This is topic Is Age important to how you judge someone or can Advent ever be forgiven? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
[ March 07, 2006, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Advent 115 ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes.
Honestly, I don't think that it is the most important issue in a relationship, but it is very important, and for other reasons that the reproductive impulse.
There is a level of closeness associated with sex between partners that you don't usually see outside of a sexual relationship. At least when it works right, that is (the relationship, nopt any specific physical parts ). There are a lot of people in modern society who think that sex is just a physical act, and that it can be shared with a number of people without diluting it's importance, but I have never seen it that way myself.
I have also seen most of the people I know who believe that get hurt time and time again because they think that way. Everyone gets hurt from time to time, of course, but I have seen that type of attitude destroy relationships, and have never seen it work out well in the long run.
Kwea
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
No. not really. Declination of sex, in any form, is a civilized decision.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Thank you for the serious response Kwea.
Please keep answers like this coming everyone
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Why do you believe that clod?
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
The rejection of impulse is the highest form of orderliness. It is what makes human's special. It is our moral base.
why do you ask?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Because I am trying to make a survey of Hatrackers responses for an essay paper I am working on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sex is the glue that keeps a marriage together. Too much glue is messy; too little and everything falls apart.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
...An intresting way of phrasing it rivka. Thank you for the quick response.
Keep them coming everyone.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I think sex is important in a relationship, not most important, but important. I think though it's important at a specific point in the relationship. I'd sort of agree with what Kwea said. I don't think of sex as just a physical act that can be done without diluting its importance. I think sex is sort of a culmination point in a relationship and it should be taken very seriously. So yes, sex is important.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
That is a good point pfresh.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
Personally, I don't see any validity to the "sex=glue" argument for marriage. This is, EXACTLY, the argument that should and must suffer disdain.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Why clod? Please I am interested in why you see it this way?
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
I tend to see things in a context, Advent115 (<- context). That's just scruples, talking. What more would you like to know?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If I were you, I would not feed the sub-pontifical life forms.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
What are you talking about KoM?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm going to guess that pont- is a root referring to bridges, e.g. pontoon.
Edit to add: Clod, I would argue that the *ability* to deny one's impulses may be an important part of what makes us human, moral, whatever, but that it is not the actual denial of the impulses all of the time which is important. Rather, it's knowing when one should indulge and when one shouldn't, and acting on that knowledge.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I don't get it.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
Advent, I don't expect your question-post to last very long with anything resembling seriousness. I'll eat my hat if it does.
*peruses gelatinous rewards on his cap*
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
*bites head off of Shigosei worm*
*rubs tummy*
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Um, what do worms have to do with the importance of sex in a relationship?
KoM, I know I don't often ask you for assistance, but please help me keep my thread on track.
Please.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is a moderately famous quote by a man named Herschel that says: "Self-respect is the fruit of discipline; the sense of dignity grows with the ability to say no to oneself."
I think that clod's point concerns human dignity and its relation to the ability to abstain. There is a certain type of austere pride that comes with going without, but I don't think that that's healthy for the relationship.
I've always had an affinity to the understanding of sex as knowledge, and having sex is like sharing ones most intimate and fragile knowledge. It requires trust, attention, and affection to leave oneself that vulnerable. Its a bit of a romantic conception but I think it hits all the right notes.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
You are just the kind of person I want responding to this thread Irami. And thank you for the quote.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I wrote out a piece of my thoughts on this in the "Christian Families" thread, but I suppose a different facet of it goes here.
We are not beings composed exclusively of mind or spirit. We have bodies and material form. We can't allow the one side, the body, to rule completely, and I think that touches on what clod is getting at. But neither can we neglect it entirely, because it is a part of us. And I'm using "sex" here as a shorthand; I believe that physical affection in general is important, and far more widely applicable.
Is sex important? For most people, yeah, I think it is. Is it the most important thing? Of course not. Should it be given free rein? Equally, of course not.
quote:I've always had an affinity to the understanding of sex as knowledge, and having sex is like sharing ones most intimate and fragile knowledge. It requires trust, attention, and affection to leave oneself that vulnerable. Its a bit of a romantic conception but I think it hits all the right notes.
I also like this, what Irami said.
[ February 08, 2006, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I don't think sex is the most important thing in a relationship, but it's important enough that I would never seriously consider entering into any sort of formal long term relationship that was going to include sex (either marriage or other) without, er, testing the vibe. It's not the most important thing to me in a caring romantic relationship, but before I commit I'd want to make sure we were sexually compatible. Not to get all TMI, but some combos just don't match, and if you're going unsatisfied, there WILL be unnecessary tension in the relationship. Either because parties involved will have to look elsewhere to fulfill a certain, er, desire/need, or because there is no fulfillment. And sexual fulfillment is important.
Actually, I'm going to stop there, because my full views about sex and relationships are probably not Hatrack-friendly. Many of my opinions are heavily influenced by
a R for language, sex, drugs, etc. sex advice column by Dan Savage, who rocks my world. VERY NOT KID SAFE (it's not so evident in the latest column, but most of the questions involve some serious kinkiness), but very useful I'd say. There are quite a few examples of the importance of sex in, out, forming, and destroying relationships.
edited to try and fix link, but I'm giving up after this try.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Try TinyURL.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is doing your own homework important?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
No, doing homework is not important. And definitely not math homework. Hatrack is an integral part of my life and I derive great pleasure from it, so I'm here instead of doing my homework.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I absolutely believe that sex is important, necessary in a relationship.
Sex is the ultimate human act, and can be everything from savage, hurtful even harmful to healing, loving and miraculous.
The ultimate human act you say? We live divided, body and soul, day and night, sleeping and awake etc. When two halves come together to make a whole it is the connection itself that has power, that can create life.
Many older cultures worshiped the act of sex as holy, as a way to attain a higher level of understanding, of being.
Beyond all that, it is (can be/should be) the ultimate acceptance of another person, to trust them with your nakedness, which culturally (personally?) is shameful, to trust them to love your body, and for you to love theirs.
Sex is a secret language between those who speak it, always behind everything else, there is that knowledge that the couple share something private and sacred.
It is that very seclusion, that sense of including only you and your mate in that private inner circle of alliance that make the other person so special. The knowledge (rightly, or wrongly) that you know who they -really- are, because they can only act so freely, so open in your arms.
[ February 08, 2006, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think that sex/phsysical intimacy is as important to a relationship as people make it. To some, sex is a union of souls. To some, it's mainly an enjoyable way to play and bond with your mate. To others, it's all about physical gratification. How important sex is to a relationship depends on how the participants view sex.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Hello,
I would tell my personnal relationship. My dear love is still a virgin at 24. I am too. We met you after many discutions on a forum, on msn and an phone. Our relation is before all build on exchange and affection. We live in different countries, so we can be together each two weeks for the saturday and sunday. That's the context.
About sex, I feel good with my body. No stress or fear. But my love is not as ok than me. She is affraid about the pain of the first time. and she has a strong decency : she prefere the Darkness to be with me.
So, In these conditions, I can say that Sex is not a condition for love. For true love. Because I'm with her since three mounths and i don't want to change. She's so important for me. But, I must recognize that I have a sort of frustration. I need sex. She know it. But I don't want to make it without she feel ok for that. I go step by step to eliminate her fear and her distress.
To answer you, I think sex is not the most important thing in a relationship, but the communication is . Nevertheless, i admit that sex is something that without it, the couple may break. Leave of sex is making many tentions really difficult to control.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think that sex is a sacred thing, a deep physical and spiritual connection between two people... But I don't see a lot of people who think of it that way... As some form of union...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
It depends on the relationship. Old-fashioned that I am, I really think that sex is best reserved for the married, and that it is an important part of the married relationship, but not for the unmarried one. So, what's the difference in the relationship if you get "a piece of paper"? You get a license to have sex. Makes the whole marriage deal seem a lot more worthwhile and relevant.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think sex is as important as the partners in a relationship make it. The key, as in all other important aspects of a long-term, intimate relationship, is to seek compatibility. I don't mean that you should sleep around until you find someone who satisfies you. What I mean is that to have an intimate relationship, you have to find someone with a compatible worldview in all important ways, including sex. If one partner is more adventurous than the other, there will be problems unless they are both very understanding of one another and hold the other's needs as important as their own. Beyond that, I think anything goes, providing all partners consent, genuinely.
quote:Tante: So, what's the difference in the relationship if you get "a piece of paper"? You get a license to have sex. Makes the whole marriage deal seem a lot more worthwhile and relevant.
I think it's the opposite. I think a license to have sex is the least important aspect of getting married. I fear for any couple whose primary reason for the piece of paper is to be able to have sex legitimately. That seems to me to cheapen both the marriage and sexual intimacy itself.
quote:Kwea: There are a lot of people in modern society who think that sex is just a physical act, and that it can be shared with a number of people without diluting it's importance, but I have never seen it that way myself.
I have also seen most of the people I know who believe that get hurt time and time again because they think that way. Everyone gets hurt from time to time, of course, but I have seen that type of attitude destroy relationships, and have never seen it work out well in the long run.
I think sex is an important part of getting to know someone intimately. I think sexual integrity within a relationship is of great importance. However, I believe that sexual integrity is defined by the participants in an intimate relationship. I have seen several types of intimate relationships and have spoken openly with many of my friends about sex. I have known people with "open" relationships, couples who include certain friends in their intimacy, and couples who are self-described as strictly monogamous. Some of those couples are still together, some are not. From personal observation I can't say that less traditional attitudes about sex even correlate with a higher rate of breakups much less a cause of them. What does seem to be a deciding factor, in my experience, is whether all partners in an intimate relationship share a common point of view regarding sex and its role in the relationship.
I think a large part of the problem with many couples is a confusion of "intimacy" with "sex". A relationship can be sexual and even legally recognized as a marriage and not be particularly intimate. On the other hand, a relationship can be extremely intimate and not particularly sexual at all. The trick to building a lasting relationship is finding someone with a common philosophy regarding both sex and intimacy. Unfortunately it's hard to discover another person's true philosophy without first having some degree of intimacy and trust. Even more unfortunately, most people prefer to assume what the other person should be without ever trying to learn who they are.
What this means to me in terms of sex and relationships is that I'm a big fan of long engagements, co-habitation prior to marriage, and honest and safe sexual exploration.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:What does seem to be a deciding factor, in my experience, is whether all partners in an intimate relationship share a common point of view regarding sex and its role in the relationship.
I quote myself, here, only to clarify that this sentence is intended only in the context of sex and its role in a relationship.
What I think is of paramount importance to a relationship is trust, honesty, and common goals. Almost any failure in a relationship can be traced to a failure of one of these three.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Why do you believe that clod?
OK, that made me laugh, even though I knew he was referring to a guy named clod.
I think it depends on the relationship. Basing a relationship on it isn't always a great idea, but it can definately add something to a good relationship. But wait until you're married! Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think sex is a vital part of any relationship. In fact, it's so important that I've started sleeping with all my friends, relatives, pets, and any travelling salespeople that come through.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, pets I can see, but salespeople? You have to have SOME standards.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's the easiest way to get rid of 'em.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Most of the salespeople who come around here would be happy for the attention. I'm fairly certain they'd never leave. Maybe just the salespeople's pets?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Sure, why not? I'm not that discerning, and if the relatioship's gonna go anywhere I'm gonna have to have sex with them eventually.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
That's slightly disturbing. Remind me to never take a sales job in LA.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I agree with Karl.
In today's society I think the most important aspect of sex in a relationship is the communicational aspect. To be able to discuss a still embarrasing and taboo subject with a person shows definite commitment. When both partners work so that the other recieves the most pleasure, both recieve the most pleasure.
So if you believe in denial and abstinance are the hallmarks of a civilized person, then your sexual activities are few or non-existant. If your partner agrees than this is a good relationship. However, if your partner disagrees but makes themselves unhappy in order to submit to your definition of civilized, then the relationship is dangerously imbalanced.
Similarly if you believe in fun first, responsibility later, and don't care how cheap that makes sex, that is fine as long as your partner agrees. (THIS LEAVES HEALTH AND RELIGIOUS ISSUES ASIDE) However if they want something more from physical intimacy than a quick thrill, this relationship is dangerously unbalanced.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I agree with Dan who agrees wtih Carl who agrees with Irami who agrees with Kwea.
Damn if only this was 50 pages long I could get Genesis going here.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Sex is extremely important. If you are an adult human being, sexuality is an integral part of who you are. You cannot have a very good relationship until you address your sexuality, being honest with yourself and your partner. That doesn't mean you choose to be sexual with that person. It does mean you don't hide from your sexuality and sweep it under the rug.
Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
I fear you question is too vague to really give a fair answer. This vagueness stems from the use of the word "relationships". There are many forms of relationships. Such as relationships between a brother and sister, two hetero friends of the same gender, polyamourous, monogamous and the like. Clearly there are some where sexuality is taboo and/or unlawful. And as I recall Ender entered in to a celibate marriage.
I would say that from a biological point of view we are imprinted with the need to continue the species. Due to genetic variances, some would feel the need greater or lesser, and even have triggers that would make actual reproduction impossible.
Do we say that the sex act itself brings us closer emotionally? Or that the reward for completing the act produces a chemical change in the brain that causes us to further bond with our partner? Spiritual, chemical, emotional?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Do we say that the sex act itself brings us closer emotionally? Or that the reward for completing the act produces a chemical change in the brain that causes us to further bond with our partner?
I think there is ample evidence that the answer to both of these questions is "No".
Many people have sex with no significant emotional attachment. Whatever the chemical changes, they do not always lead to bonding between partners. (Not to mention that solo-masturbation should presumably create the same changes) Therefore I submit that while sex can be a bonding experience, strengthening emotional ties, this arises from something outside the sex act itself. Perhaps the mindset of the participants?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Is doing your own homework important?
mph, it seems to me that Advent is only here to get input on general feelings. He's not asking us to write his essay for him.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I'll assume, Advent, that by "relationship" you are talking about a romantic relationship (dating or marriage, or something in that vein), and not, necessarily, the relationships that people develop with salespersons, pets, or some combination thereof.
That being said, I'd have to say, "Yes," sex is important to a relationship.
A long-term relationship without sex or intimacy devolves into a friendship, and then desolves into nothing. We are sexual beings (well, maybe not "clod," but I'll make this assumption for the rest of us). I don't know that I'd say we're driven by the need to create offspring, but maybe that's the "male" point of view. But sex provides a release, it provides pleasure, and when coupled with intimacy, passion and compassion, it provides a strong aspect of self-worth.
A marriage or other long-term romantic relationship without sex becomes a barren thing. You sense of value and self-worth plummet, regardless of your strength of character (or so I keep telling myself). Sex (and all the activities leading up to "it") provide for an affirmation of your value as a provider, and as a caring person.
I'm rambling. And bitter. But in all seriousness the book "Mars and Venus in the Bedroom," by John Gray gives an excellent (and I would say very accurate) picture of what a long-term romantic relationship without sex can mean to a person. His book is male-biased, but his observations on mens response to this situation are spot-on.
I think the quality of your sex life is a good indicator of the health of your marriage. When feelings cloud objectivity, it can be hard to determine whether or not your relationship is doing well or if it has serious issues that need to be addressed. Denial is so easy....I remember distinctly thinking that there was nothing wrong with my first marriage, and only months later finding that we'd decided to divorce. In retrospect, it was easy to see how blind I was to the truth. But one thing I learned in premarital counselling prior to my second marriage was that your sex life can tell you whether or not there may be some issues you should address. The counsellor said that when sex is an issue, it's just a symptom of something bigger that once addressed and resolved will often solve the sex problems. I think that's true.
Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Do we say that the sex act itself brings us closer emotionally? Or that the reward for completing the act produces a chemical change in the brain that causes us to further bond with our partner?
I think there is ample evidence that the answer to both of these questions is "No".
Many people have sex with no significant emotional attachment. Whatever the chemical changes, they do not always lead to bonding between partners. (Not to mention that solo-masturbation should presumably create the same changes) Therefore I submit that while sex can be a bonding experience, strengthening emotional ties, this arises from something outside the sex act itself. Perhaps the mindset of the participants?
Agreed. Could we say that the importance of sex in a relationship is contextually based on the participants' emotional, physical and ideological requirements?
- or -
To each, his own?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think that the things that sex represents is what is important to a successful relationship, not necessarily the sex itself. In other words, people that are unable or unwilling to have sex with each other are still capable of having a meaningful relationship. At the most, sex is a representation of the level of intimacy that a couple already possess.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
To me, sex itself isn't important. Physical contact is. Very much so. I need a lot of cuddling and kissing. I really need to be touched. Also, if the kissing is awkward, the rest of the relationship is usually awkward, but I don't know if that's the cause or just another indicator of incompatibility.
