Sex

[olger]

http://advindicate.com/?p=3061

[M. T. Cross]

Hmmmmm.......... I have some thoughts on this, but I really want to word them correctly so I will come back to it.

[olger]

No pressure.

[Igakusei]

Quote:

Role Reversal

If a dating couple gets involved sexually with each other, something strange happens in the relationship. From that point on, the girl becomes more aggressive and the guy becomes more passive. Guilt, shame and fear fill the relationship, and the girl becomes angry from pain and feels unprotected. The guy gives up his leadership as a man. From that point on, he stops caring about the girl emotionally and is interested only in how he can be alone with the girl. She feels unloved and begins trying to “protect” herself by becoming more aggressive—more manly. This sets up a wrong pattern that can be resolved only by the wonderful power of God through repentance and cleansing.

Uh, what?

First of all, guilt, shame, and fear only fill the relationship if you've been brainwashed to think you're committing some sort of horrible crime by having sex with each other. I've been in a fair number of pre-marital adult sexual relationships, and neither my current relationship nor any of those earlier ones suffered from the sexual aspect as this guy claims.

And the whole promise of married sex being outstanding ("top 2%") because you waited? Hogwash. If anything it works the other way, because experience with sex is what makes sex better.

[Gibs]

Satan well knows man's weakest place and of course it takes two to tango.

Devvy Kidd in her newletter a few days ago says full nudity is coming for TV unless people stand up and put a stop to it. Well will they?

I didn't read the full article but I suppose in commercials and some shows, I don't know.

TV has much to lead ones mind and heart to the gutter.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[ClubV12]

Thanx Olger, I liked this straight shooting article.

Premarital sex is fornication. Done, there it is, straight up.

[Gerr]

Uh, what?

First of all, guilt, shame, and fear only fill the relationship if you've been brainwashed to think you're committing some sort of horrible crime by having sex with each other. I've been in a fair number of pre-marital adult sexual relationships, and neither my current relationship nor any of those earlier ones suffered from the sexual aspect as this guy claims.

And the whole promise of married sex being outstanding ("top 2%") because you waited? Hogwash. If anything it works the other way, because experience with sex is what makes sex better.

If there is no God who said it is wrong, then there is nothing wrong for having sex with anyone.

[Ted Oplinger]

Or anything..or multiples of anyone/anything.

Blessings,

[Gibs]

Yes ole Satan has brought this poor old world of weak human beings to going after self gratification like nothing else existed.

Practically the whole world of us is very Promiscuous! Yes because of great excess in the marrieds beds much sin is committed. EGW tells of this if you care to look into it.

Yes Satan is an expert at using his tools of destruction and this is his greatest one I do believe it will be found.

Self must be crucified, will we do it? It is a must!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[olger]

Uh, what?

First of all, guilt, shame, and fear only fill the relationship if you've been brainwashed to think you're committing some sort of horrible crime by having sex with each other. I've been in a fair number of pre-marital adult sexual relationships, and neither my current relationship nor any of those earlier ones suffered from the sexual aspect as this guy claims.

And the whole promise of married sex being outstanding ("top 2%") because you waited? Hogwash. If anything it works the other way, because experience with sex is what makes sex better.

Do you believe that God created the world in six literal days?

`G

[olger]

Thanx Olger, I liked this straight shooting article.

Premarital sex is fornication. Done, there it is, straight up.

Forsooth,

`G

[fccool]

Quote:

First of all, guilt, shame, and fear only fill the relationship if you've been brainwashed to think you're committing some sort of horrible crime by having sex with each other. I've been in a fair number of pre-marital adult sexual relationships, and neither my current relationship nor any of those earlier ones suffered from the sexual aspect as this guy claims.

It's ironic that the article begins by talking about the Ad industry using sex to manipulate people into buying the products, yet it ignores the other important issue - the religious channeling and suppression of sex for political and religious control. In that sense, this is really not my comment on what you are saying as it is a reply to this entire thread.

It's not really difficult to see once you really think about it. Once you sell this non-problem as an eternal damnation issue, then church becomes the "solution", and church becomes where people go to resolve this "terrible problem"... of course by means of supporting the religious upper class that has enjoyed this created position of being "sexual supervisors" for thousands of years. They, at least subconsciously, understand that if sex is left unsuppressed, then they exercise lesser degree of control and the entire deal falls apart, as it currently does in western societies.

That's why the first thing "they" do for your objection is to ask if you believe that God has created everything, by which they imply it gives them right to interpret and set the limits to sexual relations... which it does not. That's why the amount of younger people diminishes as they are no longer constrained by society's expectations.

Whether God created humans, or they evolved to this stage is irrelevant to this discussion IMO, because we can objectively evaluate sex from both physiological and psychological perspectives.

