NBC and CBS Ban Church Ad - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-07-2004, 01:51 PM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I like to dress up like a hobbit.....because I am so hairy.


T.M.I.




__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 01:57 PM   #137
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:48 AM
I will never be able to watch Lord of the Rings the same way again.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 01:59 PM   #138
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:48 AM
one last thing. what we determine to be taboo -- where there is a victim, and thus illegal -- does rapidly change over time, as has our definition of what does and does not constitute a socially acceptable, approvable marriage. consider this:

in the 1950s, marriages between adult males and girls as young as 12 were allowed. some prominent celebrity examples—both Loretta Lynn and Jerry Lee Lewis were involved in marriages between adult males and 13-year-old girls. we can assume countless non-celebrity examples as well. this is another example, by the way, of how civil marriage has changed beyond recognition in this century. it recently celebrated what we would now call statutory rape. should we never have changed that particular rule? after all, 5,000 years of tradition and all that
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 02:06 PM   #139
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I will never be able to watch Lord of the Rings the same way again.
Sting wears a glow in the dark condum.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 02:07 PM   #140
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Sorry, just felt the need to lighten things up.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 02:08 PM   #141
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:48 AM
You forgot "no pun intended."
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 02:08 PM   #142
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Sorry, just felt the need to lighten things up.



that was *terrible*
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 02:09 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:48 AM
pun intended, then
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 03:29 PM   #144
The Fly
 
pwmartin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: western Pennsylvania
Posts: 107
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
First off, thanks, Irvine, for getting what I was saying .

Second...



That's if they tell you, of course. You'd have to also consider the fact that not every couple announces that they're married (what about those who elope?), and you'd also have to consider the fact that people invite others to their weddings-they only let in those they feel comfortable sharing this news with. If they didn't invite you, it's therefore none of your concern.

And even then, yes, you can assume those things about them, but it's still not your place to get into their business regarding that stuff. It's still not your place to know exactly what kind of intimate things they do behind closed doors, it's still not your place to know if they will or won't have children, etc., etc.-if they want to let you know of that stuff, they will. Until then, that's their concern, not yours.




Angela
Yes, I am misunderstood.

First of all, we are dealing with distinctly different defintions/narratives here.

A marriage and a wedding are not the same thing.

A wedding may be private...it may involve eloping...but once they have made certain promises to each other, whether in front of a priest or a rabbi or an Elvis impersonator-cum magistrate in Las Vegas, they are now "public" in their relationship. That's why we wear wedding rings. If someone was married and not wearing a ring on a regular basis and not letting people know they're married then, quite frankly, i think they're being dishonest and misleading to everyone else.

I can maintain that there is a distinction between private and public to some degree. This whole debate arose from my critique of the widespread argument that what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms has no effect on anyone else.

I am not saying that I want to know what goes on in peoples' bedrooms. I never said that. I said that what goes on in peoples' bedrooms affects me, even though I don't want to have a say-so in what kind of sex they're having.

I have made my argument that I think it does. This format doesn't allow me to articulate it any differently, and I get tired of trying to type it out. As a matter of fact, I don't even know what I'm arguing anymore because there's all these discordant voices coming in from all sides and I don't know what train of thought we're all on anymore.

To sum up: I am challenging society's dominant belief that our sexual preferences/activities/fetishes, etc affects no one but the two people involved. They do, in fact, affect others, and in many cases, quite drastically. I think if we all wised up to that, we'd be able to answer the questions a little more uniformly. But instead, like everything else these days, sex becomes just a battle of the wills: Eventually, people will get what they want. They will push and push and argue and argue until they finally get their way, usually to the detriment of the entire community. Our ethics these days are based solely on the rights of the individual.

Sex between same-sex partners is very different from sexual intercourse between different-sex partners. I know enough about biology and my own errogenous zones to know that.

This is getting heavy, so I think I'm signing out. You win!
__________________
pwmartin is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 03:35 PM   #145
The Fly
 
pwmartin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: western Pennsylvania
Posts: 107
Local Time: 03:48 AM
One more thing...someone asked about my celibacy.

I may, in fact, get married some day, but I won't have sexual intercourse til I do.

I have learned from experience that sex is a powerful, powerful force in a relationship. It can stunt the growth of a relationship very easily. It can be used to manipulate. Most importantly, it can make the focus of a relationship "meeting my needs," whatever I perceive them to be at a given time. And that's ultimately not healthy, neither for me nor for my partner. Maybe my flesh is weaker than others', maybe I'm just a wuss, but I know that maintaining good boundaries, good relationships in my life involves keeping sex to the confines of marriage.
__________________
pwmartin is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 05:54 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pwmartin



To sum up: I am challenging society's dominant belief that our sexual preferences/activities/fetishes, etc affects no one but the two people involved. They do, in fact, affect others, and in many cases, quite drastically. I think if we all wised up to that, we'd be able to answer the questions a little more uniformly. But instead, like everything else these days, sex becomes just a battle of the wills: Eventually, people will get what they want. They will push and push and argue and argue until they finally get their way, usually to the detriment of the entire community. Our ethics these days are based solely on the rights of the individual.

Sex between same-sex partners is very different from sexual intercourse between different-sex partners. I know enough about biology and my own errogenous zones to know that.

This is getting heavy, so I think I'm signing out. You win!

firstly, i am sympathetic to the limitations of the format -- i think we all feel that at different points.

i think the distinction we're drawing is that the specific act your neighbor performs in a bedroom does not affect you, however the effects of that might. if your neighbors wanted to pee on each other, and they enjoyed this and found it strengthened their relationship, then you might be positively affected by this. you have every right to say, "ew! gross" (as i would), but you have no right to say "that is wrong."

likewise, your neighbors could have an abusive relationship where he beats her up on a weekly basis, their marriage suffers, they argue, no one wants to live near that, property values go down, etc.

these are two very different things, but what matters is firstly the *effect* -- if the effect is positive, you've no right to judge it. if the effect is negative, then you can trace it back to the specific behavior, and from that you are free to make a judgement because you have the negative effect as evidence.

as for your same-sex sex vs. opposite-sex sex, let me just say that God did give men a G-spot, he put it in a very specific place, and there's really only one way to get at that.

but that aside, you seem to be reducing sex, in this instance, to the literal coupling of two bodies. i would inferr, based upon your previous comments, that that is the *least* important part of the sex act. what's important are the intangibles that occur -- the intimacy, the care for the other, the desire to worship the other's body, to please the other, and to physically act out the emotion of love.

acts meant to express such profound emotions have no orientation.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 06:12 PM   #147
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



as for your same-sex sex vs. opposite-sex sex, let me just say that God did give men a G-spot, he put it in a very specific place, and there's really only one way to get at that.


Note to self: don't forget new batteries.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 08:18 PM   #148
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:48 AM
I know what went on in my bedroom affected the people staying in room 117. If you are reading this....sorry about the noise.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

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 03:48 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