-pH
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A long-term relationship without sex or intimacy devolves into a friendship, and then desolves into nothing. We are sexual beings (well, maybe not "clod," but I'll make this assumption for the rest of us). I don't know that I'd say we're driven by the need to create offspring, but maybe that's the "male" point of view. But sex provides a release, it provides pleasure, and when coupled with intimacy, passion and compassion, it provides a strong aspect of self-worth.
A marriage or other long-term romantic relationship without sex becomes a barren thing. You sense of value and self-worth plummet, regardless of your strength of character (or so I keep telling myself). Sex (and all the activities leading up to "it") provide for an affirmation of your value as a provider, and as a caring person.
What makes you conclude either of these is true? At the very least, I know the first one is not true - because I have known people who had relationships without sex, and then became strong friends, and that friendship continued to last.
Yes, sex can probably provide pleasure, a release, and a sense of intimacy - but I don't see why it would be required for self-worth, unless we choose to value ourselves in terms of our sexual activity. Can't someone value themselves on their own merit, rather than valuing themselves for the sex they have? Consider monks or nuns or priests who choose to never have sex as part of their religious dedication - do these people lack self-worth? Are deep relationships impossible for them? I doubt it.
My suspicion is that sex is only as necessary as you choose to make it, just like anything else we may use to define ourselves and our goals. It's no more essential than becoming wealthy and successful is essential - for those who make "success" a critical goal, achieving success can be life or death, but for others a simpler life might be preferable. I presume there exists a similar spectrum of attitudes towards sex. And I do think that those who consider sex an end-all and be-all for their life probably have made it into a misplaced priority, and a real source of unhappiness, because it is not always feasible or wise to engage in it (like the gymnast who makes gymnastics the foundation of their being, and then finds themselves too old to perform, and thus without the one thing important to them).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I so wish all of you could have heard the talk on Catholic Sexuality that I heard last night. The presented is a guy who has spent most of his life trying to heal the wounds that our messed up ideas on sex have caused. Some highlights:
Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
Sexuality has to do with learning to be hold and be held, by each other, by life, by God.
"Sexuality is the desire for intimacy, both emotionally and physically. It is the physiological and psychological grounding of our capacity to love. At is undistorted best, our sexuality is that basic eros of our humanness - urging, pulling, driving us out of loneliness into communion; out of stagnation and into creativity." James Nelson
Sexuality is a sacrament. A conduit to grace, a vehicle of the sacred. To the extent that sexuality does not function as a sacrament distortion and perversion are afoot.
Sexuality is a gift, a force to be reckoned with, a threat. In that order. For too long we have had the order reversed. There are things we can express physically that we just can't from ten feet away. There is an intrinsic relationship between how much sexuality is expressed and how much one has to "say". Go only as far as you can say - as far as you are promised, as far as you are committed. Don't have your body write checks that your spirit can't cash.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:"Sexuality is the desire for intimacy, both emotionally and physically. It is the physiological and psychological grounding of our capacity to love. At is undistorted best, our sexuality is that basic eros of our humanness - urging, pulling, driving us out of loneliness into communion; out of stagnation and into creativity."
...and it's quite valid for atheists, too.
Treso, I know what I said to be true, without question, from long-term personal experience. I do not (by any means) only "value myself for the sex I have." There's a lot of different aspects to who I am; the personal ones I tend to keep personal, especially on-line, especially where I know the "audience" has a wide range in age, and most especially where I know my daughter might wander in and read my posts.
kmbboots,
Except for the explicit* Christian references (sacrament/grace/sacred), I am in total agreement with you. You list a number of "spiritual" references, which I do understand, and which I do agree with. I also understand the mapping of the Christian references into a secular/human "spirit" reference. Either way: well said. You "get" it (at least from my POV, FWIW). Thanks.
* I find this very funny: I don't mind the mention of the word "intercourse," which many may find sexually explicit, but I do comment on the religious tone! Ha!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
I don't agree with that. I think they are changing the word to mean something that people don't really mean by it, and that tends to confuse things. That is "Intimacy" they are talking about, not "Sexuality". Sexuality, I think, refers only to love in a romantic and/or physical sense - that attraction that might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes. The difference is that sexuality is one type of intimacy, and I think intimacy is broadly necessary for just about everyone, while sexuality is only one particularly powerful method of fulfilling that need.
quote:Treso, I know what I said to be true, without question, from long-term personal experience.
I don't think that's the sort of thing you can know from long-term personal experience. You can know what has happened personally to you so far in your life and to people you personally know when they had relationships without sex, but that won't tell you whether those were experiences specific to you or whether those are things that always happen to everyone who tries to have a relationship of that fashion.
[ February 08, 2006, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:that attraction that might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes.
I was in agreement with the first paragraph of your post until right there. We gay people have sexuality, too. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
quote:because I have known people who had relationships without sex, and then became strong friends, and that friendship continued to last.
But were they married, or just friends? I've got some great friends that I never had sex with; that's not the real issue.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hey, I specifically wrote that in a way to include same-sex couples. Just because it might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes does not mean that peers of the same sex can't experience it too. That's just a less common relationship in which to experience it.
Steve, No - not married. Just a long-term relationship.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What about sensuality vs. sexuality?
-pH
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
Well, I know that it's true for me. So it is, at least, true for part of the population.
I also know from discussions with friends that it's true for others; I also know this from various books that I've read on the subject, and discussions with professional counsellors. I'm not saying that it's true for all. What is, after all, true for all in the world of emotions and relationships? And if we get sidetracked on "but you said it was true for all," then we'll be missing the point.
Please continue.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Tres, I think if you subsitute "physical love" for sexuality in KMB's post it might work better for you... kinda like pH says... we don't need sex, per se, but we do need physical loving.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So with your "long term relationship" couples--did they not have sex at all, with anyone, or just not with each other? And were they somehow physically unable to have sex, or was it purely by choice? And was there any "sensuality" between them? Any intimacy?
I'm talking about a collapse in a relationship from lack of intimacy and sex. Intimacy without sex is still pretty nice, though...I'd take that if I could.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Hey, I specifically wrote that in a way to include same-sex couples. Just because it might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes does not mean that peers of the same sex can't experience it too. That's just a less common relationship in which to experience it.
I'm assuming you mean "normally" as the part that "includes" same-sex couples. I'd argue that simply leaving out the "of the opposite sex" part would have done that more concisely. I don't see the need in your arguement to emphasize that homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality since that fact is extraneous to your point. And as far as your point goes, it holds true to the same percentage of gay couples as straight ones. [/sensitivity training 101]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I (or rather the presenter from last night) use "sexuality" as different from intimacy because intimacy isn't necessarily physical.
ssywak, I did say it was a talk on Catholic sexuality. I do agree that it works beyond that. I am glad that you think so, too.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I wanted to include the opposite sex part because I suspect that's why it is called SEXuality - because it is a concept coined to capture the specific feelings associated with a certain type of relationship, rather than intimate relationships in general.
quote:So with your "long term relationship" couples--did they not have sex at all, with anyone, or just not with each other? And were they somehow physically unable to have sex, or was it purely by choice? And was there any "sensuality" between them? Any intimacy?
I believe they chose not to. And yes, there was intimacy. As for a relationship with no sex AND no intimacy - I'm not sure that's even a real relationship.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
It's a real relationship. But it'a a real sucky relationship.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Then again, there is also the relationship with sex but no intimacy. I suspect that is not much better.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I think sex is a vital part of any relationship. In fact, it's so important that I've started sleeping with all my friends, relatives, pets, and any travelling salespeople that come through.
Um, I don't think that I wanted to know that.
But I have loved how on track this thread has kept. So keep those serious responses coming (not that I don't apreciate a little humor on this thread )
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Wouldn't know. I haven't had one of those for 25 years. But even then, as dispassionate as it was, there was still some intimacy.
Still, I would not recommend it for you kids...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. NO fun. YOu may as well stick to toys. It's cleaner. And in the words of RAH, "you don't have to go home in the cold, but it's lonely."
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H:
quote:Is doing your own homework important?
mph, it seems to me that Advent is only here to get input on general feelings. He's not asking us to write his essay for him.
No, I'm not asking you guys to write it for me. But I may use a copy of this thread to support my thesis. Seeing as how this thread has become a fairly dependable survey of various age groups across the States and Beyond.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Then change my name, please. How foolish of me to actually post as...me.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
kmbboots, I really appreciated your post. It's given me some things to think about.
I agree that sex encompasses physical intimacy of a much wider scope than just intercourse. I would consider cuddling or kissing with a boyfriend to be a form of sex. However, I have trouble making this same association with cuddling with one of my sisters or even a friend. I think the act and the emotion behind the act is essentially the same. Both are physical contact with somebody I care about. However, I think there is a difference based on how we're taught to interpret things. Physical intimacy in a romantic relationship is symbolic of a commitment. If my little sister was to hold my hand while we were watching a movie, I wouldn't think twice about it. However if a potential love interest did it, it would carry a meaning much greater than the simple act.
I'm still thinking about this and would be curious as to what more people think about it. Two friends can have sex outside of a romantic relationship, and it is still considered sexual. Thus it seems sexuality is not dependent on the romantic relationship. What makes it uniquely different from other forms of physical intimacy?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: kmbboots, I really appreciated your post. It's given me some things to think about.
I agree that sex encompasses physical intimacy of a much wider scope than just intercourse. I would consider cuddling or kissing with a boyfriend to be a form of sex. However, I have trouble making this same association with cuddling with one of my sisters or even a friend. I think the act and the emotion behind the act is essentially the same. Both are physical contact with somebody I care about. However, I think there is a difference based on how we're taught to interpret things. Physical intimacy in a romantic relationship is symbolic of a commitment. If my little sister was to hold my hand while we were watching a movie, I wouldn't think twice about it. However if a potential love interest did it, it would carry a meaning much greater than the simple act.
I'm still thinking about this and would be curious as to what more people think about it. Two friends can have sex outside of a romantic relationship, and it is still considered sexual. Thus it seems sexuality is not dependent on the romantic relationship. What makes it uniquely different from other forms of physical intimacy?
But would you hold her hand if you didn't love her? Either of them?Physical intimacy is using our bodies to express our love. Many kinds of love, many kinds of physical intimacy. And sure, we interpret physical intimacy depending on the relationship. Sexual intercourse says a whole lot more than a handshake. We can misuse our bodies to say things we don't mean or that are inappropriate; that is where the distortion comes in.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
That's sort of asking "is a relationship necessary for sex", instead of the other way around...
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
You're describing intimacy, not sexuality.
quote:But would you hold her hand if you didn't love her?
There are different kinds of love.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, for good, non-distorted, sacramental sex, yes. Even if it isn't a permanent relationship, there needs to be a relationship. Otherwise it, for me, is seldom worth the effort. And I could hurt people in the process. And it is really not worth that.
[ February 08, 2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
You're describing intimacy, not sexuality.
quote:But would you hold her hand if you didn't love her?
There are different kinds of love.
As I noted. And intimacy doesn't require a physical aspect. Shrug. Say "physical intimacy" if you prefer.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
A better consideration for terms seems to be needed.
"Sex" means intercourse and dozens of other events which may or may not be classified as sex given an individual's personal opinions.
I don't think its necessary for a couple, married or not, to have intercourse.
But there seems to be some agreeance that the word "sex" as we're discussing it goes beyond the clinical definition. I like that a distinction is made between what is intimate and what is not.
I think couples who have sex should do it with some level of intimacy. The physical act of sex can happen between two strangers but to have intimate sex practically requirements that the persons have a relationship with one another.
Sex can be risky. When a couple has sex without intimacy the result can be destructive. But sex with intimacy for a couple is a great opportunity to well, bare all, to someone very important them. It builds trust, comfort, honesty, and a connection to each other's needs and feelings. This isn't to say that all sex as to be candlelight and loving. Sex is still physical at its base and the intimacy can simply be at a level where each partner lets the other know what he or she needs and then provides for each other. The intimacy isn't always the physical act. Its the eye contact, the concern for the other, the talks before and after, the cuddling, etc. The physical act becomes like a catalyst for a deeper sharing of feelings and thoughts. Intimate sex is the physical act and every other related activity which uses that closeness to build a strong emotional bond.
Personally, I think the positive potential that sex has to strengthen a relationship is being doubted because of a social preoccupation with the physical act of sex as a taboo.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think sex is as important as the partners in a relationship make it....
quote:Tante: So, what's the difference in the relationship if you get "a piece of paper"? You get a license to have sex. Makes the whole marriage deal seem a lot more worthwhile and relevant.
I think it's the opposite. I think a license to have sex is the least important aspect of getting married. I fear for any couple whose primary reason for the piece of paper is to be able to have sex legitimately. That seems to me to cheapen both the marriage and sexual intimacy itself.
What can I say, Karl? Once again, you are right. I sometimes forget to distinguish between "what is right for me" and "what is right for everyone". For me, sex within a married relationship is the right thing to do. For other people, well, they can do what is right for them.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
These responses are. So. Great.
Keep it going you guys, this is a great discussion.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Why don't you join in? Some of us are probably interested in what you, yourself, might think on the topic. Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well, I have been trying to stay out of it so that my own views do not affect your own.
But if you want my views on the subject:
I feel that it can be an important influence on any relationship. But as it has been said time and time again since I started this thread it needs to be done only when a relationship reaches a certain point of closeness and confedience. I believe that intercourse should only be furverently done when learning how to be more in tune with your partners preferences until you are both comforterable in the act and what to do and not do. I also feel that sex should only be applied rarely after that point.I feel this because I have observed several of my friends relationships crumble because they tried to put to much presure on performing intercourse frequently. I have tried to maintain a healthy view of sex in all of my past relationships. I have seen that by doing this my relationships with my partner have been far more fulfilling because it makes the act of intercourse a very special part of our relationship.
p.s. Sorry if I have bad grammer. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Sorry if I have bad grammer.
Not to mention spelling. Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Yeah. Well sadly not all of us can be as perfect as you Tante. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think it would be difficult to have a long-term romantic relationship that didn't have a sexual aspect. And I wouldn't characterize a relationship that didn't as normal.
Sex is a normal, natural, healthy, and joyous part of human existence. Why wouldn't one want to share that with the person one loved, barring other circumstances that made it difficult or impossible?
That said, I agree that sex is far from the only part of a relationship, or even the most important part. But it's definitely important.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Wow. And I thought everyone had forgoten about my thread.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Ok, I have not read the second page of postings but I don't have time and would like to chip in my 2 cents.
Sex is important in a marriage as a communication of love and appreciation. Men and women respond to different kinds of communications of love. For many women, doing something around the house (doing dishes) without having to be asked is the greatest expression of love or compliments. For many men the expression they most desire is sex. I heard it refered to as different "love languages". So, if a couple cant learn to speak each other's language they will have conflict. So for the guy it is important to help around the house, give compliments, bring gifts, etc (I'm sure for some women sex is what they want too) and women need to understand that many of the preceeding acts will go unnoticed by a man but sex will be the equivilant (sp). Of course there are exceptions . . .
As for clod's comments regarding abstainance (sp), I think the discipline in a marriage comes from being monogamous.
Sergeant
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am all for doing something around the house. As long as something is me. I couldn't care less about the dishes.
[ February 14, 2006, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Just curious kmbboots, are you a guy or a gal? I mean no offence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm female. My first name is Kate.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
She's a woman. Really.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Sex is important in a marriage as a communication of love and appreciation. Men and women respond to different kinds of communications of love. For many women, doing something around the house (doing dishes) without having to be asked is the greatest expression of love or compliments. For many men the expression they most desire is sex. I heard it refered to as different "love languages". So, if a couple cant learn to speak each other's language they will have conflict. So for the guy it is important to help around the house, give compliments, bring gifts, etc (I'm sure for some women sex is what they want too) and women need to understand that many of the preceeding acts will go unnoticed by a man but sex will be the equivilant (sp). Of course there are exceptions . . .
God, no. Doing the dishes is fine. Whatever. If you're dating me, you're probably my house minion, too. But to me, the best expression of affection is physical contact. I'm a huge cuddler.
I think I'm more with kmbboots on the subject of sex.
-pH
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hmm, just shows how I am usually wrong on my guesses from Hatrackers screen names.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: I also feel that sex should only be applied rarely after that point.I feel this because I have observed several of my friends relationships crumble because they tried to put to much presure on performing intercourse frequently.
