|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Promiscuity, hooking up .. a problem and why?
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Romantic idolatry is a set up for the object of worship to become the object of resentment.It is not loving them at all
Two lines which go a long long way in explaining antagonism between male and female since the year dot.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That doesn't make them incompatible. Sorry.
No need to apologise. Plenty of room for misunderstanding in this debate. Incompatible is probably the wrong word.
Sex can be healing, it can be nurture, sharing, empowering, pleasurable, even addictive. Sex can be a wealth of things. That alone though does not make it inextricably, and exclusively bound up with love.
There is, ISTM, something inherently unloving surrounding sex, admittedly it's buried deep but I often think it gives itself away in the, now generally accepted, phrase 'Having sex'. If this were not so then why are there so many people who can testify to being in relationships where they believed mutual love existed, where they knew the sex was great yet, for some inexplicable reason, the relationship ends?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Curiosity. Do you ever look past the cover of a book?
The references on that blog are interesting. The twelfth one in particular:
Robert Rector et al., "The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners among Women: A Book of Charts," Heritage Foundation (2003).
Evensong: do you ever consider the sources of your links? You have cited a source from the Heritage Foundation which, as Wikipedia notes,
quote:
is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".
The Heritage Foundation is upfront about its purpose and biases, which I suppose is good. But in matters of sexual ethics, I would rank their credibility as only slightly above NAMBLA.
I looked at their study and it was based on CDC research. I vote Labor and am a theological liberal but (as you know) a social conservative. When the shoe fits..... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I looked at their study and it was based on CDC research.
Now we know what they were doing when they should have been preparing for an Ebola outbreak.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
He didn''t love her, he idolized her. A teenage girl should not be expected to bear the weight of anyone's idolatry. That was part of the point of the film-- that what he designated the nexus of ideal female sex was in reality a mixed up kid. She was a person, , not some Jungian archtype for him to play with. What she really needed was to see her for what she was and reach out to her as a person-- which is what he did.
Yes. But also we must not overlook the fact that she offered him sex-on-a-plate. Something he was unwilling, or maybe spiritually unable to perform. The viewer was kept guessing to why he refused an opportunity that many of us think the archetypal male would have seized upon.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
We are not overlooking that. And most men I know would indeed refuse sex on a plate from a kid.
His motives for stopping weren't mysterious to me at all-- he was only able to entertain the idea as long he could trick himself into thinking it wouldn't hurt her, that she was game. Her hesitance and nervousness snapped him out of his delusion.
In short, his decision to accept her as she was and make her a sandwich -- that was love. And it seemed to me one of the points of the film that real " American Beauty" was to be found in the moments that comprised the narrator's " life flashing before eyes" montage-- it wasn't the idol that came to him in his last moments, it was the people he had formed a kinship connection with.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Sex can be healing, it can be nurture, sharing, empowering, pleasurable, even addictive. Sex can be a wealth of things. That alone though does not make it inextricably, and exclusively bound up with love.
There is, ISTM, something inherently unloving surrounding sex, admittedly it's buried deep but I often think it gives itself away in the, now generally accepted, phrase 'Having sex'. If this were not so then why are there so many people who can testify to being in relationships where they believed mutual love existed, where they knew the sex was great yet, for some inexplicable reason, the relationship ends?
Whoa there. There exists worlds of issues in that bit which go way beyond sex.
Sex is, at its root, a biological function. But in our species it is not typically that simple. Does sex require love? No. But to say there is something inherently unloving in it is a step to far.
Even in the casual hook-up, there is usually some sort of connection. Not love, but neither is it unlove.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There is, ISTM, something inherently unloving surrounding sex, admittedly it's buried deep but I often think it gives itself away in the, now generally accepted, phrase 'Having sex'. If this were not so then why are there so many people who can testify to being in relationships where they believed mutual love existed, where they knew the sex was great yet, for some inexplicable reason, the relationship ends?