From physiological perspective, sexual processes are quite natural. Both men and women can have a form of orgasm without doing anything ... in their sleep. Sex is one of the most fundamentally natural processes that humans engage in, either actively or passively. Religion treats sexual urge as some sort of addiction that needs to be suppressed, which is quite ridiculous and unhealthy. Such mentality can result in very unhealthy perspective on sex, mainly because setting limits builds up "pressure" that's then released through other accessible means, which ends up feeding the loop of church-imposed guilt, which now tells people that the only way to address their supposed addiction is by suppressing it, which is why the problem is there to begin with.

Quote:

And the whole promise of married sex being outstanding ("top 2%") because you waited? Hogwash. If anything it works the other way, because experience with sex is what makes sex better.

Now, this second aspect of sexuality is what church ends up dealing and hijacking the most... and it's the emotional aspect.

I think there are cultural and valid reasons for it, because as humans we were made (by whichever forces you prefer to believe we were made by) to be attracted and attached to the opposite sex emotionally, which serves as a drive for sexual means of procreation.

What church has done is to say that there is one person that one would have sexual intimacy with, which church would officially sanction as a valid relationship, after which people are free to have sex as a church-sanctioned (and thus God-sanctioned) activity. Until then, the church promotes abstinence and celibacy.

Historical background on church sex dogma.

In the past, the rituals involving around sex and marriage were purely pragmatic means of survival of both societal structure, which survival depended upon, and the individuals in that societal structure.

Today, we enjoy the abundance of population through billions of people who crowd the earth... in the past the survival revolved around communities with enough able-bodied population to succeed as a surviving society or a tribe.

Keep in mind that in those days only 1 in 4(5) children would survive past the age of 5, and survival of women was largely depended on their co-operation with able-bodied men to supply food and protection, and able-bodied MEN into the tribe who can provide more protection and food and etc.

It is in such background that the sexual tradition have been developed. Women would form the needed mutual contract with men for cooperative survival, which was more pragmatic rather than "sexual" or "emotional". As a tradition of culture, the parents would later arrange for the best spouse that they would find fitting for survival of their children. As these societies developed religions, the religions would then integrate this traditional order and maintain it as a status quo to the point where it becomes "the only way". That's why you see the God of the Bible arranging the marriage as "God the Father", and woman is a "helper" to a man and a companion that's not an independent entity, but is an accessory... which was pretty much the view of the ancient men, which is still treated as such by eastern cultures.

Even more importantly, such arrangement was made when men reached sexual maturity. So, you wouldn't find many college-age male virgins in the ancient culture. Being a man implied sexual maturity which was formalized by arranged marriage.

The case and point is - traditional marriage came out of natural necessity for surviving extremely harsh environment that a given society has to endure. It does not come as an instinct, or natural order. It comes as a byproduct of the environment, and as a necessity of "business relationship", rather than emotional attachment we see it today. The church tends to hijack the modern romantic idea by romanticizing the relationship with Jesus and God in context of this culture, while in reality... the romantic relationship is a byproduct of a culture that allowed for it only very recently. In the past, the marriage at its inception was not an emotional and intimate attachment. It was a business contract arranged by the parents.

Now, knowing this... we come to:

The problem with church position on sex

Church tends to hijack any cultural developments historically and turn it into "God's way". There are a number of examples, but even most avid Christians will realize that their modern church service and modern marriage ceremony is a concoction of tradition that has little to do with Biblical marriage and how these were conducted and maintained during the times when the Bible was written.

Thus the way the clergy is saying that "God would have it that was" would be absolutely abhorred by the clergy of the Biblical era as a form of heresy and betrayal of faith. Any question of "Do you believe God made the world in 6 days" are nothing short of vain attempt of misdirecting the discussion in such context.

Nevertheless, it does impede the modern clergy to dictate the "traditional marriage", when they have little sociological understanding where "traditional marriage" and their views on sex came from, and that it had very little to do with the way we participate in sex and marriage today.

In the tribal order of the past, fornication would disrupt the societal order, because it was a breach of business contract made on your behalf by the parents. It would breach trust between all of the families involved, and in a tribal structure... it would mean pretty much a disruption of trust between a large portion of the tribe. It was not a natural order. It was a form of societal contract one was born into.

The technological developments of modern societies allowed us to detach ourselves from the tribal structure, and live more or less independently from our parents and the "tribe", and make "our own world" and our own decisions. Since food procuring is not an issue, we have much more leftover time to dwell on impractical things, like entertainment, romantic endeavors... etc. And since child death rate is not an issue, it removes the necessity to conceive as much as possible. Likewise, if we compare the current world to the tribal societies of the past, we don't need the tribe of abled-bodied men... and you find many men actually wanting a girl for a child ("may your child be a male child", was a common wish for ancient cultures).