I think it's naive, and a recipe for disaster, to try to make blanket statements like this about what would be a healthy level of sex in a relationship. People are different and appetites are different. What makes a sexual appetite unhealthy isn't how often sex is desired or performed, but to what degree it usurps other aspects of a relationship. If one partner has a stronger appetite for sex than the other, it would be more healthy for them to reach a compromise, perhaps the one trying to be more demonstrative and the other trying to be less demanding. However, to artificially declare that infrequency is best across the board seems silly. Many people have active sex lives with frequent sexual contact with their partners. If both are willing and able where is this a bad thing, in and of itself? And if one partner desires more frequency than the couple currently enjoys, why is it more healthy for the relationship for the more active partner to give up his/her desires than for the less active one to step up, so to speak? My point is demanding capitulation in any relationship inequity is unfair and unhealthy in either direction. If one partner is unwilling to compromise, the relationship has problems far deeper than how much sex they enjoy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: She's a woman. Really.
Ooooh. Good memory.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
I should note that my direct experience on this issue is limited to one woman so my views may be somewhat skewed.
Sergeant
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That only really makes a difference, Sergeant, if you find yourself in a future relationship with a different woman and assume she should be exactly like your previous experience because, after all, she's a woman.
Many sexual stereotypes may hold true as general trends across a large population, but we have relationships with individuals who rarely fit all the stereotypes (or even most of the stereotypes) of their class.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I would like to welcome everyone to the Giants Shadow Bar (a game). Where you can drink til' you can't type strait or talk til' you can't talk no more. But just remember to enjoy yourself.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
I don't agree with that. I think they are changing the word to mean something that people don't really mean by it, and that tends to confuse things. That is "Intimacy" they are talking about, not "Sexuality". Sexuality, I think, refers only to love in a romantic and/or physical sense -
And we wonder why the Catholic Church is struggling with issues of sexual abuse?
HELLO! WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!
There is a decided difference (as Tres pointed out earlier) between "SEXUALITY" and "INTIMACY" -- and there had better be a pretty big divide between the two when it comes to relationships between parents/children and grandparents/children.
This "sexuality" talk that links SAFE, NURTURING TOUCH -- i.e., AFFECTION -- as SEXUALITY, is just another way the Catholic Church (IMHO) is trying to smoothe over past (and probably still continuing) indiscretions.
Whoever that speaker was was WRONG.
Let me tell you about being the mother of an infant with about 2 inches of flesh available to be touched because the rest of that infant was covered in needles and tubes and was tied down to rpevent thrashing.
The stroking of the two square inches (and the singing of lullabyes, hymns, reading stories, talking inanely for hours on end) was about:
Comfort Nurture Blessing Reassurance
NOT SEX.
Sex is a physical act of stimulation designed to give physical pleasure of especially the erogenous zones (orgasm/release from sexual tension brought about by using touch, smell, sound, etc., designed to arouse sexual tension in the body of your partner, and in your body).
When a church -- with a high rate of sexual abuse cases -- is espousing the act of nurture and affection between caregiving adults and children-teens as a form of sexuality, I am sickened. Appalled. Heartbroken.
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
Shan, I'm not going to debate the issues of faith, however, I will say: let's not brand Catholicism alone with their problems in this area; numerous religious organizations, and other organizations (non-religious) have had serious issues with Sex impacting the way they work (hello, TailHook? Hello, Southern Baptist Conference 1970s style?)
The reality is, we have all of these issues around sex, and as a result, we get into problems.
So, I wouldn't lavish this all on the "Catholic church is evil" bit. I haven't heard that method expoused by them directly, but I've heard similar expoused by a lot of groups - including MTV's "Love Calls" so, hey, everyone want to set their own definitions.
Getting back to the thread title: my wife & I celebrated a big anniversary yesterday (we'll say more then five and less then 15, how about that).
And here's what I can tell you: a good relationship does fine sex or no, it's the intimacy that matters; a bad relationship happens and ends fast because sex is all their is. Sex can be a crutch, or it can be a solid part of your life that works
But it is not the end-all-be-all of a relationship. Trust me, Sex doesn't pay the bills, turn the lights on, take out the trash, etc. But, once a day or so, it's a great way to escape all of those things Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
You're right.
I was raised in an orthodox Mormon family -- with some mighty big skeletons in the closet on this very issue.
It just so happens that the Catholic Church is currently being scrutinized rather closely on this topic.
Given that that is so, it would behoove them to be VERY careful in what they teach and preach, no?
***************
And on a humorous note (of the more sordid side of humor):
For those making a living by providing "Favors" shall we say, sex DOES pay the bills.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shan,
Calm down. You are misunderstanding me. I am talking about a wider definition of sexuality than you are comfortable with and that's fine. As I said, you can use the term "physical intimacy" instead.
You wrote about how physical touch in the case of the infant is about Comfort, Nurture, Blessing, Reassurance. Isn't sex, the way it is supposed to be, about the same things? It is all part of our human need and our human gift to express ourselves to each other through touch.
quote: Sex is a physical act of stimulation designed to give physical pleasure of especially the erogenous zones (orgasm/release from sexual tension brought about by using touch, smell, sound, etc., designed to arouse sexual tension in the body of your partner, and in your body).
Sexuality is about so much more than that. Understanding it in only that way cheapens it and us and makes it a perversion.
No one is at all suggesting that the kind of sex you describe is a valid expression of love when talking about children.
Shan, please believe me when I say that I take the sexual abuse of children by priests very seriously. My cousin (not the speaker I am talking about) is very probably the world's foremost champion for victims of sexual abuse by priests That is not an exaggeration - books have been written about his struggle. I say this not to boast, but so that you will take me seriously when I tell you that I take this seriously and know something about it.
A better understanding of physical intimacy and its rightful and sacramental nature is part of the solution. Our ideas about intimacy, sex, and sexuality have been warped by generations of trying to close off and repress all sexuality so that we have no idea how to express it in a healthy, appropriate, sacramental way. This is what leads to the kind of perversion that we both rightly abhore.
That and a hierarchical system that lacks transparency and is designed to keep secrets. But that is another conversation.
Let's please keep discussing this either here on in another thread. Or feel free to e-mail me. It is very important that we understand each other on this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(bump) for Shan because this is important.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Absolutely, nurturing qualities belong in a sexual relationship.
However, I HIGHLY and VEHEMENTLY disagree with the way the speaker is phrasing it.
To call the nurture given by a parent to a child, or a grandparent to a child (or for that matter, any adult in relationship to a minor) a "sexual" relationship is WRONG.
IMHO.
And I don't think I'm wrong.
And I am certainly glad that you and your cousin champion the rights of sexual abuse victims -- I think the championing would go a lot farther if the dividing line between appropriate touch and nurture for adult:adult as compared to adult: child was made much more clear.
And thank you for your concern, but really, I am quite calm. I am being forceful and very vehemently clear, yes. For a variety of reasons. Not least of which is that I, too, have experience working as an individual and at policy levels on this issue.
Thank you for the bump and the response. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: To call the nurture given by a parent to a child, or a grandparent to a child (or for that matter, any adult in relationship to a minor) a "sexual" relationship is WRONG.
Agreed!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think the only reason you guys feel like it's wrong and kmbboots doesn't is that she views the word "sexual" in a different way than you guys do.
And honestly, I wish that "sexual" didn't have so many strings attached to it.
-pH
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:And honestly, I wish that "sexual" didn't have so many strings attached to it.
Unfortunately, it does, and those strings will not be easily removed, principally because some of those strings have been legitimately borne from the natural ambiguity of language, and from the often vast differences between common, scientific, and legal definitions of the same words.
It would be a terrible disservice to simply remove all the "strings" from the word unless you can first introduce more precise terms to carry the other baggage. By this I mean, removing the "erogenous" connotations from the designation "sexual" especially in the way Shan is talking about (assuming I understand him) is more likely to allow sexual predators and their political allies to justify their actions.
Aside from that, neutering "sexual" in that way also robs our language of a perfectly useful and still powerful word. If "sexual" comes to mean any physical interaction with another, then patting your son on the back becomes "sexual intercourse" or perhaps even "sexual assault", if it's unwelcome contact.
I think a more useful campaign would be to increase the use of the word "intimacy". You can speak of "physical intimacy" and how it is a necessary and beautiful part of adult/children relationships and still steer clear of any suggestion that you are also including erotic (i.e. "sexual") contact. Also, even if such physical intimacy as kmbboots is talking about is sexual in a clinical sense, (and I think there is ample room for debate on that topic), "sexual" in that context would still be a clinical or scientific use of the word, not the way the word is used colloquially. I'm not sure I see the value in trying to force a clinical definition into colloquial use when "intimate" is already available and already carries the colloquial meaning kmbboots seems to want to grant to (or enhance for) "sexual".
kmbboots, if I'm misreading you, please let me know. What other meaning for "sexual" are you trying to promote that "intimate" doesn't share?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
That's right on the money, Karl. Part of nurture and caregiving includes some very physical aspects . . . diaper changing, bathing, feeding -- not to mention rocking, holding, hugging, wiping tears, hand-holding, carrying, etc.
These activities are very intimate in many ways. But when adults are caring for children (or other less capable adults, for that matter), these activities should not occur in a sexualized manner.
Let me rephrase:
Has food played a role in eroticism? You bet. Massage? Of course. Hand-holding, hugging, bathing? Absolutely. In the context of adult-to-adult relationships, wherein sexual activity is either the goal, or a nice extra.
Does that mean that every time someone eats a meal, holds a hand, gets a massage, they are looking for sex? I don't think so. Nor do I regard these basic activities as sexual in nature -- no matter what we make of them during certain other activities in our life.
"Intimate" is a different kettle of fish. With a definition that contains many uses, and can be reasonably assigned to the safe nurture and caregiving that occurs in context of the adult:child relationships.
Edit to add:
quote: By this I mean, removing the "erogenous" connotations from the designation "sexual" especially in the way Shan is talking about (assuming I understand him) is more likely to allow sexual predators and their political allies to justify their actions.
Yep -- that is a big concern for me, Karl. And, as a mom, I also don't think "motherhood" needs to become the starting point for a litany of reasons/excuses/justifications for sexualized adult:child relationships.
As a matter of fact, I do have to confess to being QUITE irritated at the designation of "sexual" touch to a mom that is caring for her baby on life support. Who the hell can even THINK of sex at a time like that? Hello?
[ February 16, 2006, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:As a matter of fact, I do have to confess to being QUITE irritated at the designation of "sexual" touch to a mom that is caring for her baby on life support. Who the hell can even THINK of sex at a time like that? Hello?
I agree. This does seem, to me, to be such an unusual use of the word "sexual" that it makes very little sense to use it if you are trying to increase communication or understanding. I can't make sense of using that word in that context except as a nod to some other political agenda.
That said, I also agree that sex and sexuality carry way too much baggage in our country, often making frank discourse difficult. I applaud reasonable efforts to de-stigmatize sex in the appropriate setting. However, the case you point out above doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate use of the word, nor does that particular setting seem like an appropriate venue for trying to de-stigmatize "sexual", even if you agree such de-stigmatizing is otherwise a good thing.
In fact, I can't think of any definition of "sexual" (dictionary, clinical, scientific, or common usage) that would include such touching. It seems to me that the speaker is defining "sexual" in such a unique or private way as to hinder communication rather than help it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shan, I'm still not making myself clear. And I don't think that, for this discussion, it is at all necessary that I change your minds about the word "sexual". As I have said (a few times now) "physical intimacy" works just fine. In the definition I was using "sex" is a subset of "erotic sexuality", which is a subset of "sexuality", which is a subset of intimacy. The problem of using just intimacy, is that intimacy doesn't require touch.
I was not describing the touch of a great-grandmother as erotic. At all. No one is saying that erotic touch is ever justified with children. I was not talking about erotic sexuality.
The problem that has led to the abuse is not that the lines between appropriate, healthy expressions of physical intimacy have been blurred to make everything "okay". Rather is is that the lines have disappeared entirely as everything, all of it, has been labeled "evil".
I understand that the term "sexuality" carries baggage. Please don't let that become a stumbling block to the discussion.
The point I was trying to make about sex is that it is not just about eroticism. It is not just a matter of arousal and release. When properly used it is an expression of a relationship - just as any other kind of intimate touch is.
Here is another example that may help: My grandparents adored each other. When my grandmother had a back injury, she had to use a special hospital bed for a while. My grandfather confessed to my dad that he missed sleeping with his wife. Papa was, I believe, 92 at the time and Nana would have been 85. I doubt there was a lot of arousal and release. There was a need for a physically intimate expression of their love for each other.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The problem of using just intimacy, is that intimacy doesn't require touch.
But it also doesn't exclude touch, and adding "physical" to it clarifies what kind of intimacy you mean.
quote:When properly used it is an expression of a relationship - just as any other kind of intimate touch is.
I disagree. When properly used, the word "sexual" is most emphatically not like "any other kind of intimate touch", and that's the crux of the disagreement.
Yes, a sexual relationship can and usually should include many other aspects that are not specifically coital, genital, or erotic, but those are extra-sexual aspects of a relationship that is also sexual. They are not all different expressions of the sexual nature of the relationship.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
I think we may be seeing this through the wrong end of the telescope, partially because of lack of context and partly because of the ambiguity of the language as it was used.
I think the person at kmb's class was not trying to say that all those things are sexual, but that as humans we need *physical* expressions of love and that we need to be open to receiving them in various ways. In other words sex is, just like those other things he mentioned, a natural, tender, innocent expression of love. I think he was trying to equate them in *that* sense, not in the quasi-freudian sense that every touch is sexual.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
These sentences illustrate my point:
"Our relationship was unfulflling because it was strictly sexual"
"Now that I've found someone who enjoys cuddling, touching, and other physical intimacy as much as I do, I find the sexual aspect of our relationship is more enjoyable and meaningful."
"I know him intimately, though our relationship was never sexual."
While the use of "sexual" in these sentences does imply an exclusion of other forms of physical and emotional intimacy, they also illustrate why such exclusion is essential if the word "sexual" is to retain any meaning. If "sexual" were to include other forms of touch, those sentences would make little sense, or at the very least would not make the sense they do now.
How would you word the sentences above to say the same thing if you expand "sexual" to include things that are not coital, genital, or erotic?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I really didn't expect this thread to last this long. Or to have this many inteligent responses.
So thanks guys.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Welcome to Hatrack! Viva la tangent!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: [QB]
quote:The problem of using just intimacy, is that intimacy doesn't require touch.
But it also doesn't exclude touch, and adding "physical" to it clarifies what kind of intimacy you mean.
Karl, how many times would you like me to say that "physical intimacy" works fine for the purposes of this discussion?
quote:
quote:When properly used it is an expression of a relationship - just as any other kind of intimate touch is.
I disagree. When properly used, the word "sexual" is most emphatically not like "any other kind of intimate touch", and that's the crux of the disagreement.
When properly used sex - not the term, but sex itself - is an expression of a relationship. A hug is an expression of a relationship, as is a handshake. Different relationships, different expressions.
I had (foolishly) moved on from the discussion of terms.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
Karl,
I think your point is understood (and a good one, as well). My point is that his saying those obviously non-sexual (by definition) things were sexual was, IMO, metaphorical speech.
I wasn't there, but I sincerely doubt the speaker or the audience were confused in the way that you and Shan seem to fear.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Karl, how many times would you like me to say that "physical intimacy" works fine for the purposes of this discussion?
I'm not being purposely obtuse, though clearly I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. This is exacerbated by phrases like this:
quote:The point I was trying to make about sex is that it is not just about eroticism. It is not just a matter of arousal and release.
While I might agree that "sex" isn't just about arousal and release, per se, I'm not sure I agree that it is not about eroticism. What is sex about other than eroticism in some form?
My point is that although I agree that a sexual relationship can include many other forms of physical intimacy that are not erotic, coital, genital, etc., "sexual" implies those things.
Please know that I'm not just trying to get the last word in. It seems to me that you are espousing some use of the word "sexual" that I don't think I can agree is legitimate if the word it to retain its primary meaning. What, specifically, can "sexual" mean that is not coital, erotic, or arousal/release?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by password: Karl,
I think your point is understood (and a good one, as well). My point is that his saying those obviously non-sexual (by definition) things were sexual was, IMO, metaphorical speech.
I wasn't there, but I sincerely doubt the speaker or the audience were confused in the way that you and Shan seem to fear.
Of course, I wasn't there either. All I have to go on is kmbboots' original post. I disagree with the use of the word "sexual" in the way it is used in that post for the reasons I explain above.
I understand your point that perhaps it is metaphorical speech. However, I question its usefulness as metaphor. The word necessarily carries with it the baggage it has, and thus, as metaphor, will color the thing it is being used to represent.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: However, I question its usefulness as metaphor. The word necessarily carries with it the baggage it has, and thus, as metaphor, will color the thing it is being used to represent.
I gathered the point was to try to remove some of that baggage... we are talking about Catholics here.
I really just think there was something lost in translation. I got instantly what kmb was getting at and really liked the speech, though I completely agree that the logical implications of what was said (taken as written) would rob English of a perfectly useful (in fact, a necessary) word.
heh. Did I just answer the title question?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I gathered the point was to try to remove some of that baggage... we are talking about Catholics here.