Indeed it is true both that good love doesn't guarantee good sex, and that good sex doesn't guarantee good love. I don't see that anybody here has suggested either.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Sex is not just a procreative function, or a tension relese function, although it is both these things, and can be used as such. it is also a biological tool to strengthen pair- bonding and kinship ties-- in the same way any other act of physical affection is. ( if you ever get a chance to watch otters around springtime-- yowza) If you care about someone emotionally, and you nurture the mammalian need for skin contact, " grooming", nonverbal communication of all kinds (anything from a smile to a hand- squeeze to a kiss) and sexual release-- boom, you have sex with love. You have two people biologically attuning themselves to each other, voluntarily, toard the purpose of strenthening their existing pair- bond.
I am a fan of the show " Masters of Sex" , and in the last season they covered a fairly famous incident in which Masters, after a couple years of fairly acrobatic sex, became impotent. Making things more acrobatic did nothing to help. He and Johnson were emotionally invested enough to want to solve the problem, so after a variety of unsuccessful stratagies, they discovered that the road back was simple affection without the pressure of sex. For weeks they did nothing but hold, "groom" and cuddle each other. Slowly things came back to normal.
To this day, the first respose treatment of couples with differences in sexual appetite is to refocus the bulk of their efforts on simple affection-- to use it as an end in and of itself.
I guess it is possible to have sex without any trace of simple affection-- would not appeal to me, though-- and simple affection is a far cry from love. But simple affection is the seed you need to water to grow love.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sex is not just a procreative function, or a tension relese function, although it is both these things, and can be used as such. it is also a biological tool to strengthen pair- bonding and kinship ties-- in the same way any other act of physical affection is. ( if you ever get a chance to watch otters around springtime-- yowza) If you care about someone emotionally, and you nurture the mammalian need for skin contact, " grooming", nonverbal communication of all kinds (anything from a smile to a hand- squeeze to a kiss) and sexual release-- boom, you have sex with love. You have two people biologically attuning themselves to each other, voluntarily, toard the purpose of strenthening their existing pair- bond.
Absolutely.
I've experienced a tendency before on the Ship to assign sex a particular function and not allow it other functions, but that has usually been in the context of Ingo arguing that sex must be 'ordered to procreation'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've experienced a tendency before on the Ship to assign sex a particular function and not allow it other functions, but that has usually been in the context of Ingo arguing that sex must be 'ordered to procreation'.
A mental image pops to mind of a Marine drill sergeant shouting at two people having sex: YOU! PROCREATE! I ORDER YOU TO PROCREATE!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess it is possible to have sex without any trace of simple affection-- would not appeal to me, though-- and simple affection is a far cry from love. But simple affection is the seed you need to water to grow love.
That is very good. Interesting phrase, simple affection; worth a good deal of reflection. I'm going to do that.
Made me think of Edison Lighthouse.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've experienced a tendency before on the Ship to assign sex a particular function and not allow it other functions, but that has usually been in the context of Ingo arguing that sex must be 'ordered to procreation'.
A mental image pops to mind of a Marine drill sergeant shouting at two people having sex: YOU! PROCREATE! I ORDER YOU TO PROCREATE!
Oh, you know how to turn a chap on, don't you (shivers running down spine)....
To return to the q in the OP (i) yes (ii) because I didn't do nearly enough of it before I settled happily down with Mrs A
[ 03. November 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sex is not just a procreative function, or a tension relese function, although it is both these things, and can be used as such. it is also a biological tool to strengthen pair- bonding and kinship ties-- in the same way any other act of physical affection is. ( if you ever get a chance to watch otters around springtime-- yowza) If you care about someone emotionally, and you nurture the mammalian need for skin contact, " grooming", nonverbal communication of all kinds (anything from a smile to a hand- squeeze to a kiss) and sexual release-- boom, you have sex with love. You have two people biologically attuning themselves to each other, voluntarily, toard the purpose of strenthening their existing pair- bond.
I am a fan of the show " Masters of Sex" , and in the last season they covered a fairly famous incident in which Masters, after a couple years of fairly acrobatic sex, became impotent. Making things more acrobatic did nothing to help. He and Johnson were emotionally invested enough to want to solve the problem, so after a variety of unsuccessful stratagies, they discovered that the road back was simple affection without the pressure of sex. For weeks they did nothing but hold, "groom" and cuddle each other. Slowly things came back to normal.
