quote:Originally posted by clod: The rejection of impulse is the highest form of orderliness. It is what makes human's special. It is our moral base.
I like how you casually assume that sex is an "impulse" and is therefore (presumably) not an action which can be taken with measured forethought and preparation. I think the version of sex which looks like an impulse, comes from the mass media, which twists the standards of normality, lionizing characters with unrealistic veiws about sex and impulse. THis is NOT to say that there is not really any impulsive sex, but the majority of people are naturally in control of themselves all the time, its those that aren't who ruin it for us.
I was at a get together last night, drinking beer and watching a movie, and somebody put on an old Usher CD from the 90s, when I was a middle schooler. All of the songs are about how he has two girls he wants to sleep with and he can't decide, or else he's driving around with a girl and he can't wait to pop into a dark alley and have her right in the car. All of the songs are like that, about his lack of control over himself. But I looked around at my friends, guys and girls who all grew up with this stuff on the radio, includng me, and I saw that none of us were out of control, none of us were having these kinds of problems. I just think the media, entertainment, the movies all place this aura around sex, that it has to be hot, passionate, forbidden, out of the blue, and it must occur on top of a nuclear bomb that's just about to go off or something. People are more mundane.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check out the tax codes and laws in Nevada, baby.
Rather fascinating. In a perverse sort of way . . .
Seriously (you fiendish jokester):
I used to work in a state organization that was supposed to offer some sort of "prostitution prevention" program -- but was never funded to do so (but that's another story entirely).
Long story short -- a bit of research later for some legislative report, I had learned rather more than I think I ever wanted to know about the state of prostitution (pun intended.)
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I read the second article you linked. It was interesting, but mainly in an academic way.
First, his view on homosexuality seems more clear in this article. He apparently sees it as just another manifestation of God's gift of sexuality, but one that God's followers have had a hard time understanding and accepting. He gives several arguements as to why he feels this way.
I'm not sure I would buy his arguements if I were still a practicing Christian. It would be interesting to know. If his views were more widespread when I was struggling with my own sexuality and it's relationship to God, perhaps I would still be Christian. I'm not at all sure, though, that such a situation would be a good thing. I've always maintained that I never left my Church because my sexual desires were incompatible with its teachings. Rather, I believe that my struggles with my sexuality were a catalyst that spurred me to re-evaluate what I believed and why. It was in the re-evaluation that Mormonism, Christianity, and Theism in turn came up short for me.
As for Nelson's arguements, I've heard the Biblical re-interpretation arguements all before. Many homosexual Christian writers have made those same arguements for years. What I did find interesting was his descriptions of the ways homosexuality has been historically treated in The Church, and how that seems to be changing. Unfortunately, none of that seems to be compelling, to me, at least not as evidence of God working through the church. It all still seems (like the previous article) to be a description of a gargantuan institution struggling to remain pertinent in changing times.
So, at this point, if Nelson's views represent a groundswell in Christian thinking regarding homosexuality, that's great. I'm sure it will bring lots of comfort to homosexuals who still need the comfort of religious faith. It will also make it easier for those of us who simply want equal rights under the law and for our relationships to enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexuals. But clearly I'm not the intended audience for his writings (as I've experienced them thus far).
Don't get me wrong, though, I think his ideas have some value. He said a lot that I agree with, but most of that was irrespective of any religious context.
As I re-read this, it sounds a little more dismissive than I intend. I'm very willing to discuss any of Nelson's ideas that you found interesting, especially as they relate to homosexuality in society, (Christian or otherwise), here or in any other threads. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unfortunately, none of that seems to be compelling, to me, at least not as evidence of God working through the church. It all still seems (like the previous article) to be a description of a gargantuan institution struggling to remain pertinent in changing times.
"Where the people lead, the leaders will follow."
Institutions change because people change them. I know that this is not the image most people have of, at least, the Catholic Church. People tend to see us as very "top-down". This isn't really accurate; many of the major changes in both policy and doctrine have been initiated by the laity. So I see it as God working through the Church (meaning the Church as a whole rather than the leadership) so that a the leadershiop of a gargantuan institution will have to start getting it right. Or we will move on without them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was religiously inclined, I always thought of The Church (or the Gospel, or His Word, etc) as a mold God gave us with which to shape ourselves into the kind of beings he would have us become. This, of course, is an inaccurate assessment if it is The Church that molds itself to fit the people of the time.