I agree. I just think they're trying to remove the wrong baggage. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My mistake was in introducing the term here without either the time or the expertise to explain it in the way that it was introduced during the presentation. We also had sufficient context to overcome the "baggage" as a large part of the presentation was about overcoming the baggage. Password is entirely correct that neither the speaker nor the audience were confused. I regret this error. Seriously, if it bugs you, let it go. This is now four times.
The term was used in this context: "Sexuality is the desire for intimacy, both emotionally and physically. It is the physiological and psychological grounding of our capacity to love. At is undistorted best, our sexuality is that basic eros of our humanness - urging, pulling, driving us out of loneliness into communion; out of stagnation and into creativity." James Nelson
James Nelson, the man our presenter was quoting and who I am quoting here, is a fairly important theologian and professor of Christian ethics. I think you might be interested in reading more from him. He has written many books:
I am not trying to say that we should drag the erotic into where it doesn't belong. I am trying to say that all physical intimicy should be infused with the divine. When it isn't it becomes, at best, barren.
[ February 16, 2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I regret this error. Seriously, if it bugs you, let it go. This is now four times.
I'll leave the discussion, then, as I have had no intent to harp on anything. My intent was clarification, both of what I wanted to say, and what you were trying to say. I try not to make a habit of re-iterating my point just to see my words in print, therefore, if I appear to not have "let something go" it's because I thought I saw the chance of clearing up miscommunication. Though, rather than risk a 5th time, I'll just bow out. Sorry if I've offended.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
kmb, www.tinyurl.com will fix the forum stretching.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Karl, you never offend me. I just ran out of ways to say that if using the tem "sexuality" carried enough baggage to be an obstacle, we could agree to not use it. edit to add: It just felt like I had already surrendered the point two pages ago. Sorry that I was cranky.
I am certainly interested in continuing the discussion with you - any discussion with you, actually. Without the offending word.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, since it automatically goes to two lines on my screen, I had no idea about stretching.
I am a computer idiot.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*grin* I was going to try to clarify where I thought kate might have been coming from using some of James Nelson's writings. Glad to know I was on the right track.
It’s good stuff if you get a chance to read it. I think one of the distinctions that counld be clearer is “sexuality” as a core aspect of humanity whether or not the person is sexually active vs “sexual activity” (not just intercourse). One of the key concepts that folks like Nelson are trying to make is that everyone has, participates in, and expresses sexuality, even if they are completely celibate. I think that is why the word sexuality, specifically, was used, rather than substituting intimacy. One of the key concerns of the Catholic church is, obviously, the healthy expression of sexuality and acknowledgement of oneself as a sexual being within a celibate lifestyle. "Sexuality" defined this way, is not necessarily erotic. I think that the quote kate gave, without the background distinctions and boundary drawing, probably gave the wrong impression. And maybe for the purposes of this discussion it is the wrong word to use. But I can absolutely guarentee that the person using it, if they were drawing from Nelson's work, was NOT advocating the eroticization of parent-child relationships.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Dana.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I am certainly interested in continuing the discussion with you - any discussion with you, actually. Without the offending word.
Actually, I'm not sure anything else is being discussed on the thread anymore. :bushing:
Words and their meanings are very important to me, which is probaby why I appear to be harping on the point. I know that you conceded the point as far as this thread goes. I wasn't so much looking for surrender as for consensus. I don't mean that I want you to just accept my point, but each time you "conceded" for the sake of this thread, you seemed to maintain that there is a non-erotic use of "sexual" that we just weren't understanding. I simply wanted to know what that usage was.
I can understand what was mentioned about metaphor, and also what dkw wrote above. I'm still not sure I agree the word isn't being somewhat bastardized by that usage. I was thinking about this a lot over lunch and the only non-erotic sense I could think of that the word has is in regards to the difference between men and women as separate sexes. I don't think that is quite what you and dkw are talking about either, is it? As for other meanings, dictionary.com doesn't list any, at least.
I never meant to imply that Nelson (or anyone) was advocating blurring the lines of sexuality for nefarious reasons, but I think that using the word too loosely can open it up for being co-opted by those who would. It's entirely possible that he defined his terms as he was using them and he was therefore understood by his audience. If nothing else, though, by so doing, he has drastically limited his quotability.
At any rate, I'm glad I didn't offend you. I certainly didn't intend to. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ahh. I see. I thought it was an obstacle to the discussion, whereas it had actually become the discussion. That's different. Shall we continue here or a different thread?
Also, I ask your indulgence. My understanding of this (such as it is) is intuitive rather than learned. This make it tougher for me to articulate.
Did you get a chance to look at the Nelson article?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm working my way through it now.
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.
(I'm heading home from work now, though, so I might not post until tomorrow.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sounds like a plan. Have a good evening.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: :bushing:
I am shocked.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: :bushing:
I am shocked.
OK, now I'm really "bushing" Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I am not trying to say that we should drag the erotic into where it doesn't belong. I am trying to say that all physical intimicy should be infused with the divine. When it isn't it becomes, at best, barren.
OK, I read the article linked. Basically he argues that there is a shift happening in religious perceptions of human sexuality. He then defines 7 signs of this shift. I can see why his arguement could be comforting or appealing to modern or progressive Christians. Not being Christian myself, I didn't see a whole lot I felt qualified to comment on. He basically describes an evolution of Christian thought on sexuality, and I imagine thoughtful Christians can read this with rejoicing, finding it evidence of God's bringing His children closer to some universal truths.
From an athiest/agnostic perspective, however, the article can also be viewed as more Christian apologetics. Between the lines it could be describing a philosophy (Christianity) trying to regain lost ground in a world whose changing sexual attitudes threaten it with irrelevance. Now, I know that's not his intent, of course, but the article can certainly be viewed as evidence of such from an outside perspective.
I don't have any problems with his 7 signs insofar as they describe trends in Christian thought. Most of them I view as at least innocuous if not actually welcome.
Number 4 (a trend from viewing salvation as anti-sexuxal towards a view of "sexual salvation") intrigues me. I wholeheartedly agree with this quote:
quote:Sexual sanctification can mean growth in bodily sef-acceptance, in the capacity for sensuousness, in the capacity for play, in the diffusion of the erotic throughout the body (rather than in its genitalization) and in the embrace of the androgynous possibility.
I would love to know to what degree his concept of the "androgynous possibility" and mine converge, though I imagine there are some marked differences, too.
Point number 7 (a shift from understanding sexuality as a private issue to understanding it as a personal and public one) unsettles me. Not that I disagree that such a shift exists, but it means something different to me as a gay man than I'm sure it means to Mr. Nelson. I understand his points and largely agree with them. To the extent that he simply points out this sign and doesn't call for a reaction to it one way or the other, I have no problem with the article itself. This sign unsettles me, though, because the most visible, outspoken, and active manifestation of this shift has been the enormous push in many churches to legally and officially damn homosexuals to second-class relationships.
One sentence which I have to actively not take offense to is this:
quote:"Hurt, boredom and disease have sobered more than a few--and the forces of religous and political reacton rejoice."
If I grant that his point in saying this is that the religious rejoice in a "seen the error of their ways and returned to the flock" kind of "sobering", then I can understand the sentiment, though I disagree with the use of the word "political" in that sentence. Every other way that I can interpret that sentence sickens me.
So, now that I've read the article, is there anything specific about it you wanted to discuss? Or about my reaction to it? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good Morning!
I wish that I could find an article of his that more clearly outlines his views instead of his observations - I'll keep looking.
My first reaction to your reaction was that I read the sentence above ("Hurt, boredom...") entirely differently. My take on it was that Nelson thought that this is a bad thing - not including himself among the "forces of religious and political reaction". I thought that he was saying that those forces were taking advantage of the "sobering" to return to the old ways and to push a conservative agenda.
Does this makes sense? Perhaps I read too optimistically. I'll look at it again.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
No, now that you mention it, I'm sure that sentence could be meant the way you took it. The biggest problem with the example you linked to is that it doesn't give me enough of a feeling of what he thinks about these observations.
So, assuming you are right about your estimation of the intent of that sentence, let me revise my reaction to "the idea of that kind of rejoicing sickens me." Better?
I am interested if you can find something that better illustrates his views rather than just observations.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Point number 7 (a shift from understanding sexuality as a private issue to understanding it as a personal and public one) unsettles me. Not that I disagree that such a shift exists, but it means something different to me as a gay man than I'm sure it means to Mr. Nelson. I understand his points and largely agree with them. To the extent that he simply points out this sign and doesn't call for a reaction to it one way or the other, I have no problem with the article itself. This sign unsettles me, though, because the most visible, outspoken, and active manifestation of this shift has been the enormous push in many churches to legally and officially damn homosexuals to second-class relationships.
Karl, I'm assuming that you wouldn't recognize the name of the seminary he taught at (he's retired now) from the intro to the article -- it's a United Church of Christ school and one of the leaders in that denomination's Open and Affirming movement. Also the article was written in 1987, when the various "reconciling," "more light," "open and affirming" movements were gaining steam. So I'm pretty sure the shift he was seeing was religious people begining to see sexual orientation as a social justice/civil rights issue. The push you refer to is a reaction to that shift.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
dkw, do you know where I can find more of his stuff online?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In regards to the "rejoice" quote, I think you have to look at the sentence before it: "The sexual revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s is mostly over, and some of its superficial and exploitative forms of freedom have proved to be just that. Hurt, boredom and disease have sobered more than a few . . ." What is being rejoiced in is a return to concern about sexual ethics, but now an ethics centered on building healthy relationships rather than lists of prohibited acts.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kate, I will look. I haven't had to look for stuff online, 'cause I have his books. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks dkw. No, I didn't recognize the seminary. I don't know a lot about the Open and Affirming movement.
Regarding the "rejoice" quote, I did try to take it in context. I just found the context to be ambiguous, at least for a person such as myself, unfamiliar with any of the author's other works. And I did grant that the intended use of the phrase was likely benign. It's a hot button issue for me, though, so while I can give the benefit of the doubt, I'm also wary of underlying implications.
BTW, I appreciate when you comment on my posts. You are one of the people who most underscores for me what I miss about Christian fellowship. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Books are better, but harder to share over the internet.
quote: I would love to know to what degree his concept of the "androgynous possibility" and mine converge, though I imagine there are some marked differences, too.
I, personally, managed to reconcile my attitude toward sexuality and my faith almost as soon as I had an attitude toward sexuality. I know a great many people who are not so fortunate. I have seen enormous hurt done by a Church I love. So you can, I think, understand why I feel that the fact that we are quoting this man (and others like him) in Catholic classes is a source of great hope for me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I printed that article and will read it this weekend. Thanks for searching it out for me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm off to a retreat, so am leaving work early. More on Monday?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Monday or Tuesday. I'm off on Monday (but might be on here). Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan:
For those making a living by providing "Favors" shall we say, sex DOES pay the bills.
... what are you trying to say Shan? Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
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.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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?
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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). Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Sorry KarlEd, I had distractions (aka noisy kids) as I was reading and missed parts that in re-reading make things clearer.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
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.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
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?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Only if you're religious, or you're trying to have sex with someone who is religious.
Otherwise...no.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with pH absolutely. Many of the ways Western society views sex derive from Christian perspectives and/or are a reaction to them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
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?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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?
You might be surprised at what we "good Christian girls" do. Some of us anyway.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
kmbboots.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See? Like that for instance!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pictures!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Oh, kmb, I know what some of you do!
Unfortunately, I didn't marry one of those.
^&#&$)*&^*^%$%$$()*^&*^%$^&%
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Oh, kmb, I know what some of you do!
Unfortunately, I didn't marry one of those.
^&#&$)*&^*^%$%$$()*^&*^%$^&%
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.
-pH
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: So you have two atheists making love (having sex; whatever...). Religion enters into it...how?
When one of them screams "Oh GOD!" and the other turns around and says "Where? Where?!?"
--Enigmatic
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
pH,
Actually, I wasn't. And this is the Internet, and I really don't want to get into the depths of the problem here. Besides, it wouldn't be funny.
Enigmatic,
Very funny!! I love it!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
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.
-pH
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
pH,
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Pictures!
pH - did we take any pictures? Do you have those negatives?
(okay, I'm really old. Do pictures even have negatives anymore?)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171:
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.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Oh, now that was just naughty....
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Well...(ahem)...OK...then...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
kmbboots,
That is exactly how I would have put it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Smoochies! Yay!
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Is this an all-girls-kiss-Kate thread? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
'Bout time!
edit to add: whisper: I think we scared all the guys. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Heh. I LOVE scaring guys...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Pictures!
pH - did we take any pictures? Do you have those negatives?
(okay, I'm really old. Do pictures even have negatives anymore?)
I've got 'em saved on my computer and backed up on my thumbdrive!
I think we should charge for the privilege of viewing.
-pH
Posted by xxsockeh (Member # 9186) on :
Eek. I would've hoped you put PG-13 on there...I thought you meant gender...I'm not an adult, so to say.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
xxsockeh,
Of course, gender is important!
How else would you know what underwear to wear!?!
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: 'Bout time!
edit to add: whisper: I think we scared all the guys.
Thats not true. I am just choosing to set back and watch the view. Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
No.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yes, it's very important!
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.
[ March 02, 2006, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
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. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You do realize that, if it's true, is a serious academic offense warranting strong disciplinary measures at many universities?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I'm sorry. But for the sake of the purity of my results it was required that you not be informed of the real purpose of the examination.
I am really sorry, but I knew that you guys were a dependable source of data.
I am really, really, really sorry.
(I feel like such a *blank* about this now)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:edited out because what I said wasn't completely true:
[ March 04, 2006, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
He did state in the first post that he was asking the question because he was writing an essay on the subject for a psych. class.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't realize that. Hmmm. Nevermind.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
The moment that I told you this information was to be used in a thesis on sexuallty, and you still choose to participate you became willing. I have appologized. And I could have let you go on not knowing. I let my conscience overwhelm me. I couldn't let myself sleep til' I had told you the truth about the experiment.
I am still sorry, and I think that if givin the chance to do it again, I don't think I would have.
But what is done is done. I will try to make ammends, but I can rest knowing that I told you the truth rather than leave you in the dark.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hadn't realized that you had said it was for a psych class. I'm sorry for jumping on your case, Advent.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd be interested in reading the essay, Advent.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hmm, well It will take me a while to transfer it to comp text. The essay was over 50 pages by the time I finished my examination.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wait--you wrote it out by hand?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
>.<
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Yeah. I had to sit back and read a printout of every post and then analize how I felt the stress of the subject matter was affecting each persons response. I then had to evaluate every persons possible sources from which they gained their opinions from. And trust me, that was just the begining of it. It took me forever to properly organize this data and more. It would take me at least two full post pages to show how I examined the data I collected from this thread.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I feel misrepresented.
There are very few people on Hatrack who understand from whence my views on sex actually come.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What'd you come up with for my jokes on page 1?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Hm. How confident do you feel that you were able to correctly identify where people's opinions came from? It seems to me that that while there would be a few people for whom that would be easily determined, for most people your evaluation would almost have to be something of a shot in the dark.
I'd be interested in reading everything you've produced in conjunction with this. Maybe the easiest thing to do would be to scan it, save it somewhere, and post a link to it. Or not; no idea if you have easy access to a scanner.
Out of curiosity, why did you write this out by hand?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well like I said, I had to analize not only each persons view individually but also the source of how they might have come to these conclusions. It was not a "by the majority people think such and such". It was an examination of every persons ideals on the individual scale. I must say though, it took me a while to try to properly examine your mind pH. Not to mention I didn't just examine everyone from how they behaved her on this thread I aslo had to examine other threads each of you participated in so as to find a reference point to how you would act when not under stress of a complicated subject matter that varies from person to person. So to give you an idea how much research I had to do, I've been analizing just about everyone who participated for over three months.
After all this research I feel like I need a long nap. After all, you are very complex inividuals (especially you pH).
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well I had more free time while I was away from any comp access (did it at work). And no scanner sorry. But what I reallized after turning in the essay was that it was aslo an analsis of how I was processing the information I was collecting about all of you, and how well my proffesor felt I had examined each of your psychological states at the time of your response. It was a bit of a shot in the dark, even after my examinations of most of you in your more relaxed states in other threads. But I can't even remember now what I found about 1/2 of you now. That much data is just too much for my mind to handle.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My views on sex (as well as the views of MANY other people on this board) don't just come from religion...they come from upbringing, environment, personal experiences, and plenty of other things that really can't be shared on a public forum.
That's my main concern, really.
I mean, there are guys who know me in real life, and who have known me for quite some time, who still misinterpret my views on sex and their origins.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who experiences this sort of thing.
-pH
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:I must say though, it took me a while to try to properly examine your mind pH.
