Sin - Crime - Immorality > same? similar? different?? - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-22-2012, 04:11 PM   #106
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS


I think most know me well enough to know that my snark is much more pointed.
Point conceded
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:14 PM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean



Finally, please provide some clarity. Is it okay in your opinion to fantasize about your co-worker but not to go "knock one" out immediately after? Would it be more appropriate to wait until one is at home first? Or is it all okay?
If its an appropriate place to have sex, it's an appropriate place to fantasize about your coworker and masturbate. I think we will both agree that having sex at work is inappropriate

Quote:
Again, my point wasn't to make judgement about any of the above--it was simply to provide what in my view was a more fair argument.
I get that, I just feel you took it way too far in the other direction
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:18 PM   #108
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean

Agreed.

You are extrapolating arguments that neither Nathan or I have made. Apparently any consideration of sexual morality must ultimately arrive at this tripe? Talk about slippery slopes!
It was stated in a previous post that 'looking once is ok. Looking twice is a sin." I'm not extrapolating at all. It might not be your argument, but it was Nathan's. Maybe he can speak for himself so we don't keep having these misunderstandings
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:20 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Why is it okay for Nathan to imply that a culture filled with more than a fleeting sexual thought about women has led to 1 in 6 being sexually assaulted, but when I bring up the rampant sexual abuse of children in an institution that champions the repression on natural, sexual thought, I get the straight mouth face guy?
You got the straight mouth guy because you created a ridiculous conclusion that we were supposedly trying to get you to come to and then sarcastically admitted defeat.

I was certainly not defending the Church's record on sex. (not my church by the way, with all due respect to Catholics on the forum. There was this little thing called the Protestant Reformation, you may have heard of it. And there are some pretty major differences between the capital C Church and the motley bunch of Protestant denominations floating around out there. It's like lumping Communism and "the liberals" into one bunch).

As far as what Nathan was implying he will have to elaborate on that himself. I'll be honest, I wasn't exactly sure where he was going--I might agree with him, I might not. I figured I'd wait and see rather than deciding I knew EXACTLY where he was coming from and shooting him down.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:22 PM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
If its an appropriate place to have sex, it's an appropriate place to fantasize about your coworker and masturbate. I think we will both agree that having sex at work is inappropriate



I get that, I just feel you took it way too far in the other direction
Okay, fair point. I wasn't intending to take it that far. Just playing around with some hyperbole and it got away from me.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:23 PM   #111
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean
(not my church by the way, with all due respect to Catholics on the forum. There was this little thing called the Protestant Reformation, you may have heard of it. And there are some pretty major differences between the capital C Church and the motley bunch of Protestant denominations floating around out there. It's like lumping Communism and "the liberals" into one bunch).
You guys keep bringing this up as if it's relevant. It's not. Ok, we aren't talking about your specific church. It changes nothing. I'm also not doing the raping in colorado. I get the defensiveness for your church, but we're speaking in broad terms here
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:24 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean

Okay, fair point. I wasn't intending to take it that far. Just playing around with some hyperbole and it got away from me.
Understandable and fair enough
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:25 PM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
It was stated in a previous post that 'looking once is ok. Looking twice is a sin." I'm not extrapolating at all. It might not be your argument, but it was Nathan's. Maybe he can speak for himself so we don't keep having these misunderstandings
True enough.

I read "looking once is okay, looking twice is a sin" as something that wasn't intended to be taken absolutely literally.

I really think our pre-assumptions about this topic really affect how we're interpreting these posts.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:26 PM   #114
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean


I really think our pre-assumptions about this topic really affect how we're interpreting these posts.
I can get behind this on both sides
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:31 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
You guys keep bringing this up as if it's relevant. It's not. Ok, we aren't talking about your specific church. It changes nothing. I'm also not doing the raping in colorado. I get the defensiveness for your church, but we're speaking in broad terms here

How is it not relevant? You're ascribing positions on sexuality that belong to one particular branch of Christianity (okay it is by far the largest and most powerful, but still!), that decisively do not belong to others. Why should I be made to answer for the sins (if you'll excuse the term) of the Church? We actually probably agree on what's wrong there, so I have no desire to be placed into the position of defending the Church on this.

Who is raping in Colorado? I am confused.

