like it?"

Because trying it before marriage is...well...cheapening sex and love in a way. The other person can then just begin an ever escalating set of demands: "Well, how about pogo sticks with bicycle horns attacked? How about pogo sticks on a high wire? How about pogo sticks and...?" etc., etc., and of course etc., until one reaches the point where the other party backs out of the relationship.

The loving answer would be: "I am willing to give up pogo sticks if it means we can be together."

In other words, if you (rhetorical) need pogo sticks more than you need the love of your intended, you are the one with the problem.

What about the intended who would rather avoid pogo sticks than remain with their intended? Why isn't it their fault (as well)?

It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of situation where pre-marital sex would have been beneficial for a relationship ... since the alternative for this couple is apparently either divorce or an unhappy marriage.

I've never been especially fond of the slippery slope argument. You might as well just skip ahead to the worst case scenario or at least one that nobody would defend.

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't believe you'll find any post from me that says that. What I have said repeatedly is that an emotionally stable marriage between two parents of the opposite sex has the better chance of producing healthy children. I repeatedly said it was not impossible for healthy children to be raised in other family groupings, only that the better chances came from a stable etc., etc.


Would you mind explaining your bit about suggesting two homosexual couples getting together and breaking vows to one another in order to raise children then?

[Buzz Dixon]

Would you mind explaining your bit about suggesting two homosexual couples getting together and breaking vows to one another in order to raise children then?I'll be delighted to:

"Satire is what closes on Saturday night."

[Pia Guerra]

I remember seeing an interview a number of years ago discussing the 50th anniversary of the end of world war II or something like that where a circle of grey haired ladies were seated in a circle and asked questions about their experiences. At one point the very young journalist asked them what advice they would give to young women of today. One woman, very conservative looking, with the sweetest English accent answered "shop around!" and all the women in the cirlce nodded enthusiastically in agreement. That always stuck with me.

As I've mentioned, I've had numerous partners before I met Ian. Some were serious, some were for temporary comfort ("Hey, we're both living in a strange city and haven't been laid in months, want to?" "Hell yeah."), they were always safe and with people I cared about and remained friends with. Okay a couple of the more serious ones were heart breakers, there was commitment (even a couple of marriage proposals) but the compatibility just wasn't there and we went our separate ways. And yes, sex had a lot to do with that compatibility.

I learned a lot from each relationship, lessons that carried over into the following ones and I have to say my ability to love evolved over those years, going from young and clumsy and self conscious to mature and considerate and initmate. The most important thing I figured out is that initimacy is something you learn over time and I think Buzz is mixing that up with monogamy. Buzz got it in his 30 or so years of marriage, I got it from my twenty or so years of relationships with different partners. Same thing.

And then I met Ian, and we had sex on our second date (me using that time honoured line "wanna see my Adam West autograph? It's in the bedroom"). And we clicked. We dated for about a year, moved in together an lived, unmarried, very commited to one another for six before getting married last year (decided in large part over the very passionate debates had on this very board for gay marriage). We're rarely apart and when we are it's incredibly hard. We look forward to getting old together. No plans on having kids, never appealed to either of us. If some parental urge came up out of nowhere we'd adopt or take in some stray kid who needed a place (with the parent/province's permission of course).

And just to add this Buzz, after we got married the sex got ten times wilder and crazier and more enjoyable so all that stuff about premarital sex taking away from the marriage is complete and utter bullshit.

I'm very happy your marriage works well for you. That's very nice. But there are so many types of relationships out there that are as good if not better than what you have. Sorry. And some are probably worse than what you have so yay, you can feel smug about that if you wish. Most are just different. Applying your limited experiences to all if them in order to make a generalised, moral judgement is just ridiculous. You can find all kinds of 'evidence' from whatever biased and unbiased organisations you like to back up your beliefs but I doubt you ever just asked them "how does this work for you? Happy? Okay."

[Nick Soapdish]

I'll be delighted to:

"Satire is what closes on Saturday night."

Interesting.

Like I said before, it sounds like something that I'd say to illustrate exactly how ludicrous parts of your argument are. (Although I would've used it against the anti-gay marriage argument, not the "parents have to be of the opposite sex" instead.)

Is that your intent?

[Buzz Dixon]

Interesting.

Like I said before, it sounds like something that I'd say to illustrate exactly how ludicrous parts of your argument are. (Although I would've used it against the anti-gay marriage argument, not the "parents have to be of the opposite sex" instead.)

Is that your intent?For the particular piece of business re two couples exchanging DNA and household chores, yes. That was obviously tongue-in-cheek.

Mind you, I'm sure we could find an example out there somewhere that works and everybody is happy but...not, I wouldn't suggest anybody go through those extremes.

Mind you, such an arrangement would have the benefit of giving kids biological parents under the same roof, but I think it's just too cumbersome a concept to propose seriously.

[Charles RB]

One woman, very conservative looking, with the sweetest English accent answered "shop around!" and all the women in the cirlce nodded enthusiastically in agreement. That always stuck with me.

Whole lot of pre-marital/outside marital sex going on back in World War 2, at least in Britain. Spike Milligan's war memoirs are illuminating.

Which causes problems with the Traditional Values line if millions of my grandparent's generation weren't following them.

[Alex Scott]

Personally, I always think of A Midwife's Tale, a late 18th-century diary, where we get to see how people got married in post-colonial America.

If I remember correctly, two families would take a son and daughter who've taken a liking to each other, and put them in a room together; and if the girl got knocked up, they got married.

[Pinball]

I dunno about you, Bri, but i'd rather see a movie that celebrates sex than one that celebrates gory, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498353/) torturous, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489270) woman-hating (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332) violence. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0296042)

[Charles RB]

I was a happier man when I had never heard of August Underground's Mordum.

[Buzz Dixon]

I dunno about you, Bri, but i'd rather see a movie that celebrates sex than one that celebrates gory, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498353/) torturous, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489270) woman-hating (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332) violence. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0296042)Amen to that! The older I get, the more I abhor cruelty on any level. Genuine sadism (as opposed to the glorified mutual cosplay some people engage in; not my cuppa tea but to each his own) is repugnant.

[Sabrinaset]

I engage in sex! Positive!

[Night Swordsman]

Amen to that! The older I get, the more I abhor cruelty on any level. Genuine sadism (as opposed to the glorified mutual cosplay some people engage in; not my cuppa tea but to each his own) is repugnant.

Completely agree. Torturing and Murdering people on screen is NOT entertainment. Hollywood seems to be pushing Serial Killer as a role model.

[hellokittykat]

Completely agree. Torturing and Murdering people on screen is NOT entertainment. Hollywood seems to be pushing Serial Killer as a role model.

That is what was so great about '1408'. It was a classic jumpy ghost story. It didn't need to be grisly to be scary.

[Night Swordsman]

That is what was so great about '1408'. It was a classic jumpy ghost story. It didn't need to be grisly to be scary.

Wanted to see it,but my work schedule has been horrible as of late. Will see if i have time next week to see it(big Stephen King fan also helps).


You can NOT pay me to watch a Saw or Hostel movie.

[Corrina]

Hmm...I checked in here to see if we were having the orgy here or in the lovefest thread.

Gory horror movie discussions means...off to the LOVEFEST!!

[JTPencils]

Hmm...I checked in here to see if we were having the orgy here or in the lovefest thread.

Gory horror movie discussions means...off to the LOVEFEST!!

Sorry Corrina, no orgies allowed in the Sex Positive area (oops, I said it again!)

The lovefest area however..... it's clothes optional I hear.