What does it say about God's Church if it changes with the tide of public opinion? What does it say about God's followers if they demand His Church change to keep up with them or they will move on? Or rather, what is the purpose of a leadership of God's Church if they aren't the ones who lead?
I wouldn't want a church that changes to my demands. That is why I have had no patience with LDS gay activist groups. If the Church isn't teaching what the individual believe to be the truth, it seems to me that it is up to the individual to change. Either he should re-evaluate what he believes in light of his faith that his church is God's Church, or else he should leave that church in light of his faith that what he believes is God's Truth, contrary to that church. Otherwise, why have a church at all? What is the purpose of The Church if not to tell the people God's will?
I suspect that this is most people's view of churches. If not, then why are there so many different churches?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, who said that "the mold" is to fit the people of the time?
As far as religions go, I always thought that was the point, that God sets the mold. Whether it's to become like Him or to become the best we can be...whatever it is that God sets.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: Karl, who said that "the mold" is to fit the people of the time?
Well, I guess I said it, but technically I said "If".
I think "if" you re-read my post carefully (and maybe kmbboots's too) you'll get what I'm saying.
quote:As far as religions go, I always thought that was the point, that God sets the mold. Whether it's to become like Him or to become the best we can be...whatever it is that God sets.
I would have agreed with you on that back when I was religious, as the first part of my post states. Not being religious at this point, my guess is that "God" has nothing to do with it at all. However, since the discussion with kmbboots is about the nature of The Church, and she's arguing from the presumption that God exists and cares one way or the other about "The Church", I'm trying to find out a little better what her vision of the nature of The Church is. As it stands now, I think she's inclined to disagree with you (and with my pre-post-religious opinion on the matter). Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Sorry KarlEd, I had distractions (aka noisy kids) as I was reading and missed parts that in re-reading make things clearer.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I think that the church DOES change with the people. I mean, for example, in the time of Jesus, women had a totally different social standing than they do today. I don't think that means that the church should continue to maintain the same attitudes as existed in that time period.
posted
You're right. I think the purpose of the Church is to be the Body of Christ and this means several things.
I think that explaining doctrine is one function of the Church, but I certainly don't think that comes "pre-set". I think that our understanding of God and God's will changes and (I hope) matures. The Church as a whole, with the leadership (rather than the dictates) of the clergy, try to understand and teach.
But that is not, for me, the real function of Church.
Here is what I consider to be a good definition of Church, it is by Jack Shea:
"Schillebeeckx opens Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord with, 'it began with an encounter.' Our insistence is that what began as an encounter continues as an encounter. The original event of Jesus Christ was an interpersonal meeting of Jesus of Nazareth with other people. This encounter penetrated to their core person, their relationship to ultimate reality, and resurrected it salvifically. Through His human love, divine love entered and transformed the lives of people. In this experience people recognized the presence of God; and the named the experience Spirit. Although this Jesus of Nazareth now lives in the far reaches of God as the Risen Lord, the salvific experience that he made possible continues. When this experience happens, we acknowledge that its ultimate author is His Spirit and that we are functioning as His Body. We are in relationship with one another like the revelatory relationship the He had with some of His contemporaries. Through our human love for one another, inspired and supported by the Spirit of Jesus, we initiate each other into a relationship with that Ultimate Love which Jesus revealed. When this happens, the event of Jesus Christ occurs, not in the original way, but in a way dependent upon yet different from those long ago encounters. Therefore, access to the event of Jesus Christ is through our Spirit-suffused love for one another which transform us into the Body of Christ."
Karl, for me, that is Church. When we do that, we are Church. When we don't, we are not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, my take on it is this -- the Christian religion is comprised of two parts – God’s revelation and humanity’s response to that revelation. The church is how that second part is organized.
Note that it is very possible for there to be more than one "true" response. And even to be more than one response which is pleasing to God. Which is why I don't agree with a "one true church" philosophy.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh no. Okay, how did religion get into my thread? This is about the importance of sexuallity in relationships, not about how religion affects sexuallity.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is hatrack. I'm surprised it stayed on topic as long as it did. Though this isn't really all that sidetracked. Isn't the impact of religion on sexuality relevant and important to the importance of sexuality in relationships?
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Only if you're religious, or you're trying to have sex with someone who is religious.
Otherwise...no.