As for defending my particular denomination per se, (Man, you'd have a field day with a lot of our teachings--I don't even agree with them all!), I not looking to do that either. I understand the terms are broad just not liberals=communist broad.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:35 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 04:52 AM
I think part of the problem is that most Christian denominations, including Protestant religions, have become mouthpieces for sex-related politics in this country. Not their members, mind you, but their leaders, and thus, their proscribed beliefs on the record. It's the Christian politicians who want to slut shame anyone who thinks birth control should be covered by insurance. It's the Christian politicians who want to get involved in the affairs of gay couples. This influences every discussion of sex-related politics, especially when the conversation is happening between some religious and nonreligious people.

So, we are probably closer in thinking than we seem to be.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:46 PM   #117
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean

Why should I be made to answer for the sins (if you'll excuse the term) of the Church?
You shouldn't be. I don't want you to feel like you need to either. As Peef said further down the page, maybe we're closer on this than you probably are with other religious people.
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:51 PM   #118
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 04:52 AM
my original point has since been moved on, but the overarching point is that there is an intersection between left-wing feminism and more conservative religious thought, and in a way i think both are right. i am a big supporter of all forms of sexual expression and sexual freedom, the right to have as much or as little sex as you want however and whenever you want, which may include acts or dynamics that many of us might be uncomfortable with so long as both partners are consenting and of legal age. maybe i want you to treat me like a sex object. maybe i want to obey your strict orders. maybe i want you to look at me as we make love and tell each other how beautiful we are and how much i love you. all these things are fine in any free society. and i think both feminism and the religious while rightly insisting on not dehumanizing people wind up infantilizing all of us by assuming that they know what is best for you.

i do think, however, that sexual freedom comes with complications. take "Girls" on HBO, probably the most talked-about (loved and hated) show of 2012, and Frank Bruni's take on it. (Bruni is gay, which i find interesting):

Quote:
March 31, 2012
The Bleaker Sex
By FRANK BRUNI

THE first time you see Lena Dunham’s character having sex in the new HBO series “Girls,” her back is to her boyfriend, who seems to regard her as an inconveniently loquacious halfway point between partner and prop, and her concern is whether she’s correctly following instructions.

“So I can just stay like this for a little while?” she asks. “Do you need me to move more?”

He needs her to intrude less. “Let’s play the quiet game,” he answers.

The second time, she’s an 11-year-old junkie with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, or so he tells her, commencing a role play in which he alone assigns the roles. He has highly specific fantasies, and she’s largely a fleshy canvas for them.

You watch these scenes and other examples of the zeitgeist-y, early-20s heroines of “Girls” engaging in, recoiling from, mulling and mourning sex, and you think: Gloria Steinem went to the barricades for this? Salaries may be better than in decades past and the cabinet and Congress less choked with testosterone. But in the bedroom? What’s happening there remains something of a muddle, if not something of a mess.

“Girls” makes its debut in two weeks. Dunham, just 25, is not only its star but also its principal writer and director, and she has already been accorded a voice-of-her-generation status. She even lampoons this in “Girls” by having her character, an aspiring writer, claim such a mantle for herself.

The show is drawing inevitable — and apt — comparisons to “Sex and the City,” in whose long shadow it blooms. “Girls,” too, is a half-hour comedy (of sorts) about four women finding themselves and fortifying one another in the daunting, libidinous wilds of New York City.

But it’s a recession-era adjustment. The gloss of Manhattan is traded for the mild grit of Brooklyn’s more affordable neighborhoods. The anxieties are as much economic as erotic. The colors are duller, the mood is dourer and the clothes aren’t much. It’s “Sex and the City” in a charcoal gray Salvation Army overcoat.

It comes along at a moment of fresh examination of women’s progress. A just-published book, “The Richer Sex,” by Liza Mundy, asserts that women are well on their way to becoming the primary breadwinners in a majority of American families; it rated the cover of Time magazine two weeks ago. It will be joined later this year by “The End of Men,” by Hanna Rosin, which answers the question posed by the title of Maureen Dowd’s prescient 2005 best seller, “Are Men Necessary?” As Rosin sees it, not so much, because women have achieved unprecedented autonomy.

But “Girls” also amplifies a growing chorus of laments over what’s happening on the sexual frontier, a state of befuddlement reflective in part of post-feminist power dynamics and in part of our digital culture and virtual fixations.