That sounds kinda creepy.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I had to take into account a variety of factors that might or did influence each and every one of you. Though I am still uncertain as to wether or not my eventuall conclutions were correct
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm with fugu—this is considered a pretty serious ethical offense. I remember being specifically warned against this kind of research more than once. It doesn't really matter that you said that you were writing a paper about this. What matters is that you didn't say that you would be using people's responses as part of your research.
Worry about ethics first, and then you can worry about the "purity" of your results.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Though I am still uncertain as to wether or not my eventuall conclutions were correct
Frankly, I'm pretty sure they weren't. What methodology did you use to expose and isolate those factors that you felt contributed to our responses?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So what were your general conclusions, Advent?
I'm not sure what to think about this thread, I'll have to think about it. But I'm glad I didn't participate (I think I didn't.) I would feel better if there was something in the title.
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Because I am trying to make a survey of Hatrackers responses for an essay paper I am working on.
Advent's post minutes after starting the thread.
There was some disclosure on the first page. But what about participants who didn't read the 1st pp? The disclosure seems like corporations do when they bury junk in the fine print of EULAs.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*laugh* If you're making all this up, you're doing a piss-poor job of it, and if it's for real, I feel sorry for your eventual clients because based on this example your education is going to be sub-par and ethically spotty.
But just out of curiousity, why in the world would you think people would be stressed talking about sex and relaxed in other topics? Maybe of the other threads on this board are much more complicated than "do you think sex is important in a relationship." I put less thought into my posts on this thread than most, because I had to worry less about hurting other people's feelings.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm still coming back to the fact that you wrote a 50 page essay out by hand. A person could do that, but I've never met a professor who would have accepted a handwritten work of that length. Did many of your classmates turn in handwritten material as well? Did your professor say anything about the fact that it wasn't typed?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But for the sake of the purity of my results it was required that you not be informed of the real purpose of the examination.
This is per se not an acceptable excuse for circumventing informed consent. Because almost any experiment would benefit from the subject not knowing they were being experimented on.
I was in a negotiation seminar last semester, and the professor wanted to track performance on the exercises by a variety of factors: age, sex, race, prior education, prior work experience, etc. To participate, we had to fill out a questionnaire to enter this information. This was done after the exercises (they were part of the class).
So, to participate, we essentially had to fill out a census form. This still required IRB approval and informed consent. The informed consent was pretty serious - longer than the questionnaire.
I really hope you explained your methodology honestly in your paper.
That's assuming, of course, that there even was a paper.
They also require this form be submitted when deception is necessary:
quote:Post-Debrief Release Form for Deception Studies Project Title:
During the experiment, you were asked (Describe the task.) You were told that the purpose of the study was to (Describe the deception). This is not true, (Explain the actual purpose of the study and describe how the deception worked.)
Because you were deceived, you now have the right to refuse to allow your (Specify what materials will be used)* to be used and to ask that they be destroyed immediately. If you do so, there is no penalty. You will still receive full credit (or payment, if applicable) for the experiment.
If you agree to include your materials* in the experiment, they may be reviewed and analyzed by graduate and undergraduate research assistants.
___ I give permission for my materials* to be used in the analysis for this experiment.
___ I do NOT give my permission for my materials* to be used in the analysis for this experiment. Please withdraw them from the study and destroy them immediately.
You will receive a copy of this form for your records.
The only exemptions from IRB review are:
quote:46.101(b) Research activities in which the only involvement of human participants will be in one or more of the following categories are exempt from this policy (i.e., review by a human participants committee):
46.101(b)(1) Research conducted in established or commonly accepted education settings, involving normal educational practices, such as:
(i) research on regular and special education strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.
46.101(b)(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:
(i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human participants can be identified, directly or though identifiers linked to the participants and (ii) any disclosure of the human participants' responses outside the research could reasonably place the participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the participants' financial standing, employability, or reputation.
4 6.101(b)(4) Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that participants cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the participants.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, this is an extremely serious ethical offense in a university setting. In order to do studies like this (without informed consent, which saying you're going to be writing a paper isn't) you absolutely must have approval from your university's human subjects committee. Since you're not intending to publish the results, the offense isn't the sort that would warrant possible expulsion, but its pretty bad.
This underscores one thing too many schools are missing: an undergraduate experimental ethics course required as a prereq for any class that might involve human subjects experiments.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, keep in mind that it is possible to fire a tenured faculty member for publishing a study conducted without IRB approval (almost always meaning prior informed consent on the part of the participants).
Second, here's an anecdote about how hard it is to fire tenured faculty. A number of years back, a professor here at IU was essentially running a prostitution ring using his students as prostitutes -- he was convicted of this in court. This was not sufficient grounds to fire a tenured faculty member (though I believe they have removed the loophole), so they paid him a lump sum representing the rest of his pay as a professor and his entire pension package, then told him to get out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've always wondered about people able to pull stuff like that off. Considering the likely reaction of asking someone to work in your prostitution ring, this guy must have been pretty charismatic and persuasive. Someone capable of pulling this off could have easily done something more productive and possible more profitable.
Although, since he got his future salary and pension in one lump sum, I guess it was pretty profitable.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Fugu, was he convicted? If so, any idea how long he spent in prison?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm also trying to wrap my head around Advent turning in a fifty page handwritten report and getting an A+ on it. That would have never flown even back when I was a student, and it was much more difficult to get computer access.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He was convicted, but apparently managed to escape prison for the most part (I'm not up on the entire story, but I believe there was a plea bargain involved).
mph: yeah, no professor I know would accept anything handwritten other than on an in-class test or short assignment.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Fugh, that was my first thought too, that it would've been a written essay test, but no test I ever took had 50+ pages for an answer, and dammit, I was an English major.
As for the IRB, Dags is totally right. And Fugu, about the ethics course. The idea of conducting an experiment including human subjects without any sort of informed consent is unethical.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: (I feel like such a *blank* about this now)
There's a reason for that. It's because you are a *blank*.
Is your next psych paper about the responses of an online community to childish manipulation and lies? If so, mark me down in the "Not angry, but now has nothing but scorn for the experimentor" category, please. Or was there really no paper and you're just chuckling at the outrage? Once again this seems like a control fantasy: "I'm the psychologist and you are all my test subjects!"
Straining to keep this post within the forum rules, I have to say that you were not one of my favorite posters around here but I thought you were starting to get better. (Specifically, you weren't starting multiple ego-trip threads each day like for a while there.) Now, however, those tiny specks of respect that were starting to build up go laughing merrily out the window.
I hope you read this post, because it is the last time I will post in a thread you start. With the possible exception of putting "Warning: Advent has proven disingenuous about his reasons for starting threads in the past and you should not post anything here that you wouldn't want ending up in his term paper or self-aggrandizing power fantasy."
Have a nice day, Advent! (preferably somewhere else)
--Enigmatic
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Advent, I can understand not wanting to type out the full essay for us, but what about posting some excerpts? You could, say, post what you came up with for one or two people. It'd probably be a good idea to get permission from them first, of course, but I doubt you'll have any trouble getting a couple of people to give you their blessing.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Okay. You want the truth?
I only used this thread as a personal (for my eyes only, no paper or anything) to see what everyone here felt about sex. I felt that it would not be a huge suprise if everyone felt they were being examined. I never wrote a paper on any of this. I did however attempt to analize every asspect of how each of you thought.
I never thought it would be taken as an offence if you thought you had participated in an actual study.
So I am sorry for blowing my joking statement out of proportion.
I swear that I never did a paper for anything other than my personal study of you who participated. I swear upon the blood of my father, my hatered for my step father and the life of my nephew that it was only a damn joke that I got nervous about and kept lying after you all started taking it seriously.
I think I'll leave Hatrack now. And maybe not come back.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Advent, you can leave Hatrack or stay -- at least for now, this seems to be your choice alone. And, for what it's worth, if you were to leave, you could also come back later if you chose.
But if you stay, or if you leave and then come back, it would be important for you to understand why this interaction worked out to be a real problem here. This has in part to do with inauthenticity, although there are other reasons, too.
If you don't get why this makes people not want to be your friend, than it might be a very good idea spending some time figuring that out. It's an important life lesson. We all have to learn it at some point, at least if we want to live harmoniously with others.
-------
Edited to add: Making friends can be tough. Trying to figure out on your own what works and what doesn't makes it even tougher.
You can ask for help, you know. Every time you ask for help, though, make sure to give something back that isn't focused on you. Having a mutual give-and-take of attention is really important to friendship, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Okay. You want the truth?
Yes. When you start telling some-and you still haven't-maybe people will give you some measure of respect. That people have been willing to up to this point is a measure of how friendly Hatrack is, seeing as how basically everything you say about yourself and your life sends a BS Detector blaring warnings.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Actually, none of us would have taken offense if you'd just been straight with us from the beginning. We talk about sex here fairly frequently, and you were an active member in a multipage discussion on the subject just days before you started this one, so I'm not sure why you thought that it would be such a touchy subject.
If you leave, good luck with your life. I hope that you can take some lessons from why your interactions with people here have been so rocky.
If you stay, just stop lying to the forum and people will eventually come to trust you again, more than likely--this is an incredibly forgiving group. If you're going to stick around, though, my advice would be to come clean about *everything*, not just the lies on which you think people have already caught you out.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Some people love the internet because they can live out a fantasy and pretend to be something they are not. They feel that nothing they do on the internet is "real" or "matters".
But Hatrack is a different sort of place. It is a community of people who know each other well and place a great deal of value on being real, truthful, and trusted. There is playfulness here, but people know the difference between "play" and "real." That line is respected.
There is a history and a culture, a unique social style. For the internet, Hatrack is an old place. Ancient, some might say. You don't just walk into an ancient culture and try to turn it on it's ear.
Compulsive liars *never* last here. They always get caught in their "crying wolf," and frankly, the people here are *very* good at seeing through lies.
But Hatrack is also amazingly kind and forgiving. It takes time to regain trust, but it can be done. The only way is to *never* repeat the offense. No more crying wolf. At all. Ever. But it *is* possible.
Example: Advent, most of us *seriously* doubt you are as old as you say you are. Though you very well might be. Because of your tendancy to lie, everything you say cannot be trusted. If you lie about one thing, why should we believe anything else you say?
So, what if you really are 14? You fear people here will respect you less for it? You are wrong. They are far more likely to respect a 14 year old who is intelligent, thoughtful, and *truthful* than a 20 year old who lies and acts immature for his age. You wouldn't be the first teenager to lie about your age on Hatrack in effort to get respect.
But, please, if you want to be respected here, above all else, do NOT lie about your age. *Especially* if you really are 20. Trust me on this. You won't regret it.
Being truly accepted at Hatrack for who you *really* are is one of the most rewarding things you can experience. Yes, I think that highly of this community. I've never seen anything like it. It would truly be worth your while to stay and try to learn and grow and BE REAL. Don't try to rule, humble yourself and try to learn.
Accept that many of the people here may have more experience and/or know more than you. It is intimidating at first, but if you respect the people here, they will respect you.
So you are curious about sex? Well, who isn't? That is nothing to be ashamed of or hide behind a school assignment. If you are curious about something, ask openly, respectfully, politely. You'd be surprised how warmly received you will be for just being yourself.
[ March 04, 2006, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll level with you: what makes me uncomfortable about this whole thing isn't the lying -- which was always painfully obvious -- but the level of your interest in pH, Altariel, and some of the other young women on the site. Most of them are completely capable of watching out for themselves, but I don't think all of them are, and I really wish you -- and a few of the other young men on here -- were at the very least a bit less obvious (and, ideally, a bit more respectful) about it.
I know some of the girls on here encourage that sort of pursuit, but you don't need to take the bait.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stalker to, eh? Wonderfully shocking!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Let me tell you a little story 'bout a man named Ced...
Advent, I hope you read this. All the way through.
A long time ago (in Internet years) another person pulled pretty much the same self-aggrandizing stunt. It also turned out to be a lie, as was fairly obvious because he too was so ignorant of the subject area (Sociology in his case) that he claimed he was doing research in.
Ultimately, IIRC, he was banned but I don't recall if it was for that offense or something else. I like to think it was for that.
He probably got a chuckle out of it because: a) his s/n became synonymous with being a "poser," on this site, so he gained a bit of immortality, so to speak. b) he could always sneak in here by logging in from a different IP address using a different name. The mods aren't that tight on the security. He probably had a few other sn's after the banning and when he got "outed" those were banned too. c) many of us really did believe him, to the point that more than one of us contacted his supposed educational institution.
You (and he) messed with MY chosen field. As a PhD in that field, I feel that one of my responsibilities is to "police" it from within, so that horrid abuses like those that have happened in the past are made less likely. If I hear of research that violates the standard subject notification rules, for example, I feel honor-bound to report it.
Ultimately, the community of scholars in this (or any academic discipline) is not so large that a student couldn't be tracked down and ratted out to their professors, despite attempts to hide identities, locales, etc. And most people don't hide that stuff well anyway.
At most of the places I've been associated with, the kind of think you claimed to have pulled here would result in instant academic probation. Your professor would have a bit of explaining to do as well if they had, for example, failed to explain how the world works. It could be REALLY ugly.
It's just something we don't joke about.
You have already "joked about it." If you are actually are pursuing a Psych degree (not that you've ever said this...but I have to bring it up), I urge you to think very carefully about how you wish to be perceived in that community. There are few "cardinal rules" in that community, but violating any of them, even as an undergrad, is something that can follow you for a good long time. Even joking about these few "boudary" issues is enough to get you a sour reputation.
So...if that's an area you're interested in, sober up and don't do something like this prank again.
Now...as for Hatrack, you crossed a line in maliciously lying to us. Twice, and maybe more. Does that mean you can't be here? No, of course not. It does mean that some of us will never beleive another word you say. Some will mentally put you on "probation" and start trusting you sometime in the future, if you earn it. But hey, there're also people who probably thought this was all pretty funny and will enjoy your next prank just as much. And there are always newbies who won't know about this episode at all and who will just take you to be whatever person you project yourself as from here on out.
Unless you've done something that gets you banned, you have an opportunity to be something at Hatrack other than "that kid who pulled a Cedrios." No-one is stopping you from just being yourself -- a mostly pleasant young man with talents, insecurities and a mix of intelligent and not so intelligent thoughts to share.
If you have the guts to be that person, I would welcome the transformation. Your predecessor (Ced) couldn't manage it. He never stopped being a poser, from what I could tell. You might do better.
So far, you've apologized, and that's a decent start. I think you may not have fully understood what facets of this issue you might wish to apologize for, so that's part of why I wrote this long post.
More important, and more difficult, would be to use this as an opportunity. Turn around, try being you. Be honest.
The easy thing now is to leave. I count myself among the people who wouldn't miss you if you did leave. I'm angry at you and I think you hurt something that I care about.
But I'll get over it. It's not THAT important...if you figure it out and be a better member of this community, that would count more. Taht would be the more difficult road.
In fact...I challenge you to do just that. Now that you've soiled the nest. Help clean it up. Stick around...knowing that people now know you are a liar and not above cheap pranks. Stick around and earn people's respect. To me, that's the only way you can make this up to the people here. By making contributions here that ultimately overwhelm our memory of your childishness.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I am only coming back long enoguh to say this beverly, I only lied about my age by a few months.
ANd to prove it, I was born May 16th in the year 1986 at approximatly 3:06am. In the small town of Pryor, Oklahoma where my father now deceased 16yrs worked. I have since lived in Alalbama, Texas, Arizona, and now live in New Mexico.
So don't ever question how old I am. I take great pride in my age and how I have lived through very rough times (bankrupcy, death of close family, an abusive stepfather who I caught cheating on my mother, and other hard events).
So if you ever dare to question my age you pathetic little (BLANK!) then you can go to (BLANK!). I swear this on the blood of my father. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Advent, people are going "dare" to question everything you say, including your age, because of your repeated deceptions.
Threats do not make you more trustworthy.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
1) That proves diddly-squat. To prove it, I was born August 43rd in the year 1176 at approximatly 5:11 am, in Atlantis. Don't ever question me about it.
2) If that's what you took from beverly's post and that's the way you're planning on talking to people who are doing their best to give you good advice, then I hope you meant it about being gone now.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
beverly was trying to help. Many of us have begun to question the truthfulness of all your statements, because you have proven yourself an unreliable narrator.
It really, really takes some doing to get that kind of reaction here.
lots of people have tried to help, by reaching out to you with explanations of why you may be getting negative reactions. Believe me, I have embarrassed myself on this board more than once (though not for a long, long time. *knocks wood*
Mostly, Hatrack is a forgiving bunch. Sorry you're having such a rough time, but attacks and name-calling don't really help -- they just squander the goodwill extended to you. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I am only coming back long enoguh to say this beverly, I only lied about my age by a few months.