To this day, the first respose treatment of couples with differences in sexual appetite is to refocus the bulk of their efforts on simple affection-- to use it as an end in and of itself.
I guess it is possible to have sex without any trace of simple affection-- would not appeal to me, though-- and simple affection is a far cry from love. But simple affection is the seed you need to water to grow love.
Me and the missus have been mesmerized by this show, partly the acting, but also the detail in its evocation of period.
The point about Masters' impotence is very important, as it leads to a non-mechanical view of sex and sexual problems.
I mentioned earlier the joke that sexual problems are not sexual, and hence, a lot of them have to be dealt with psychologically. Well, this has been known for over a century, but it has become a mainstream idea now.
One of the big problems that is dealt with in therapy today is intimacy, or the lack of, and problems with this often lead to sexual problems in the end.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Response to KA & quetzalcoatl.
That intimacy of which you speak, the bonding, the affection, are not mutually exclusive with casual sex. Not even with a one-night stand.
Obviously it cannot be as deep as a longer term relationship, but this does not mean it cannot exist.
Ever have a bonding moment with a stranger in a queue, at a festival, etc? A connection which livens your spirits, warms your soul. A connection you'll remember though you never see the person again? Sometimes those connections are special, not in spite of their transitory nature, but because of it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Response to KA & quetzalcoatl.
That intimacy of which you speak, the bonding, the affection, are not mutually exclusive with casual sex. Not even with a one-night stand.
Obviously it cannot be as deep as a longer term relationship, but this does not mean it cannot exist.
Ever have a bonding moment with a stranger in a queue, at a festival, etc? A connection which livens your spirits, warms your soul. A connection you'll remember though you never see the person again? Sometimes those connections are special, not in spite of their transitory nature, but because of it.
I don't doubt it. Actually, I think the notion of casual sex is not very useful really, as it depends so much on context - who, when, where, how, and so on.
With person X, it might be a problem if they are commitment-phobic; but even then, who is going to define the problem? It's up to them.
With person Y, casual sex is not a problem.
Person Z has used casual sex as a solution to a certain situation - again, not a problem. For example, I know disabled people who want to have sex, and can arrange for it to happen.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sex is, at its root, a biological function. But in our species it is not typically that simple. Does sex require love? No. But to say there is something inherently unloving in it is a step to far.
Even in the casual hook-up, there is usually some sort of connection. Not love, but neither is it unlove.
I'm not knocking casual hook-ups. Never been in to it myself, not from any high moral plateaux more due to a lack of confidence at pulling. I was brought up in the marriage model so LTRs have always been that which I sought, albeit with varying degrees of success. I knew a guy who actively sought STRs. He did not seem to have made unhappy by it.
Trying to quantify any difference in resultant psychological damage between the two of us would be somewhat impossible I should have thought.
There's no arguing that sex is right out there on the edge of human experience. Roman history tells us adults were turned on for sex having been sat for hours watching people dying or being hideously tortured. This is clear evidence that sex has many aspects to it, some of which are diametrically opposed. Thankfully seeking it for feelings evoked by, and surrounding those of love is more commonplace.
In answer to KA. I had forgotten he offered her a sandwich instead, (need to see that film again). Indeed a moving scene. One showing a situation in which a greater love is evidenced by not having sex than by having it.
On a separate note I agree what you say about watering the seeds of 'simple affection', something never too late to discover.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
@rolyn
There are interesting arguments from evolutionary psychology and specific cultures as you note. Because we have a tremendous difficulty teasing apart the evolutionary from the culture, we can easily mistake one for the other I think. Thus: it is not data about the appropriateness of men having sex with boys that some societies of ancient Greeks did it, nor is it data against. It is not data either that well bonded couples raise happier children (or not) today.
The argument can easily be made I think that the promiscuous person might do better in passing along DNA because, if male, he can impregnate and have another man raise his child. If a woman, can pass off the child to grandparents or sisters - a common enough pattern among First Nations women in the Canadian prairies and north.