Uh, religion, whether you're personally religious or not, has a very strong impact on the way a society as a whole views sexual interaction. So it's very relevant.
posted
I agree with pH absolutely. Many of the ways Western society views sex derive from Christian perspectives and/or are a reaction to them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Oh no. Okay, how did religion get into my thread? This is about the importance of sexuallity in relationships, not about how religion affects sexuallity.
You might have noticed that we offered to take this to a different thread here:
quote: (me) Shall we continue here or a different thread?
...
(Karl) We can continue here if no one objects, or if, once I'm done with the article, I think of something that might have broader appeal I'll start a new thread.
Why didn't you pipe up then if you had objections?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: So you have two atheists making love (having sex; whatever...). Religion enters into it...how?
"Oh, this is nice! A good Christian girl would never do...this!"
Like that?
Both atheists were presumably raised in a society that is predominantly religious or spiritual. In America, it's generally Christian morals that tend to permeate our culture. So whether or not they believe in anything, they have presumably been exposed to a lot of teachings and attitudes that are based on religious beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Oh, kmb, I know what some of you do!
Unfortunately, I didn't marry one of those.
^&#&$)*&^*^%$%$$()*^&*^%$^&%
Well, that sounds like a personal problem. And a pretty shallow one, at that. And if you're blaming her religion, well...there's your problem, right there.
posted
Boothby, from your previous posts, it seems that you do take the attitude that "good Christians" are more sexually inhibited even with their married partners, with whom sex is condoned by God.
I'm not meaning to be funny. I'm trying to tell you that that flat-out is not the case. The most common reason, as far as I can tell, for sexual inhibition in women with committed partners is a matter of comfort. A lot of that has to do with coersion. A woman will eventually be a lot more willing to try more things if her partner doesn't press the issue and lets her decide to explore things when she feels comfortable.
Not asking you to give details or anything; it's not teh intarweb's business. Just saying.
quote: The most common reason, as far as I can tell, for sexual inhibition in women with committed partners is a matter of comfort.
I don't think that's limited to women. Just saying.
I don't think so, either. But I think a lot more men are comfortable with the sex act in general. They're a lot more encouraged to explore their sexuality in our society than women.
I don't know just how you were reading me, there. I didn't say you were (or were not) being funny. I was referring to my own statement, and how the original statement I made had a better chance of being funny than if I went into all the gory details.
And I've been intimate--not with a lot of women, but with women from a range of religious intensity, and I've found no correlation between their depths of religious beliefs and their willingness to explore their own sexual nature.
I think that kmbboots was referring to the anecdotal evidence that some of us have "witnessed" (or seen referred to in various films and other media forms) that sometimes it's the "straight-laced" religious women who show the most reckless abandon in bed.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think that kmbboots was referring to the anecdotal evidence that some of us have "witnessed" (or seen referred to in various films and other media forms) that sometimes it's the "straight-laced" religious women who show the most reckless abandon in bed.
Oh no, honey, I just meant me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All joking aside, I do take sex seriously. It is not something I enter into frivolously. It is not trivial. It is an awesome and powerful gift and responsibility.
With that understanding, I can approach sex without guilt and with a great deal of joy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eek. I would've hoped you put PG-13 on there...I thought you meant gender...I'm not an adult, so to say.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Science teaches us that life, existence, humanity, can be understood on many different levels. For instance, we can view it on the level of subatomic particles. I'm not sure how this level would be impacted by sex, but perhaps the touching of skin to skin can bump some electrons into higher energy levels. Or maybe there's absolutely nothing you could point to on the subatomic level that would be impacted by sex.
But moving up, there's the level of electromagnetic effects, and here there are some definite changes. Lots of electrical activity is taking place in the tissues of our hypothetical couple. There is the physical contact between two people, that's causing all sorts of frictional effects when molecules are snapping around, increase their average rate of motion within the lattice of electromagnetic forces that hold them in place. There will be molecules coming loose, being shed, and so on.
Higher up is the chemical level, in which lots of activity is going on. The couple's blood chemistry will be affected by various hormones that are coming into play. There is the chemistry of scents and tastes.
Above that is the cellular level. There are many changes in the cells. Metabolism speeds up. Cells respond to the higher blood flow, the chemical cues, etc.
Above that is the level of systems. The central nervous system activity picks up in various ways, sensitivity of the skin first increases then decreases, the cardiovascular system responds with a faster heartrate, higher blood pressure, the capillaries open up and flood the skin with more blood flow, etc.
Above that is the level of the whole organism. This entire suite of changes can be described scientifically on the organisim level as sexual arousal, orgasm, etc.