So don't ever question how old I am. I take great pride in my age
So wait, if you take such great pride in your age (and why on earth would your age be something you take pride in? All you have to do to achieve a given age is not die), why did you, by your own admission, lie about it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:lots of people have tried to help, by reaching out to you with explanations of why you may be getting negative reactions. Believe me, I have embarrassed myself on this board more than once (though not for a long, long time. *knocks wood*
That missing parenthesis must be really embarrassing. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I was certainly embarassed by it.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I never forget a parens)
*sticks out tongue*
*grin*
Advent -- what you have done is wrong and detracts from the "safety" of participating in the Hatrack community.
I'll probably get over it, but unlike Bob, I hope you and others like you just go away rather than stick around and work it out. (I haven't achieved that state of personal enlightenment that allows one to forgive easily. Thank you for being a good role model, Bob.)
The little bit I posted in this thread is probably no more or less than I would have posted in another thread on the same subject -- but the thoughts people post here deserve to be treated with respect.
Which you did not -- I hope you don't treat people IRL the same way. Regardless of how you have been treated in the past. That's no excuse. Get some help is you have issues to deal with -- but don't take it out on innocent people.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
To some extent, we all teach each other how to behave to us, ourselves. We are at least partly responsible for calling out the good or bad in other people.
When one acts out in rage or pettiness, or when one lies or abuses trust, then one is teaching others to treat oneself as an angry, petty, untrustworthy person who tells lies. That approach doesn't help with making friends at all, even though it may be staggeringly tempting in the middle of a highly emotional moment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Advent 115,
If I believed you when you said, "I'm only coming back long enough..." I might feel some hesitation about posting to you. But since you appear to be living up to the predictibly pathetic standards of your thematic ancestor, Cedrios, I'm all but certain you're still reading-it's easy to tell, just from the way you talk. You don't even fake apologies very well, for the record.
quote:...I only lied about my age by a few months.
ANd to prove it, I was born May 16th in the year 1986 at approximatly 3:06am. In the small town of Pryor, Oklahoma where my father now deceased 16yrs worked. I have since lived in Alalbama, Texas, Arizona, and now live in New Mexico.
As has been mentioned, if you take such great pride in your age, why lie about it? And why 'just a few months'? What possible goal could that serve? So, you're lying here. You're either lying about how much exactly you lied about your age, or lying about that in which case you're much younger than you say.
Seeing as how you apparently want very much people to believe you're older and habitually lie to get people to believe the things you want them to, it's reasonable to conclude you're lying about how much you're lying about your age.
Feel free to put at least a little thought into your deceptions, so they don't make you so laughable. In almost one breath, you say something so blaringly stupid and obvious it almost has to be a lie.
quote:So don't ever question how old I am. I take great pride in my age and how I have lived through very rough times (bankrupcy, death of close family, an abusive stepfather who I caught cheating on my mother, and other hard events).
Why is your age possibly something of which to be proud? You've successfully avoided death for about fifteen years. Big deal. I imagine you probably got a birthday cake. That's the extent of any celebration you should get or expect about it.
There are basically two sets of people who take 'pride' in their age: the elderly, and the very young ----> teenagers. The elderly, because their age (sometimes) gives them the benefit of experience and wisdom and knowledge, and people are expected to respect their elders. Children and teenagers because they get less respect due to their age, and desperately crave more.
But in the words of Cedric the Entertainer, "It take respect to git respect." You don't get it just for living. You have to do something to get it, and that something does not include lying on Internet fora and then threatening people who call you on it.
quote:So if you ever dare to question my age you pathetic little (BLANK!) then you can go to (BLANK!). I swear this on the blood of my father.
I dare to question your age, Advent 115. I questioned it in the past, and I question it right now. The only unfortunate part about your threats is that you're not here right now when making them. Because if you were, a contemptible little pissant like you wouldn't be making them. People like you and Cedrios only utter statements like that with the comfortable safety of the Internet between themselves and their targets.
Here's the thing, Advent 115. There are few things more pathetic on the Internet than someone threatening other people. There's lots of reasons for that, but it's mostly because it's just stupid. Whatever will come of your threats and curses? "Don't dare to question my age, or...or...I'll whine and rant some more!"
Scary.
Most of us here on the Internet are kinda wimpy geeks, to be honest. And so we're not in the least bit intimidated by your adolescent ranting, first and foremost because of the fact that you're not actually here to do anything about your threats. As for those of us who aren't wimpy, fielding threats from frothing teenagers isn't exactly knee-shaking territory. In fact, it's pretty laughable.
Oh, and by the way...threatening women, threatening mothers is so manly, Advent 115. I'm sure the blood of your father is just flowing with pride. If your father is dead, he would take much more shame from your words than from anyone questioning your age.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The trouble with pulling stunts like this on hatrack is that, unlike in your real life*, you're not the smartest person in the room here. Not by a long shot.
But if it makes you feel better, I didn't lose any respect for you. Cause I didn't have any respect for you before. And you didn't violate my trust, because I never trusted you for a second (which is why I answered flippantly on pg. 1 -- I was hoping to antagonize you or derail the thread).
*There's an excellent chance I'm giving you too much credit. But I know a big reason someone might try a stunt like this is because they're used to pulling the wool over the eyes of people on a daily basis. That doesn't necessarily take intelligence, but it does take a certain amount of cleverness.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And I'd say a portion of wit. About 1/2.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've never been able to keep those straight.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Just remember two things:
1) On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog (or not a dog).
2) No one forced anyone here to post against their will.
Now, if there is some academic guideline or ethical agreement that was violated, then you have that. But more than that?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Now, if there is some academic guideline or ethical agreement that was violated
Yes, there is. Every academic institution in the US has a document called Guidelines for Human Subjects (or similar title) which governs research (including student-run research) undertaken at that institution.
If what Advent's original lie had turned out to be the truth, I can pretty much guarantee that it'd be considered a blatant violation.
quote:then you have that.
Well, no, apparently we don't...cuz he was lying.
[quote]But more than that?[quote] As I said in my response earlier, a certain proportion of people are just not going to consider this a big deal, or will even laugh at the funny little prank.
Ultimately, though, there's a level of participation in this online community that is simply barred to people who are known posers...or shall we say liars? Besides ticking people off, Advent has shown himself to be willing to lie to build himself up, and that is MORE than the other stuff. It means that we have in Advent a person who cannot be trusted on many, many levels.
Not that a lot of people trusted him because of his off-putting behavior here in general. But he has earned a level of distrust that puts him well outside the contributing members of this community.
beverly (and others) have suggested ways that, if he was truly sorry for his behavior, he could earn some measure of trust.
He chose to ignore her advice and threaten her instead. Just 'cuz he put "BLANK" where the threat was deleted, does it make NOT a threat.
So...yeah, there's more.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I didn't mean to belittle Advent's possible violation of an important academic guideline. That's really not my area of knowledge, but I do understand that what Advent did might have crossed a line that is important to an important community.
And, agreed: his constant back and forth about what was true and what was not..he's pretty much got himself written off.
But for those of us who posted: well, we knew we weren't answering a private questionnaire.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
If I may work in Ender's Game.
What about in Peter and Valentine's situation? Everyone thought they were much much older then they really were.
Besides, if a 14 year old came up to you and asked about sex, you would probably tell his parents to tell him. If a 20 year old came and asked you, you could have a disscusion. Just pointing that out.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Besides, if a 14 year old came up to you and asked about sex, you would probably tell his parents to tell him.
I wouldn't.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Besides, if a 14 year old came up to you and asked about sex, you would probably tell his parents to tell him.
I wouldn't.
The majority probably would though
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So dishonesty is justified when honesty seems unlikely to achieve the desired results?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Dishonesty is justified when used with dishonerable people.
No offense to anyone, but there is a great difference in respect between 20 year olds and 14 year olds.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dude. I'd much rather a 14 year old learn about sex at Hatrack than some of the places from which he *could* learn about sex. This is already a family-friendly forum, discussions on sex here are mature without being *too* mature, if'n you take my meaning. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:This is already a family-friendly forum, discussions on sex here are mature without being *too* mature, if'n you take my meaning.
As I once said in a review, it's funny how often what is termed "mature" could as easily be described "juvenile". Though that might be unfair to juveniles.
If you're going to confess, confess once. Otherwise, you put your very ability to lay out the truth in question. Pretty simple.
As far as how what I posted might be used, I can't say I'm that concerned. I meant what I said, and would say as much to just about anyone who asked, if I thought they really wanted to know. The benefit of honesty is not having to backtrack.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: What about in Peter and Valentine's situation? Everyone thought they were much much older then they really were.
They thought they were much older than they really were because they acted much older than they really were. I think that similar things happend with Lalo and MrSquicky (correct me if I'm wrong). None of them lied about their age.
It's a moot point, but I actually do believe that Advent is the 19 that he says he is. Comments that he made about his ex-girlfriend seemed genuine to me and place him at that age. However like so many others have said, there's no way to tell since we all know he regularly lies.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Can some one send me a link to where Advent posted his age?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
how old was :Locke when he first joined? 13? I don't remember people dismissing him for being young.
We've had plenty of teenagers who were very mature. There is no use trying to hide your rela age, whether you're younger than you seem, or older.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Funny how the people who do lie about their age to get respect are usually the ones who can't fake maturity well enough to pull it off.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
ain't that the truth.
I doubt very many people are upset about having posted in this thread. If it turned into a decent conversation for 4 or so pages, what's the big deal? And really, anyone who posts stuff that's TOO personal on a web board needs to learn a lesson FAST. Better they learn THAT at Hatrack than some of the other places out there.
But still! Assume everything you post on the internet is being read by a lot more people than you ever imagined. Some of whom might want to hurt you.
I mean, seriously, if people think picking a funny screen name is a good shield against someone ferreting out their true identity...they'd better be REALLY careful about their internet "presence" using that sn.
It's one of the reasons I just use my own name. It reminds me that I'm posting as me, whether I think I am or not. A determined person can pretty much always find someone else in this day and age.
So, if that's a concern, this thread is probably the least of a person's worries.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The majority probably would though
Why do you assume that you speak for the majority?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So, unrelated to the hub-bub, I have to say that ak's description of the "layers" of sexual perspective had to be one of the most chaste descriptions of sex I've ever read
Me, I like to think of it in terms of quantum foam, the smearing of Uncertain energy states across spacetime, and a whole lot of supersymmetry (hopefully). --
I'd also just like to say, "Oh, SNAP! bev, Advent just called you a BLANK-ety BLANK! Dang!"
-Bok
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
JT, it seems like likely that the majority of regular poster here (before the recent influx of young 'uns) would not be likely to discuss sex with a person they knew was fourteen. For a number of reasons.
So, without speaking for the majority, one can guess what would happen. I think it was more of a "this seems likely" thing than a "I speak for everyone here" thing.
I remember my personal shock when I realised how young Hobbes was. O_O It happened more than once, because it just wouldn't STICK in my brain. It was almost a DOES NOT COMPUTE sort of thing. I subconsciously rejected the idea that he could be younger than 25, at the outside.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I wouldn't give a 14 year old tips on sex, but I'd certainly give any information about it to anyone who asked. I don't think there's any age past about ten where kids can't know the truth about sex, at least in the 'nuts and bolts' sense. It takes information to make an informed decision, but people don't want to give it to kids because it makes them uncomfortable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Anybody who needs to lie about their age to get respect doesn't deserve that respect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boothby,
quote:Now, if there is some academic guideline or ethical agreement that was violated, then you have that. But more than that?
How about lying and being a prick in general? Even though no one was forced to post, that's still a problem in my book.
----
Jeesh,
quote:If I may work in Ender's Game.
What about in Peter and Valentine's situation? Everyone thought they were much much older then they really were.
Besides, if a 14 year old came up to you and asked about sex, you would probably tell his parents to tell him. If a 20 year old came and asked you, you could have a disscusion. Just pointing that out
Ender's Game is a novel, you know. You might also recall that the ploy was Peter's idea, and Peter was a lying, ruthless, manipulitive scumbag. So I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, really. To point out that Advent 115 was behaving like a lying, manipulative scumbag? I can agree with that.
As for his parents, it's not as though they can be told. What are we going to do, warn him and send him an email telling him to put his parents on the computer?
You don't speak for what most people would or wouldn't do.
quote:Dishonesty is justified when used with dishonerable people.
No offense to anyone, but there is a great difference in respect between 20 year olds and 14 year olds.
No offense? Whyever would anyone be offended, I wonder? It's not as though you called pretty much everyone who posted in this thread dishonorable...wait, actually, that's what you did. Funny, I didn't notice that for a second.
As for differences in respect between 14- and 20-year-olds, the solution Advent 115 should have gone with was to sew his balls on and deal with the horribly awful inconvenience of (some) people having diminished respect for him because he's about 14, not 20. Not lie about it. There are many 14 year olds I respect quite a bit more than 20 year olds I know, so frankly your little theory broke up on the rocks.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
I didn't call everyone dishonerable, I know some people would have given straight answers. But still, some people would have simply ignored him or told him to go ask his parents. I'm calling those people dishonerable, espesically now if they say they would have answered.
Besides, I was saying no offense to the people who would give equal respect to 14 and 20 year olds.
I do agree with the people that say Advent shouldn't have lied in the first place about the purpose of this thread. If he wanted to know then he should have just asked and he wouldn't have had to swear and curse others. Can someone also please send me a link to where he lied about his age? I never saw him say "I'm 20"
Think about this Rakeesh, what if someone told you that you're arguing with a 12 year old?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:My life is pretty routine other than my on off dating schedule, but I suppose that that is to expected for someone my age. Which by the way and for the last time is twenty years old, so enough with the Advent is still in middle school jokes please.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: But still, some people would have simply ignored him or told him to go ask his parents. I'm calling those people dishonerable . . .
Refusing to answer an unrelated fourteen-year-old's questions about sex makes one dishonorable? Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Thank you ElJay.
How would you feel if people refused to talk to you because you're 14? What if they say "Come back in 6 years, maybe we'll talk to you then"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Making somebody feel bad doesn't make you dishonorable.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Think about this Rakeesh, what if someone told you that you're arguing with a 12 year old?
This question makes me think that you are not getting the point. I don't think it would matter to him at all. The problem Advent is facing is not due to his age, but to his perceived difficulty with the truth.
Turning it around, if you repeatedly implied or stated that you were twelve, and the gave us reason to believe otherwise--like sharing your memories of when Reagan was shot--I can promise you that we would have a whole lot more disgust for you than Advent ever got.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
If it's because they happened to be born 6 years later is.
quote:My life is pretty routine other than my on off dating schedule, but I suppose that that is to expected for someone my age. Which by the way and for the last time is twenty years old, so enough with the Advent is still in middle school jokes please.
Are you saying it's OK for people to pick on middle schoolers, but not on 20 year olds?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Go ahead and look around Icarus, I have never stated my age.
I do agree that Advent shouldn't have lied about this whole thing being for an class.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see anybody saying anything of the sort.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Aparently Advent did.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: If it's because they happened to be born 6 years later is.
. . .
Are you saying it's OK for people to pick on middle schoolers, but not on 20 year olds?
Nobody has said this. In fact, we don't know conclusively that Advent is a middle-schooler. The only comments have been on his behavior. And I think it is perfectly appropriate to comment on, and even discriminate against, inappropriate behavior.
EDIT to clarify what I was responding to, since the thread is moving so quickly.
EDIT 2: Actually, I guess we do know conclusively that he's a teenager.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
So, because of his behavior, you call him 14? There have been posts from people saying they know mature 14 year olds, and immature 20 years olds.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Actually, I guess we do know conclusively that he's a teenager.
How?
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
The only under-18s I've seen given the "Come back in 6 years" treatment are the ones with ridiculously immature and obnoxious posting patterns - which decidedly includes certain posters of widely ranging chronological ages. I'll try to avoid mentioning names. I can think of a number of posters who are obviously young and somewhat immature but are treated with care and respect by most non-obnoxious posters, because they are just as obviously earnest and well-meaning. Far from being a handicap, age can be a big advantage if a mature young poster's age is eventually discovered - they get a long-lasting reputation as a prodigy. Being young only gets your opinion discounted if you post like an immature pre-teen. And, frankly, your opinion gets discounted in that case no matter what your age.
I should point that I mean "discovered" as in "Good monkey, you never mentioned your age so I didn't realize you were 14!" and not "But you said last week you were 20."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
From his 'confession' on the last page? If you want to call that conclusive, I guess.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And the criticisms have not been for (allegedly) being fourteen, since, as you say, we have known some extremely mature fourteen-year-olds. Rather, the criticisms have been for immature behavior--behavior that would not be as surpriseing from a fourteen-year-old, but that is extremely so from a twenty-year-old. (Not that immature twenty-year-olds are uncommon, but this particular kind of pathetic lying about age (which he did acknowledge) and cursing people with blankety blanks.)