Which is why I wasn't very interested in such angles of discussion. I think I've put my cards down earlier in this thread, that sexuality is something to be somewhat more respected and managed than a more casual model. I'm not convinced that the casual model isn't more frequently problematic, but understand that the serious model may also create other issues. I also admit that the serious model seems to speak from the more powerful position.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm not even sure it makes sense to talk about "the casual model" and "the serious model". Really, most of the time we seem to be talking about "the serious-only model" and "the both serious and casual are allowed model".
I don't know that anyone here is arguing that casual sex is the best way to go and is better than entering commitments. I know I'm not.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Response to KA & quetzalcoatl.
That intimacy of which you speak, the bonding, the affection, are not mutually exclusive with casual sex. Not even with a one-night stand.
Obviously it cannot be as deep as a longer term relationship, but this does not mean it cannot exist.
Ever have a bonding moment with a stranger in a queue, at a festival, etc? A connection which livens your spirits, warms your soul. A connection you'll remember though you never see the person again? Sometimes those connections are special, not in spite of their transitory nature, but because of it.
it's a good thing I made a big point not to say that, then, because I certainly do think there can be casual sex with affection. I was challenging rolyn's assertion that love and sex are mutually exclusive.
What I find hard to understand(and was trying to make allowances for ) is the idea of sex without any affection at all- `to me there would be no point.Even with a one-night stand.
And for the record, I met a total stranger in England in 2008 and have never forgotten him-- don't think a week goes by that I don't wonder whatever happened to him. Nothing came of it, but had it happened, there definitely would have been a good deal of affection involved
[ 04. November 2014, 02:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
it's a good thing I made a big point not to say that, then, because I certainly do think there can be casual sex with affection. I was challenging rolyn's assertion that love and sex are mutually exclusive.
I inferred too much then.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Sex without affection certainly exists. Some are apparently turned on by violence. There's extensive coverage in Canada about a CBC host, since fired, who is under investigation of precisely this.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Of course it does. Saying you don't get it is different than saying you think it doesn't exist. My preference for sex with affection is not based on naivete.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I agree with No prophet's flag SSL and the culture thing. What was the norm long ago,(and indeed not so long ago) seems peculiar to us now, despite there being similarities that run through all ages and all cultures.
ISTM the basics of human desire have not changed over the generations nor the drive whereby we seek harmony, stability, love and so on. Maybe with today's freedoms there is confusion as to where the emphasis on sex should be, or of course whether there's too much emphasis on it altogether. Is it for pleasure and gratification, or is it for the building of stability?
As for the pros and cons of bringing up children in a closed environment, I've never been entirely convinced that the 50s model necessarily produced a generation of well-balanced, loving, ambitious and happy individuals.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
As for the pros and cons of bringing up children in a closed environment, I've never been entirely convinced that the 50s model necessarily produced a generation of well-balanced, loving, ambitious and happy individuals.
Well, it is complicated. Cultural expectation and structure certainly seem to affect the development of children. Studies I've read indicate a child with two active parents has a better chance of being a well-balanced adult. Cultures in which the extended family more actively participates, this is less significant.
Again, expectation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God.
NOT Chesterton, SS. Francis or Augustine
[ 08. November 2014, 08:33: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
As for the pros and cons of bringing up children in a closed environment, I've never been entirely convinced that the 50s model necessarily produced a generation of well-balanced, loving, ambitious and happy individuals.
Well, it is complicated. Cultural expectation and structure certainly seem to affect the development of children. Studies I've read indicate a child with two active parents has a better chance of being a well-balanced adult. Cultures in which the extended family more actively participates, this is less significant.
Again, expectation.
What do you mean by expectation? You expect children of married parents to do better than de facto or single parents so they do?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God.
Couldn't agree more Mr. Martin.
< Thanks for putting into one line that which I've failed to do in half a dozen posts >
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God.
NOT Chesterton, SS. Francis or Augustine
Quite possibly. But what he finds when the door is answered can be anything from a woman quite content to sell sex for money, in control of all aspects of her business, to a marketed and enslaved teenager from Eastern Europe or the Asian continent forced to fuck men for a few meals a day and the chance to send a couple of quid back home to her family.