Are young women who think that they should be more like men willing themselves into a casual attitude toward sex that’s an awkward emotional fit? Two movies released last year, “No Strings Attached” and “Friends With Benefits,” held that position, and Dunham subscribes to it as well.

In a recent interview, presented in more detail on my Times blog, she told me that various cultural cues exhort her and her female peers to approach sex in an ostensibly “empowered” way that she couldn’t quite manage. “I heard so many of my friends saying, ‘Why can’t I have sex and feel nothing?’ It was amazing: that this was the new goal.”

She added: “There’s a biological reason why women feel about sex the way they do and men feel about sex the way they do. It’s not as simple as divesting yourself of your gender roles.”

THE Web confuses things further, unfurling a seemingly infinite cosmos of ready possibility and abetting lightning-fast connections. Several popular cellphone apps give someone with a sudden whim for a date the pictures and physical proximities of similarly inclined prospects. An assignation may be no more than 10 minutes and 20 blocks away.

Dunham noted that the Web also fosters a misleading sense of familiarity between people who have shared nothing more than keystrokes. “All sorts of promiscuity don’t feel like promiscuity,” she said. “But a month of text messages does not a personal connection make. I’ve fallen victim to the sensation that I understand some guy’s essence when I’ve really just read 15 of his tweets.”

And there’s an emerging literature of complaint from young men and women alike about the impact of free or cheap online pornography. Early last year, New York magazine ran an article by Davy Rothbart, 36, who admitted faking an orgasm with a real live woman, learned that other men had done so as well and wondered if a “tsunami of porn” was to blame. It was titled “He’s Just Not That Into Anyone.”

Last February GQ pondered the problem from a feminine perspective. A young woman writing under a pseudonym cited her and her friends’ experiences to assert that for more and more men, “the buffet of fetishistic porn available 24/7” had created very particular and sometimes very peculiar, ratcheted-up desires.

“To compare it to another genre of online video,” she wrote, “why watch a clip of one puppy frolicking in a field when you can watch eight different puppies cuddling with a sweet-faced baby armadillo tickling a panda bear? And after seeing that, why ever settle for a boring ol’ puppy frolicking in a field again?”

“Guys my age watch so much pornography,” Dunham told me, adding that she has been subjected to aggressive positioning and “a lot of errant hair pulling” and has thought: “There’s no way that you, young Jewish man from Chappaqua, taught this to yourself.”

These experiences inform her “Girls” sex scenes, which have a depersonalized aspect. So does the sadomasochistic relationship in the best-selling erotic novel “Fifty Shades of Grey,” a publishing-industry phenomenon about a virginal college student presented with a contract to become the “Submissive” to a dashing older man’s “Dominant.” The contract covers waxing, hygiene and the frequency with which she must work out. She haggles him down from four times a week to three.

Credibly or not, the college student seems exhilarated at the start. Dunham’s more convincingly rendered characters seem perplexed, and their frustration with men raises questions about whether less privacy means more intimacy and whether sexual candor is any guarantor of sexual satisfaction.

People can be so available in a superficial sense that they’re inaccessible in a deeper one. Or, as Dunham put it, “People underestimate the importance of making solid connections.”

food for thought?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:51 PM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean

Who is raping in Colorado? I am confused.
Nathan posted a statistic that 1 in 6 women in Colorado had either been assaulted or full on raped, implying that it was a result of our culture of sexual objectification. That's what my child assault in the church comment was responding to. It was more a case of 'how are you going to bring that up when there is this?'. Do I think repressing sexual thoughts is damaging? Yes. Do I think it leads directly to child molestation? Of course not. Not any more than sexual fantasies lead to rape
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:51 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I think part of the problem is that most Christian denominations, including Protestant religions, have become mouthpieces for sex-related politics in this country. Not their members, mind you, but their leaders, and thus, their proscribed beliefs on the record. It's the Christian politicians who want to slut shame anyone who thinks birth control should be covered by insurance. It's the Christian politicians who want to get involved in the affairs of gay couples. This influences every discussion of sex-related politics, especially when the conversation is happening between some religious and nonreligious people.

So, we are probably closer in thinking than we seem to be.


the political arm of Christianity is amazingly sex obsessed. including the Pope.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com