Likewise, since people are groomed to be independent, there is no survival-base for marriage anymore. In fact, the problem now is overpopulation in much of the world that still lives by these ancient rules, which results in a score of problems in these regions of the world.

Because we live in a technological era that requires highly skilled and knowledgeable workers in the business world of today, it takes much longer to train them, which delays the age of perceived maturity quite a bit, since these people are not viewed as independent until they get that job. That age trails the age of the actual sexual maturity by about a decade.

The church clergy realizes that they have to live by the modern business rules, because they could not survive on farmer's grain and livestock as a literal tithe, but they insist on abiding by the "fornication rules" taking them completely out of the context of the culture. So, tithing in money weekly - totally ok "carry over" into a modern society (I'd really love to see what they would do if farmer these days would bring a truckload of grain at the church steps and see what they'd do with it). Having a sexual relationship as conceptual commitment of intimacy between two people in a relationship... no-no-no, does not matter if the tradition simply out of synch in virtually all of the context that such constrains were necessary.

The consequences of such view

One of the larger consequences is a mass exodus of younger people who see the church view to be completely out of synch with their reality and issues.

In the past, religious structure was synonymous with government structure and family structure. In a tribal context you can't escape such arrangement. Thus the family and religion controlled a large aspect of micro-societal roles, with sexual activity being one of them... job being the other. People inherited the trades of their parents, and these came with practical marriages that would benefit the families and tribes. Emotional compatibility or lack of physical attraction would take the back seat.

Today, this is not the view of the marriage that's advocated by the church. Today, the people choose their partners, and they date to do so. Parents, and even the hardcore religious ones, take the back seat in this process, especially if the kids are way past the age of sexual maturity and even peaked out sexually at age of 18 (in terms of hormonal physiology), which should tell quite a bit what church puts these kids through in this day and age.

What solutions does church provides for these kids?

1) Church does not advocate to marry young, because they realize that marriage is a commitment for people who are able to support themselves financially... and modern society has higher requirements for a skilled job which raises the age of complete independence to over 21, and the age at which people now marry to over 24.

As a society, we see people who marry at 18 as "Married too young", which would not be the case in ancient society.

2) At the same time, the church sees that there is an issue with human physiology which naturally urges people to have sex as a biological clock that was supposedly set there by God himself.

3) Church tells young people to ignore these urges and clock as "evil", and suppress them to the point of avoiding other means of releasing these... like masturbation.

It's essentially saying that intimacy with other human being is evil, unless that intimacy is being performed within the ritualistic constraints that validates it, while it(church and parents) completely abdicated the practice of arranging sexual partnership between people at their proper age of sexual maturity.

As a result, we have a cultural dissonance, in which church (clergy) is completely out of touch with being consistent with its own ideals, and the business ideals that it lives and operates in, and it sets out the "purity" demands for kids that were not meant to be imposed as such, mainly because it interprets the traditional practice as a "God-given" dogma.

The proper view of sex

Whether you are Christian or not, and whether you view sex as an evolutionary development, or created by God for a purpose - sex allows for something that no other physiological function can do - the next level of trust in human relationship.

Clergy plays the convenience game that suits them by adopting the compromises that ensure the perpetuity of their own survival irregardless of the traditional Biblical view. In doing so, it becomes a cherry picking game in what they deem as a laws that no longer apply, or the laws that they choose to modify to fit their own needs in practical terms. If a farmer would bring a cow as an offering to the conference, they would laugh at that idea in modern context and demand money.

When it comes to the view of sex, it should not be very difficult to see that marriage is merely a historical business arrangement of which sex is a vehicle for procreation. In context of the modern marriage, it's a proper mix of emotional and mental compatibility that's chosen by partners themselves... and the peak of that compatibility is not the business arrangement (marriage) prior to sexual relationship... it is the sexual relationship itself. It's an elevated level of trust that people can enjoy together as a couple outside of any business arrangement.

Now, religious clerics would equate this idea with "whoring around", which is what fornication is. It's not. There's a clear difference between one night stand type of sex, and sex as a result of relationship with some form of commitment. The clergy does not make any distinction in such matter. For them, one night stand sex, and sex as a part of ongoing relationship is one and the same - fornication, punishable by God with sentence of destruction in hell.

In reality, I think there is emotional emptiness in one-night-stand sex, which IMO is more of a symptom of certain psychological mindset rather than a cause.

Either way, I think that eventually, in 50-100 years we will see religion once again shifting its views of sex to that of "Sex should be practiced responsibly in a loving and caring relationship", rather than "Sex should be practiced in a business arrangement called marriage". Of course, it would once again be a hijacking and adopting of societal progress.