God is undoubtedly within the hearts of all these people but I seriously question that the john is particularly hopeful of finding Him there when he's on a quest to get his rocks off. Still, there are probably just as unpropitious situations where God is and might potentially be found, than a house with stolen teenagers forced to have sex with men for the profit of their kidnappers.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Studies I've read indicate a child with two active parents has a better chance of being a well-balanced adult. ....
Well, duh. Two-adult households are, on average, wealthier than one-adult households. In Canada, a kid with one parent is four times more likely to be living in poverty than a kid with two parents. And rich kids with two parents do better than poor kids with two parents.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I took that quote as meaning that compulsive behaviours are those in which fulfilment is sought, and not found, and so sought again; whereas in God, we might find our ultimate fulfilment, if we only knew it.
The former can describe the struggles of marriage as much as those of casual encounters, in my experience, though admittedly I know nothing of paying for it; and the latter is shaping up to be a life's work.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Evensong and Soror Magda
In the nuclear family model, the child of the single parent does less well in part because the situation is one which counters societies expectations. The treatment s/he receives because of this affects development.
Martin60 and rolyn,
The thought process which equates your most recent posts to this discussion illustrates a more blinkered outlook than, perhaps you realise. Seeing every path as ending in light or dark ignores those that end in blue.
[ 08. November 2014, 14:24: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Apologies for the misspelled name. Unintended.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The brothel I had in mind was not one housing residents who were under-aged, nor one holding individuals against their will.
Furthermore the man was knocking in anticipation, no one said anything about the door opening.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
... But still a place where a man is not seeing people as actual people-- we do agree that prostitutes are people, right?-- but as existing for his own needs. In this case-- God? Holy crap.No pressure or anything, I just want you to solve my God issues.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The brothel I had in mind was not one housing residents who were under-aged, nor one holding individuals against their will.
Furthermore the man was knocking in anticipation, no one said anything about the door opening.
Alright, can you back up and explain to us stupid people? Because I am not sure what you mean.
What I am speaking of, and most here so far IMO, is sex on an equal basis. Loving, affectionate or functional; all on an even footing.
Sex as a function, not sex as a commodity.
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
OK Where do I start. Martin60 threw God into the mix, maybe I was a bit hasty in taking up the baton. Nothing does flame quite the mention of God.
Lets go for this 'sex on a equal basis' bit. Take an average Saturday night. How much drink and drug fueled casual hook ups take place? Even those procuring STRs could be said to be grooming, (both male and female). Equal in somuch as both parties have been sufficiently duped by their own hype.
What is the inequality of a civilised business transaction where both parties go in with there eyes open and are satisfied with the outcome?
I'm not talking about abuse or underaged sex. I mean, blimey, if you want go after that don't hassle the guy knocking on the door of a brothel, those parading as saints are the ones to look out for.
KA mentions the recurring theme of females being treated as objects. Do we ever stop and think that works the other way around? Getting back to prostitution, the very oldest profession known to mankind, I wonder who was doing the objectifying back then in our earliest days?
My earlier posts were trying to express the idea of the anticipation of sex being better than the actual act itself. It's not a doctrine for chastity, people can do as they please AFAIC.
In conclusion the more I think about the more I'm convinced it's the manner in which male and female stereotype each other that keeps us trapped in seemingly endless mortal combat.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
The only gender I mentioned was "male" and that is because the quote's protagonist was male-- and you heartily agreed with it. I referred to prostitutes as "people" for a reason-- they come in both genders.
The only other place I use gender - specific language is in discussing "American Beauty" -- which, again, you introduced into the discussion, and in which you seemed to be indicitive of a trend in male expectation, and again, if you read what I wrote, I used language easy to apply to both sexes, once I moved to generalities.
It is you who seems to be insisting that all/ most men behave a certain way. I prefer to let individual men speak for themselves.
[ 09. November 2014, 14:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Rolyn,
<massive post deleted by poster>
I found a fair bit of anger snaking through my initial reply, so I will put it simply:
Your apparent view of prostitution is massively unfounded as seen through the lens of history and nearly ever study done on the subject.
Your view of hook-ups is a bit twisted, IMO and IME. Does your fucked up scenario happen? Yes. And it is not good. But it is not the only one available.