Wait, maybe I get it: Are you offended on behalf of mature fourteen-year-olds (and twelve-year-olds) that we would besmirch thei reputation by calling an immature person a fourteen year old? Ah. In that case, I concede the point.
But then, that was not the statement of yours that I questioned, so you are really not having that argument with me. (And therefore, raising it is not, ultimately, relevant, except as just a general rant. [Which you are perfectly free to engage in. Just don't think it answers my comment.])
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:EDIT 2: Actually, I guess we do know conclusively that he's a teenager.
Do we? I must have missed that. How old of a teenager does he claim to be?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: If it's because they happened to be born 6 years later is.
I can't parse this. Translation, please? Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Actually, I guess we do know conclusively that he's a teenager.
How?
I changed my wording from "teenager" to "middle-schooler," because he admitted, on the previous page, that he was just barely shy of the twenty years he had repeatedly claimed.
And yeah, if you want to split hairs, I guess we still don't conclusively know his age. But my point was that being a "teenager" was (no longer) in dispute, but that being a "middle schooler" now was.
If it makes you feel better, Porter, I was thinking of you when I edited. Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Icarus,
One of the reasons I'm still arguing is because I hate it when people assume you're immature and not smart, mearly because you're a teenager.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Okay. Fair enough. I don't think I have done this, but if in my verbal sloppiness I have, then I apologize.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonnyNotSoBravo:
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: If it's because they happened to be born 6 years later is.
I can't parse this. Translation, please?
Is dishonorable.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I fail to see how that's dishonorable.
And dishonorable has two O's.
-pH
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Nineteen, I believe. Technically a teenager. But then, I stopped considering myself a teenager when I became an adult at eighteen. Guess it's a matter of semantics.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Making fun of people because of their age? I think that's dishonorable.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah. Semantics, but I was just correcting it before I got called on it.
Sheesh.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The point wasn't his chronological age. The point was his immaturity. Others have already said this.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Making fun of people because of their age? I think that's dishonorable.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
I know that. But because of his immaturity, people assumed he was a teenager.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Perhaps the word Jeesh is looking for is "disrespectful"?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I am shocked and angered that Advent pulled this stunt, though I'm not exactly surprised. I don't know if that makes sense, but there you have it.
I do think that this thread highlights one of the things that I love about Hatrack. People took the time to seriously discuss an issue even though there were questions about the thread creator. Other places, he'd have been ignored at best or flamed at worst.
It was a good thread. I'd have posted myself if I actually knew anything about the subject. Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Dishonorable means that you're doing something completly immature for no good reason.
Example: Assuming immature people are teenagers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll totally agree that mocking somebody because of their age is disrespectful, unkind, and rude.
But dishonorable? Not unless you've said you wouldn't do such a thing.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:EDIT 2: Actually, I guess we do know conclusively that he's a teenager.
Do we? I must have missed that. How old of a teenager does he claim to be?
I missed it, too. Then I went back and did the math.
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: ANd to prove it, I was born May 16th in the year 1986 at approximatly 3:06am.
Which would make him 19 years old until May 16th.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ah, okay, thanks JNSB. I didn't bother to really read his "proof", since it it was about as valid to me as ElJay's Atlantean birth information.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Dishonorable means that you're doing something completly immature for no good reason.
Example: Assuming immature people are teenagers.
No, it really doesn't and if it did that would be a bad example.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hey! Are you questioning my origins? Do I have to show you my gills? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Dishonorable means that you're doing something completly immature for no good reason.
No it doesn't.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Then what does it mean?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm nineteen, almost exactly two months older than Advent115 claims to be.
As a represetative of people born in 1986, I think it's safe to say I would not expect someone my age to act in this way.
I do not have any discriminatory ideas about younger people, being so young still myself. I try to judge people on what they say and how they conduct themselves, rather than who they are. As as has been said before, people like :Locke, who joined at a young age, were not treated badly for their age because they participated in conversations with maturity. After a while, you forget a person's age.
Neither I do not mind people not being forthcoming about their age, as long as they do not outright lie about it. You reserve the right not to give information about yourself, but lying about your age does nothing for your ageless, intelligent image.
quote:Dishonorable means that you're doing something completly immature for no good reason.
Dishonorable means you are not acting in an honorable way. Lying, for example, could be seen as a dishonorable act.
quote:But because of his immaturity, people assumed he was a teenager.
I think this is a valid assumption. If a 60 year old was acting in the same way, people would assume he or she was a teenager. However, I think it's very unlikely that a 60 year old, even an immature one, would exhibit the same kinds of immaturity that a real teenager would unless he or she was deliberately trying to imitate a teen.
I hope this can be resolved soon...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
dis·hon·or·a·ble (ds-nr--bl) adj.
Lacking integrity; unprincipled.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, because assuming fourteen year-olds are immature is a ridiculous, dishonorable assumption.
Immature isn't a bad thing. Immature is another word for inexperienced, even though it's often got bad connotations. I regard the type of Advent's deception an indication of immaturity-inexperience longing for the respect of experience. But it's not the type of lying that I-and other people-got upset about, Jeesh.
It's the flagrant and falsely-apologetic lying that pissed people off. I think you need to let go of your baggage on this issue, because to be honest? Teenagers getting huffy at the drop of a hat about people prejudging teenagers is, well, pretty stereotypical.
Get huffy about people prejudging you, when they do it, is quite different.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Some people's moral values might include not discussing sex with minors. Some people's moral values might not. The honorable thing to do when encountering the situation would be different for those two people. You cannot make a blanket statement about if a specific action is honorable or not. It depends on people values and motives. You can say that you consider lying dishonorable. But then someone will give you a specific example where lying is clearly the honorable thing to do. Morality usually has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and there are a lot of gray areas. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I get what you're saying, Jeesh. I remember being a smart, polite, bookish 14 year old. I was tall, too, and was constantly mistaken for an adult, which was okay by me. At least until my brother-in-law took me on an Astromomy class outing to his college's observatory and one of his classmates kinda hit on me. I was oblivious. I do remember wondering why that guy with a beard was offereing to buy me stuff from thge vending machines. *shrug*
Anyway... people not wanting to discuss sex with underage people on the internet is not dishonorable at all. Maybe the opposite. The age lines may be arbitrary, but there are laws that go along with them. If my sons' friends asked me about sex, I would certainly tell them to talk to their parents (they would all be under 10). I hope I don't face that situation when they are older.
It's a hard line to draw, because young people do need reliable, honest information, but most folks don't want to be sued or worse if a minor's parents get angry, which would be perfectly within their rights.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:ou can say that you consider lying dishonorable. But then someone will give you a specific example where lying is clearly the honorable thing to do.
Yes. I should have mentioned this when I said was lying was dishonorable.
Thanks ElJay .
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:One of the reasons I'm still arguing is because I hate it when people assume you're immature and not smart, mearly because you're a teenager.
No one assumed that advent was immature because he was a teenager. We know he's immature (both for the age he claims to be and, well, pretty much any other age as well) because he's demonstrated as much nonstop since he registered. As several people have mentioned, since most of us exist here only as a name on a screen there's really no way to know how old someone is chronologically. All you know is how old they act.
If you are afraid people here will treat you differently because of your youth then don't act immature. The fact that Teshi and Advent are the same age is staggering, to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: The possibility that Teshi and Advent are the same age is staggering, to me.
Fixed it for you. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As the cops always say on court shows when they are getting cross-examined, anything's possible.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Advent, if you are still reading this thread, I want to let you know that I've given thought to what you've done and written and have come to the conclusion that I am disappointed in you.
That is not to say that I want you to leave and never go come back. But, perhaps a modicum of introspection is in order. Can you see what you've done to get everyone all riled up? And, yeah, I know that you've apologized, but people are still upset with you.
Now, it could be that Hatrackers are just stiff-necked and unwilling to accept your contrite apology. But I'm thinking that this is not the case here. I'm thinking that they have concluded that you are untrustworthy and that you are the kind of person to use other people for your own ends. Can you see why people here might think that?
I'm not a big one for ganging up on someone and beating him when he's down. So I've mostly stayed out of this thread, hoping it would peter out. But maybe something constructive can happen here. Maybe you can take a little time out, introspect and empathize with the group, and then rejoin when you are ready to be a member who is willing to be on equal footing.
Personally, I'm not all that bothered by "immaturity". It is, after all, the perogative of the young. And there is not fault in being young and acting it.
People have, however, questioned your honor. Lying and manipulating are dishonorable. Trying to carve a role for yourself as superior to the rest of the group is also not too endearing.
I would be delighted to see you join us as a changed man. Humbler, respectful, considerate. And willing to play nicely with all of us here. Wouldn't you feel good doing that? Wouldn't you gain a measure of self-respect as your respect among the members grows?
Take care, Advent. And I hope to see you again.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think an immature 14-year-old would be treated here with understanding and patience while an immature 20-year-old is far more likely to be mocked because they *ought* to be more mature, and having the maturity of the average 12-year-old is really, really sad.
We *expect* a 14-year-old to act somewhat immature, so when one does, we are not shocked or surprised. And when that same 14-year-old acts more intelligent and mature, we are pleasantly surprised and are delighted with them. They get respect and notoriety for it.
So what has happened here is not going to harm any *actual* 14-year-old.
Advent would have been far *more* respected if he claimed to be 14 even if he wasn't. Because then, at least, his behavior would have been more appropriate for his age rather than disappointingly sad.
It is the behavior that matters, not the age. Ya get it, Jeesh? That was the point of what I said in my really, really long post. I guess I didn't get my point across very well. :/
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Yeah, I get it now Beverly, in some sense.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Cool. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
<-- Wishing I'd lied about my age and told everyone I was a child prodigy of 4 years old.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: So, unrelated to the hub-bub, I have to say that ak's description of the "layers" of sexual perspective had to be one of the most chaste descriptions of sex I've ever read
Me, I like to think of it in terms of quantum foam, the smearing of Uncertain energy states across spacetime, and a whole lot of supersymmetry (hopefully).
-Bok
I can tell you understand me, Bok. <delicately dabs embroidered handkerchief at temples as pulse races> Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: So what has happened here is not going to harm any *actual* 14-year-old.
No 14-year-olds were harmed in the making of this thread.
*snerk*
Posted by Helion A. I. (Member # 9223) on :
I know this may be a stupid question to come from a newbie, but why did he lie in the first place?
Its not like he had anything to gain by lying. And why did he only lie about his age by a few months? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Nobody besides him knows. Nobody else knows to what extent he lied and why.
I agree -- I don't see the point.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Assuming that the extent of it is saying he was twenty when he was really nineteen, I can only guess that he felt that having completed that second decade was a big deal, in a milestone kind of way. I can relate, I guess. When I was starting out as a teacher, I used to try to make more of my limited experience than there actually was--not through out and out lies, since that could be caught and lead to big problems--but through letting people draw inaccurate inferences from technically honest things I said. Like saying I was in my third year as a teacher, rather than saying I had completed two years of teaching. Both mean the same thing, but I felt the former sounded like more experience. When you're a certain age or a certain level of experience, you might feel that even a little difference is a big deal.
Then again, for all we know, Advent is a fourteen-year-old girl. *shrug*
Or, for all you know, I'm a 60-year-old truck driver, posting from Cyber Cafes.
Posted by Helion A. I. (Member # 9223) on :
Maybe. But he doesn't sound like any girl I've ever known.
Maybe he's just an immature 19 year old? Or maybe he's one of those people who lies when they feel insecure?
Wish I knew. Either way, he seems like a really big jerk.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Even if he is, name-calling like that is not constructive.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, I don't think he is a girl. And I don't think I'm a 60-year-old. I was merely pointing out the (remote) possibility.
Heck, maybe I'm actually Advent, getting my jollies by pretending to be a much newer member, and yanking to forum around. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If Slash were here, he'd make a racist joke right now.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Helion A. I.: Or maybe he's one of those people who lies when they feel insecure?
That seems likely. I hope he finds the confidence that he needs.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If Slash were here, he'd make a racist joke right now.
I'm feeling that there must be an obvious set-up for a punchline somewhere, but I'm not seeing it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Or maybe he's one of those people who lies when they feel insecure?
I could understand that. I went through a very deceitful period of time when I was younger -- I'd lie just for the challenge of convincing people of a lie.
I eventually decided that I didn't want to be that kind of person, so I stopped.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Somewhere along the line I seem to have lost the ability for a bald-faced lie. Or maybe I never had it. But I always had a finely honed Aes Sedai's ability to misdirect. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Although, come to think of it, I am excellent at the game "Bullsh*t."
And maybe not so bad at mafia, either.
I wonder if something about those two makes it feel like a totally different skill. Like, it's a game where you're expected to lie, so it doesn't feel like *really* lying.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm pretty good at both of those games too.
I agree -- when lying is part of the game, it doesn't fall in the realm of dishonesty.
My brothers and I used to play the game "Parcheatsi", which was exactly like Parchisi, and played on a Parchisi board, but with the addition of one rule: "It's only cheating if you get caught."
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I'm a 60-year-old truck driver, posting from Cyber Cafes.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Heck, maybe I'm actually Advent, getting my jollies by pretending to be a much newer member, and yanking to forum around.
Wait. So, Advent is a 60 year-old trucker who posts from cybercafes under the name Icarus?
I knew it! Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, since all of this talk of respect and judging a person not by their age, but the way they act, I suppose I should tell MY age.
Well, Im 13. You may not find this suprising in any way, but I thought I should just say it. And no... I never lied about my age. I simply never said anything about it.
So, I am Reticulum, and I am 13 years old. I am not lying and I felt I would lose respect (in the beginning) if I told you guys. (And gals ) After reading this thread, I have come to realise that I will not lose any respect for being 13, but more so, for acting imature, and not being kind and productive to other members of this forum.
I was introduced here by BandoCommando, who, as you guessed it, is my band teacher. He showed me Hatrack, and I thought it would be a fun place to post on, and maybe goof-off. However, after staying here for a few months, I came to realise that that is NOT what Hatrack is for, but more so, for mature (mostly ) discussions and funny interactions of diverse peoples from all over the world.
As mentioned above, I thought that revealing my age would cause me to lose respect from the Hatrack community, and that I would be shunned, not respected, and overall ignored for the rest of the time I am here. After reading a few posts by (a) certain member(s) which specifically said that a person was judged by the way they act, and not their age, I feel that it would it be a mean, rude, unkind, and overall not right thing to do to Hatrack, since it probably explains a lot.
So now you see me, (hopefully)in a whole new light, and now know that I am not a very imature 16-20 year old, but an average 13 year old, who would like to maintain a good relationship with Hatrack. I hope this post does not change anything for the worst, but creates a good, and widespread understanding of me. Hopefuly, this will turn out for the better, and not worse.
Thank you for taking your time to read this. Thank you all, Hatrack, for giving me respect thus far.
I suppose I should create a landmark for this...
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
What's this latest hatrack craze of using the word dishonourable in the wrong context? Did I miss something?
When I was told you were writing this, I was actually expecting a landmark. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Thanks Reticulum. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:What's this latest hatrack craze of using the word dishonourable . . .
It's a meme.
I'm not convinced that "dishonorable" has been misused anywhere in this thread. I don't think "dishonor" is limited only to dishonesty but can refer to any action that ought to be beneath you, that ought to be shameful. Therefore, being mean to people solely because they're young, with no reason based on behavior (not that I think this has happened) arguably is dishonorable.
Reticulum, I'm glad you feel safe here.
I don't think "full disclosure" is necessarily required--simply that lying will earn people's strong disdain--particularly when it's self-aggrandizing lying. It is okay, however, to decide that something is none of our business, and simply never comment on it, and let people assume what they will.
I hope you find Hatrack to be a good avenue for growth. I believe I have.
I'm mildly surprised that a teacher who posts here encouraged you to join, simply because I would feel mildly uncomfortable if one of my students were here. (Just in terms of what I felt free to talk about, and "letting my hair down" in terms of being unprofessional.) But I guess if I just didn't post personal, or unprofessional stuff, I wouldn't need to worry about it.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
Wow, I guess I am glad I never responded to this thread. I have to say that I don't see the point to all this deception.
You have to wonder about Advent's life if this is how he acts when no one knows who he is... Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Wishing I'd lied about my age and told everyone I was a child prodigy of 4 years old.
Sorry, Tante, Squoose already has you beat. He started posting coherent sentences at one day old. I think Superstation was posting that early as well. Nope, to impress us now, you're going to have to claim that you're still in the womb, which these days comes equipped with a computer and wireless access.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's me right there. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
(So cut me some slack when I get cranky. It's cramped in here, 'kay?)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Nope, to impress us now, you're going to have to claim that you're still in the womb, which these days comes equipped with a computer and wireless access.