[Gerr]

If you take away the clergy, the WORD still says - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Take the WORD away - anything goes, no boundaries.

[Tom Wetmore]

For a perspective on the extreme to where fundamentalist religious values regarding sex can lead - Foreign Policy magazine - Sex Issue

[Igakusei]

If you take away the clergy, the WORD still says - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Take the WORD away - anything goes, no boundaries.

This is one of my major problems with religion: many of those who subscribe to religious morality completely lose the ability to think for themselves. If they think God said it, it must be right, end of story. If God showed up tomorrow and told you that you were totally wrong about him and that he didn't care what you thought, said, or did with your life and that you'd end up in heaven either way, would you immediately start having sex with multiple women, other men, donkeys, children, etc?

If not, then why not? Anything goes, right?

[ClubV12]

Igakusei, proposes yet another cunningly devised fable. :)

[Gibs]

It is true Love that dictates morality in men and women, not sexual love as man calls love.

Immorality in and of sex is the cause of a great number of murders all the time!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[M. T. Cross]

It is true Love that dictates morality in men and women, not sexual love as man calls love.

Immorality in and of sex is the cause of a great number of murders all the time!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

As opposed to the number of lives lost because people disagreed about God?

[Igakusei]

Igakusei, proposes yet another cunningly devised fable.

It's a serious question, because when people say things like what Gerry did (twice) in this thread, it scares the hell out of people like me. If the only thing between Gerry and mass rape/murder/etc. is the belief that His God will punish him for being bad, then I want to stay as far away from him as possible.

If you can't think of a few decent reasons all on your own, you have some serious issues.

[ClubV12]

Gods laws are impossible to comprehend or understand until you begin to see clearly the great controversy between evil and good. The more you understand of the controversy the more clearly you understand WHY things like premarital sex is bad news. It does not lead to a happier life or a closer companionship, quite the opposite. This is not some blind belief operating out of fear, it is reason and logic working with spiritual insight.

God says, "Come let us reason together." I look at His law(s) and as I reason them out I conclude, they make sense, they are reasonable, they are logical. I conclude THIS is the way to live, whether or not heaven or hell exists, THIS really IS the best way to live ones life. It offers greater happiness and has more rewards than say, a life of crime, a life of what the bible calls rightly, "sin".

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Igakusei, proposes yet another cunningly devised fable.

It's a serious question, because when people say things like what Gerry did (twice) in this thread, it scares the hell out of people like me. If the only thing between Gerry and mass rape/murder/etc. is the belief that His God will punish him for being bad, then I want to stay as far away from him as possible.

If you can't think of a few decent reasons all on your own, you have some serious issues.

And your thoughts are original? Hmmmm.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Igakusei, proposes yet another cunningly devised fable.

It's a serious question, because when people say things like what Gerry did (twice) in this thread, it scares the hell out of people like me. If the only thing between Gerry and mass rape/murder/etc. is the belief that His God will punish him for being bad, then I want to stay as far away from him as possible.

Igakusei, do you believe that God created the world in six literal days and rested on the Sabbath?

`G

[olger]

Good points, CV12!

`g

[Stan]

nice work Olger...

[aldona]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Igakusei, proposes yet another cunningly devised fable.

It's a serious question, because when people say things like what Gerry did (twice) in this thread, it scares the hell out of people like me. If the only thing between Gerry and mass rape/murder/etc. is the belief that His God will punish him for being bad, then I want to stay as far away from him as possible.

If you can't think of a few decent reasons all on your own, you have some serious issues.

Kohlberg's Stage of Moral Development (summarized by cut & paste from the article)

Kohlber's Stages of Moral Development

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold.

Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.

Stage 6: Universal Principles. The principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

In summary:

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

(end quote)

This is not directed at anyone or anyone's argument personally. Just my observation.

Many of the religious people I know (I said "religious", not "spiritual") function at stage 1. God has said what we have to do, and our duty is to blindly obey. Anybody who crosses over into stage 2 is seen as embracing anarchy and lawlessness. In fact, all of stages 2 to 6 are seen to blur together in one huge mass of "do as you please" and "anything goes".

On the rare occasion that I have met a person who operates on stage 4 principles or above, they have not usually been a follower of an organized religion.

Many atheists and agnostics I know spend plenty of time pondering deeply on stage 5-6 principles like universal rights, the dignity of all persons, and what makes a just society. In contrast, most religious believers seem to be stuck in stage 1, arguing with other stage 1 dwellers about what exactly it was that God said we have to do.

When Jesus taught the Golden Rule, He went straight to stage 6. But it seems that's both too simple, and too complicated for some...

Enough Sunday morning ramblings - need to have some coffee now.

AJ