It is not only possible to meet, find a connection and have sex without any "deeper" attachment and no negative aftermath; it happens all the time.
I'm not suggesting this be one's pattern every weekend, just that the attitudes against casual sex are more of projection than reality.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Also, " casual" sex should be, you know, casual. Worship and devotion is hardly casual. And as rolyn helpfully pointed out, worship is just as much a form of objectification as making a blow- up doll is.I think that was my only point.
And again, I am not restricting the idea of "worship" to one gender.
I think the drift into commodified sex does dilute from the discussion of hook- up culture, which is a different animal.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
In conclusion the more I think about the more I'm convinced it's the manner in which male and female stereotype each other that keeps us trapped in seemingly endless mortal combat.
Again, if you believe this, I am curious as to why you have a tendancy to start statements with things like," you have to understand that men want/ need/ think..." I, for one am glancing upthread and seeing direct evidence that not all men fit into the pigeonholes you yourself are creating.
Don't hand us stereotypes to deal with if you want to move beyond stereotypes. Everyone else seems content to speak for themselves.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You know it is a different beastie, I know it is a different beastie. I am not certain they do.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I usually try apply the rule of thumb of what other people do in their personal lives is their business alone, therefore any resulting psychological problems which may or may not arise is for them to deal with.
That was my first post on this thread. Thought I'd avoided making generalisations here, as I had learnt from that mistake on a past thread.
One or two things have been attributed to me here that I haven't said. One being that 'Love and sex are mutually exclusive' nowhere have I said that.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The more I muse over this this thread and the notion of 'sex without love' the more I begin to wonder if sex and love are ever even compatible in the first place.
Not the same.
"Something inherently unloving surround sex"-- Still not the same as mutually exclusive. Goodness me if such was the case we might as well all give up hope.
Seem to have lost the bottom half of this comment. It was only words to the effect of I did not intend to stir anger,(apologies for doing so), so will refrain from further posting on this topic.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Even if you were only wondering if sex and love were incompatible-- which your quote shows you were-- people have a right to respond to that idea. Particularly those lucky people who have managed both.
Again, you seem to be backing away from responses to ideas you have introduced. For my part, I am not angry, but I sure as heck am puzzled.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Again, if you believe this, I am curious as to why you have a tendancy to start statements with things like," you have to understand that men want/ need/ think..." I, for one am glancing upthread and seeing direct evidence that not all men fit into the pigeonholes you yourself are creating.
I think I understand some of what rolyn is trying to get at here, but I'm genuinely baffled by this response. Where does he start statements with "you have to understand that men want/ need/ think?"
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Anselmina. Swear I replied with complete acknowledgment and the comment that both are right.
We yearn. And do foul things in our yearning. And no lilBuddha, all will be well. EVERYTHING is redeemed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
God is undoubtedly within the hearts of all these people but I seriously question that the john is particularly hopeful of finding Him there when he's on a quest to get his rocks off.
I've known a few women who don't share my wacky religious beliefs about podvigs and theosis and whatnot who have worked as strippers and prostitutes. One of them described working as a prostitute as being like cotton candy; you're constantly pulling yourself apart and giving little bits of yourself away and you can only do it so long before there's nothing left.
On the other hand, they describe the johns as not being sex-crazed monsters but simply extremely lonely extremely socially awkward people. The way they describe them it almost sounds like untreated Aspergers to me: they sound like people who need to be given very clear rules to follow and can't cope with social situations and meeting people and engaging in sexual behavior in situations where the rules are all bendy and context dependent.
I suspect that that's what the quote is getting at.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Re the relationship between sex and love. They are two different things. They interrelate in many different ways and to an extent unique to the individual and to the couple. There can be an aspect of sex that is about affection between two people; two people that have just met or known each other for 50 years (hopefully ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) and all situations in between. This affection can be rooted in love or a mutual appreciation. There is an aspect of sex which is rooted in the care of the other person and in their pleasure to the possible exclusion of their own temporary pleasure. There is also an aspect of sex that is rooted in selfishness which is when your own pleasure is front and foremost in your mind and quite possibly to the exclusion of the other persons pleasure. Sometimes you don't get to this state though.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