Good thing it's wireless. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Er...umbilical cord. He's got cable!
(okay, that's the 2nd time I've gotten to use that in a month. )
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Glad to be of service. It's rare I get to play the straight man. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
*snort*
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Bob Karl
You guys!
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Now that was funny!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
No Fair! It still really hurts when I laugh.
*holds it in *
Bwahahahaha-ow-ow-hahahaha!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
They say that the person you truly are is shown by how you act when nobody can see you.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:It's rare I get to play the straight man
Anyone else who parsed this as "it's rare I get to play with a straight man"? Because, uh, that was funny too.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
No. I don't lie like this in the real world. But I am not trying to excuse the fact I have done it here.
I get very nervous here sometimes, but I think it may be because I have no faces to attach to each of your responces, I have no basis on which to judge your reactions accuratly.
I spend a great deal of my conversations with any one in the real world judging how they feel on any given situation by their body posture, their eye movement, what they are doing with their hands, and the tone of their voice.
I'm not sure I can ever grasp the concept that so many of you seem to use naturally here on how you instantly judge a persons words as th truth. As far as I have seen (or at least observed) in my life, no one ever tells the whole or even partial truth through their words alone. And that makes me nervous when I'm on Hatrack. When I can't judge someone by anything more than their words it feels like I am being left deaf and blind to all but your words. And that is very uncomforterable to me.
I am sorry, I know I can never make it up to anyone here for what I have done, there will never be a true excuss for my actions. I promise that I will try to never lie to anyone here again, but that would mean nothing seeing as how my words are so hollow after my crimes. So all I can say is i am sorry. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Maybe you should go to one of the gatherings, if it makes you uncomfortable when all you know of us is the words you see on the screen. I know that the way I look at people here has been colored by my interactions with them in the real world.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
That is what I mean. I have always judged people by their actions, not their words. And yet each and everyone of you does it so easily.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I get very nervous here sometimes, but I think it may be because I have no faces to attach to each of your responces, I have no basis on which to judge your reactions accuratly.
Because all we have are words without tone of voice, body language, etc., it is actually more important that we behave well here.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
This thread got really interesting really fast and I missed all of it! Ah well, Advent making an ass of himself and getting called on it is quite amusing to read.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Why? When I come here, it is to escape the real world. I have no dillusions that my being here or talking to someone will ever lead to the things i find important in the real world. I will never find love or everlasting, true bonding friendships here. This place will always seem forign to me.
Yet... I still suffer, I still hate myself everytime I return. Because I know that, that nomatter what I do I shall never be forgivin. I hate myself more every time I cannot stay away from this place because even if nothing truely important to my real life will ever come of this place, I still betrayed. And that is something I take to heart. I will never be one of you, not even if some of you ever forgave me for my crimes. I will always be the outsider looking in saying a few words.... and then walking away with an even heavier heart because I know that I have caused yet another place where I cannot be allowed to exist. That I have caused even more rifts that echo my bloodline, that no matter what I do I am a betrayer, a coward, and a bastard.
I will never be one of you, and I know it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why do you want to be one of us? Being one of you is good enough. The trouble arises when you try to be one of something you are not.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I will never find love or everlasting, true bonding friendships here. This place will always seem forign to me.
You have no idea how many people *have* found these things here.
As I said before, Hatrack isn't like the rest of the internet.
quote:Because I know that, that nomatter what I do I shall never be forgivin.
You can be forgiven. While what you did will always be remembered, as time passes and you are more known for the good things you have said and done here, it will become nothing more than an inside joke. "Hey, remember back when you did that thing that one time? Yeah, that was pretty wild." Do not underestimate the power of forgiveness, especially here.
quote: I will never be one of you,
Being "one of us" really isn't all that hard. Just stick around and try your best. You'd be surprised just how easy it is.
quote:I will never be one of you, and I know it.
Don't sell yourself short. BTW, thanks for coming back and trying to make things right. That means a lot to us.
Edit: Don't mind Primal Curve too much. He doesn't pull his punches for anyone.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I will never be one of you, and I know it.
You could be if you learned how to be part of a community.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Now you mock me with attempts to lul me back into the hope that I can be amongst you? Why do my own emotions work against me?
I have no hope of return, and yet there are those who would offer their hands to me? Why is it that this seems like nothing more than pity for the weak? And I feel like the weakest of this offer.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Dude, stop being so melodramatic.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
When I bother to speak like this, that is when I am revealing my most private self. That is how I attempt to communicate what is in my heart of hearts. So please, do not mock me for my choice of words.
And community? From how I see it, a community can turn into a place where you become nothing but pawns for others. And not even by people wh may care for you. As Valentine said "You can only hope that those who use you are people who care about you". And I don't see much of that in the world.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Why is it that this seems like nothing more than pity for the weak?
*sigh* Advent, what do you want from us?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
People don't care as much about your choice of words as the fact that you won't stop saying them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Incidentally, I think Amanecer may have gotten the wrong idea about my age. There was a thread where I made a joke a while back about being a white, 18 year old Mormon (there was a troll saying that most people on the board were this and someone put up a poll and well, it struck me as funny in the situation - I did acknowledge that it was a joke later on in the thread). I've never actually given my real age, but I can say that two of those statements are false, one by around 10 years.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So your age is really Mormon +- 10 years?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
MrSquicky, I think it's slightly confusing because MrFunny is less than 18.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I'm just expecting for genetic research to have gone far enough in 10 years that I'll be able to switch races, thus fulfilling my life long dream of becoming Mr. Charlie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When I bother to speak like this, that is when I am revealing my most private self.
Liar. No one's private self speaks like Vardolax, Dread Lord of the Ur-Spleen. When you speak like that, you're putting on your whiny face.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
He just turned 17. Darn, I didn't think to make a birthday thread for him. If you're reading this, sorry, Mr. Funny. I hope the phone call was good enough.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I think I'll leave this thread now, so that I don't embarise or expose myself any farther than I already have.
*walks away*
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Advent = Huge Attention Whore
/not helping
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Advent, the drama really isn't helping. In light of recent events, it comes off as more attention seeking. Apologize, sincerely, and move on.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
This just seems like the perfect place to adopt "All the world's a stage" to "All the forum's a stage". It even has lines about whining schoolboys. It's like Shakespeare saw this moment coming...
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
"I am sorry, I am sorry for my desceptionsand my lies that made you believe I was someone I am not. I am sorry that I abused the trust of Hatrack. I am sorry." Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Pinky swear?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Primal Curve -- knock it off.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Hatrack is very forgiving - at least it has been for the few years I've lurked. Even if PC isn't. Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Thanks Advent. Now just go on with a resolve to do and be better. You have friends here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, Advent, could you list your alts then?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Yes, I pinky swear with sprikles on top. Is that enough for you Primal?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Look at the name. Primal. You probably need blood sacrifices, long incantations, and chocolate bunnies.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Helion A.I.
Prometheus (never did recieve the log in info on this one thoguh)
And because I just remembered, I never have choosen my major in college. But am thinking of changing it to humanities (liberal arts).
Oh, and I am still taking the bartending class. (wish it would go faster though. And I won't be able to get a licence for it for another year *sigh* I need that money)
EDIT: Humanities or Social/Behavioural Science Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You can get a bartending license when you're not of legal drinking age?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
No. But I can take the bartending class at the local Community College.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
You can serve alcohol from age 18 upwards, Tom
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
In Minnesota you can serve alcoholic beverages when you're over 18.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Some states you can, and some you can't.
Curse you, new page!
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I think that's a state by state thing Leo (but I'm not sure)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is what I mean. I have always judged people by their actions, not their words. And yet each and everyone of you does it so easily.
Here I was ready to say, "Hey, Advent 115 made a sincere apology and I won't keep breaking his proverbial balls."
Then you posted this, and all of the rest of your whiny self-aborbed pity-me horse puckey and that readiness of mine evaporated faster than a snowball down under (and I don't mean Oz, either).
In almost all cases Advent 115, words are all we've got on an Internet forum. That and the occassional picture. So that point of yours is pretty damn stupid.
And then there's the larger point that it's not your words we're judging you on, it's your lying and your passively-aggressive insulting we're judging. Let me break it down for you. When you deliberately tell a lie, that is an action. It's not just the series of words you strung together to deliberately deceive, it's the action as a whole that pisses people off.
Oh, and of course there's that thing about threatening women and mothers. No one has really taken you to task on that part specifically mostly because you're so laughable and because it's uncertain whether or not you actually meant what your words said, which was a threat. But I'm understandably disinclined to give you the benefit of anything other than my steel-toed boot up your biological exit.
Oh, and it was very agreeable of you to prove me right about you still reading. But really, I don't need that sort of validation. Feel free to get lost and stay lost, next time. There are those who will probably be swayed by all of your self-pitying, melodramatic I'm-so-awful-and-it-makes-me-meaningful bull@*&$, but having been that sort of person before I can speak from experience when I say that doesn't work.
What works is sucking it up and realizing that the world is not divided into two sets of people composing of you and everyone else who is a spectator in your life. You're a human being. That means you have a spine and the ability to stand up for yourself and be a decent individual. Try doing that, instead of jerking everyone around. It's demeaning to you, tiresome to us, and although it's funny to watch it's funny in the way unpleasant things are funny. Personally I'd rather get a non-cynical laugh out of Tante's antics, or KarlEd's impersonations , or something like that, than you making an ass of yourself. Despite the contempt other people and I hold you in, you may rely on that.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Actually, it's municipality by municipality. The City of Glendale, WI, where I live, has a 21 year age restriction on serving alcohol, but the City of Milwaukee does not.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Sorry Rakeesh, I wasn't thinking.
And to El JT & Karl I can't get a license in New Mexico as far as I know, at least not for another year.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Wait, how old are you Advent?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Ah, sorry. I always assume what happens in my state happens everywhere ;-p
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Advent, it's entirely possible for you to be a functioning member of this community. As others have said, Hatrack is a ridiculously forgiving place; there have only been a few people in the history of this place that wouldn't be welcomed back with open arms if they chose to return, and while the way you've conducted yourself here has been annoying, it hasn't been anywhere close to the behavior of those few. All you really need to do is stop being dishonest, keep on posting a lot, and you'll be widely liked here before you know it. It really is that simple.
By the way, do you know The Silverblue Sun? You might not, as he isn't here a whole lot these days. It might interest you to know, though, that when he made his debut at Hatrack people reacted to him in an incredibly negative manner. He never really lied, but he was widely seen as a pompous, nearly incoherent windbag who frequently trumpeted his abilities as a screenwriter, but who had no actual finished screenplays that he could point to to back up his bragging. He was a laughingstock, and people were openly hostile to him in ways that you haven't seen in your time here.
Here is a thread from almost exactly a year ago, when he swung through briefly.
Here is the thread he created on his last trip through.
Check them both out. Notice the outpouring of good will. People who had previously reviled him are delighted to see him. The man is well-loved at Hatrack, now.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I am 19 and my B-Day is on May 16.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Sorry Rakeesh, I wasn't thinking.
And to El JT & Karl I can't get a license in New Mexico as far as I know, at least not for another year.
Are you sure you wanted to address this to me? (Or did I miss another Karl?) I have no idea what you're talking about. Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Ooops, my bad. I forgot who I was addressing it to when the thread changed pages. Sorry.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
In Louisiana, you can serve alcohol at 18.
Of course, in Louisiana, you can DRINK alcohol at 18, provided you are within a private residence.
-pH
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I am 19 and my B-Day is on May 16.
Out of curiosity, why did you pull your whole "how dare you question my age" line, complete with threats, when beverly questioned the idea that you were 20?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You could drink anywhere in the state at 18 as recently as 10 years ago.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: You could drink anywhere in the state at 18 as recently as 10 years ago.
True.
Which I suspect is a great deal of the reason why a lot of bars turn a blind eye.
But they are very, VERY strict about you being 18. Scanning IDs and such.
-pH
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I am 19 and my B-Day is on May 16.
Out of curiosity, why did you pull your whole "how dare you question my age" line, complete with threats, when beverly questioned the idea that you were 20?
Man that's good life sauce!
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well for one, I don't drink alcohol of any kind. Not out of religion or anything like that I just don't enjoy it. And plus my best friend needs be to pick him up from the number of parties he attends (he tends to get drunk easily).
And to El JT, I'm not sure why I did that *shrugs*. Like I said I'm not really sure why I said most of those things.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Why you did what? I'm not sure I understand.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I think he means Noemon's post. Not sure why he said you: it's much harder to remember how to write without looking.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Advent, I'm trying to learn about wines. Want to join in on a bartending information thread? I'd love to hear some of what you are learning about in class.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well, I meant that and just about every thing else I wrote on Sat (or was it Fri?) and today.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Have'nt learned alot about wines yet. But I have to go. I need to pick up my moms cousin from the airport today. So bye. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Drive carefully. (No alcohol! *grin)
Post in the bartending thread if & when you feel like it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: And to El JT, I'm not sure why I did that *shrugs*. Like I said I'm not really sure why I said most of those things.
Might be something to think about. There are reasons for everything that a person does, and you're no exception to that. Understanding one's self makes life a lot easier.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have a theory, but I don't want to presume to speak for Advent.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Who was it that changed the title of this thread?
As I was reading through it, I began to think about how I viewed internet forums when I was a teenager. I belive Advent's claims about being 19 now, but the conversation about age made me reminisce a bit. When I was 12-13 and first started posting things online, I definitely had a large fear of disrespect due to my age. So I quickly learned how to type in order to seem more mature and made certain to only post in forums and in topics that were very specific - mostly about the computer games I was interested in, and stayed away from any talk about personal issues. Then when I was 13, I had the distinct online advantage of the fact that I started college early, so I made sure to discuss with the online communities that I was a part of the college aspect of my life, counting on the fact that this is normally a good enough age indicator that no one would reasonably need to ask further and still allowed me to share part of my life. Actually it was rather amusing, because on one or two occasions I was (apparently) assumed to be in my 30s!
I wish that Hatrack had been around then, because it might have been a place where I could have been more fully honest about my age. Well, I suppose technically it was around, since I remember visiting it many years ago, but I didn't find the forums to be very lively or interesting at the time.
Oh, and Advent, I do somewhat hazily recall a (thankfully breif) time in my life when I remember lying quite often and sometimes backtracking as a result. Oddly enough I don't remember when it was or what some of the things I lied about were. But I want to assure you that there is no reason to be afraid to genuinely ask for information or people's opinions, even if the subject is something that is uncomfortable to you. Often you will find that what is uncomfortable to you will be something that many people would be completely comfortable with. If you want to hear what people have to say about sex, the best way to do so is to be frank about it. If you ask openly and honestly, I don't think anyone here would make fun of you for not knowing something or being inexperienced.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Dude, stop being so melodramatic.
Word.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
This thread's title bothers me. The word is spelled "forgiven."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Liar. No one's private self speaks like Vardolax, Dread Lord of the Ur-Spleen. When you speak like that, you're putting on your whiny face.
Now here is one statement that you can't possibly know, Tom. How could you know which Dread Lord other people's private selves can or cannot speak like? Vardolax is no less likely than any other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And to El JT, I'm not sure why I did that *shrugs*. Like I said I'm not really sure why I said most of those things.
This is a childish response, even though one does not need to be a child to make it. You have some guesses as to why you said most of those things, at least. No one just starts blurting out deliberate threats, deceptions, and insults without having a reason. Unless they're crazy. So...still lying.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well the misspelling is something I'll make sure to fix.
And as for Avins comments, well Hatrack is the first and only forum I have ever participated in and I guess I'm still learning how to use some self control on Hatrack. But from what my friend Reticulum says I may be improving, and I trust his assesments seriously (after all he is a child genius). Even if I have had some relapses and made mistakes. But I am learning (I think).
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hey, just for the record... I know I made a fool of myself here a few times. I was going through some stuff and didn't want to talk about it or deal with it, and my online interactions became much important to me than they should have been.
Thing is, you blow it, apologize and move on. Do your best, if you really want to make a go of it. If you don't, it's okay to walk away.
That said, I don't know if I'm "one of you" or not. I do know that I have made some very, very good friends through this site. Better friends than I ever expected to have in my whole life (since I'm a woman with eclectic interests and odd social maladjustments ).
One of the best friends I made through this site is actually someone I had flame war with, once upon a time. Hi, Katie!
All I'm saying is, it isn't the end of the world.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I guess so, but I just really went onto a tangent a couple of hours ago. I'm good now though. Infact I'm reading some of the junk I wrote and I think its kind of funny, because some of it really doesn't sound like me at all now that I'm calm. (laughing at self)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). There are a lot of people in modern society who think that sex is just a physical act, and that it can be shared with a number of people without diluting it's importance, but I have never seen it that way myself.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
kmbboots.![[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.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Bob![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)