Those are some the levels that science can tell us about at this time, and they're all equally true and valid as a description of what is going on. Some of them give us more information than others, and much of the information that's available on one level, is nowhere to be found on levels above and below. For instance, on the level of subatomic particles, perhaps there are no changes that are specific enough to even let us know what is happening to our system as a whole. A good analogy to this might be looking at the individual notes of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to try and discern why it's so wonderful, or looking at the individual letters in the Lord of the Rings trilogy to understand them on that level. For instance, come up with an E concept, and a T concept and an H concept such that when you add the three together in the order THE you get some meaning that tells you that is a definite article. You can't do it. The information is simply not contained in that level. The awesomeness of Sam's speech about people in stories who continued going on to the end, is just not there at the letter level.
So some people, because there are no hard and fast mutually agreed upon scientific descriptions of levels above the level of the body, are fooled into thinking there is no higher meaning to sex. That it's about bodies, reproduction, survival of the species. But if we do that, we miss the rich meaning and understanding that comes from all the levels above that.
The levels above, though, leave us on somewhat more tender and uncertain ground. Because they are based on obervations that aren't objective, repeatable, sharable. The observations upon which we base our study of the higher levels are all subjective and not available to everyone (though they can be shared in the right circumstances). Science has a harder time with observations like that.
But science isn't totally stymied, it just needs to be stretched some. When quantum physics first found that events on the lowest levels of physics were probabilistic in nature rather than fixed and determined, some people were very upset and thought science couldn't describe things like that. Einstein said his famous quote about God not playing dice with the universe. However, Science wasn't stymied really at all. It just went on into this new territory where you don't know everything for certain always but you know the probability amplitudes, the so called wave function.
In mathematics, again and again, people have thought math couldn't be extended into negative numbers, imaginary numbers, non-euclidean geometry, infinitesimals, etc. and time and again, mathematicians have found ways to extend math into new territory.
Science can be extended, too, into the realm of subjective observations. It simply must change in certain ways, and allow for the plethora of different subjective experiences.
So there can be rules just as binding on the levels above the physical, such as the metaphysical, the spiritual, the existential, etc, as exist on the levels below.
I believe sex is extremely important on all these levels as well. That it holds a higher meaning in them than we are able to discover from looking at the organism. We have the desire for closeness to another person on the level of our common humanity, for the affirmation involved in sharing love with each other, and for the joining of two beings into one. Mixed up with this is the creation of new people, the calling up of new aiuas from the place that is no place. I believe these things are expressions of the very highest levels of our nature.
Some of the laws of those higher levels might be expressed like this. If you train and practice and focus your thoughts, feelings, and physiological reactions on trashy pornography then you can short circuit and dampen your ability to interact sexually in higher and more fulfilling ways than that. Similarly if you carry out this sort of autonomic training in ways that focus your energies toward physical release only, with no regard for the mind, feelings, heart and soul of your partner (or many partners) then you again may be cheating yourself of better higher things, of things that will bring you the most happiness and fulfillment, if you only knew how.
Who we are is greatly affected by what we do, what are our habits and training, and by what our choices are. The reason to be very thoughtful and serious when making decisions about our sexuality (even if we are quite playful and spontaneous in carrying them out ) is that by our choices we are changing who we are. And until we know how to find that path between who we are and who we want to be, we do well to look for guidance from the rules that have been discovered by the hearts and spirits of those who have walked these paths before us. Some of them may have been found through much suffering, and with plenty of collateral damage along the way. We are smart if we can learn from these rules, and not suffer the damage (some of which may be irreparable) ourselves.
Love, sex, attraction, are difficult to get right. Someone said if love were easy, there would be almost no music. There are so many more wrong paths than there are right ones. There is much that we simply don't know, and everyone's heart is different, but it is great wisdom to let oneself be guided by the knowledge of those who came before. So much is at stake.
posted
I would like to formally thank all of you who participated in this thread for providing me with the data I required. From my analsis of your responses I got an A+ on my term paper of the Human Psyche When Assessing the Value of Sex In Relationships .
I would like to appologize for tricking you, but my analsis needed you to be blind on the fact the study was of all of you. Thanks though for being willing participants in my examination of the human mind. Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that, if it's true, is a serious academic offense warranting strong disciplinary measures at many universities?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
kmbboots.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But I think a lot more men are comfortable with the sex act in general. They're a lot more encouraged to explore their sexuality in our society than women.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
