To be fair, you started it. Post #3 Now this is irony.
So perhaps if you don't like being disrespected you take your sassy pants off before making a post?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sex strike
- Thread starter Enoch07
- Start date
To be fair, you started it. Post #3 Now this is irony.
So perhaps if you don't like being disrespected you take your sassy pants off before making a post?
To be fair, you started it. Post #3 Now this is irony.
So perhaps if you don't like being disrespected you take your sassy pants off before making a post?
Post 3 was a humerous response to your obnoxious and deliberate abuse of liberal women and pro choice supporters in post 1.
When you disrespect people you get what you post.
Now lets see you try and make something up before post 1. Or you can accept responsibility for your own words. After all, as you are so fond of reminding... It is your OP
Abuse?
Criticism is not abuse.
Cheeky, snarky, or biting criticism for sure.
But far from abuse.
#nosassypants
Works both ways so stop griping
*** mod post ***
OK, let's keep this civil. Criticize ideas, not people.
OK, let's keep this civil. Criticize ideas, not people.
Not griping, was just asking.
A week or so ago i wiped my ignore list clean, it was short, only 5 names. It seems there was a good reason you were on that list.
You have the honour of being the first on the new list?
That's up to you. I try to answer/address any respectful sincere questions/topics, respectfully and sincerely. If you find that I am abusive then that only means one thing.
While watching this thread go down in flames, a few thoughts came to mind about the subject matter.
Someone upthread posted an article saying that overall, people are having less sex than they used to. Concurrently, there have been numerous observations about the growing incivility and divisions within society.
So I wonder: Could the sex strike be taking its toll?
I look back on earlier eras, such as during the 60s and 70s when there were sharp disputes and divisions within the country. But there was an attitude of free love and a certain level of hedonism which may have tempered and moderated a lot of the harsher sentiments and extremist views.
A lot of the enmities of the era subsided and went dormant, as if people just didn't want to fight anymore and preferred to just get naked and jump in the hot tub together.
They used to say that Americans were terribly uptight about sex and that we should eschew the old-fashioned attitudes of middle class morality. So, there were active efforts to move us away from that, and yet, when looking at how things are nowadays, it's almost as if we're going backwards. The divisions still exist, and we're still at each other's throats.
Someone upthread posted an article saying that overall, people are having less sex than they used to. Concurrently, there have been numerous observations about the growing incivility and divisions within society.
So I wonder: Could the sex strike be taking its toll?
I look back on earlier eras, such as during the 60s and 70s when there were sharp disputes and divisions within the country. But there was an attitude of free love and a certain level of hedonism which may have tempered and moderated a lot of the harsher sentiments and extremist views.
A lot of the enmities of the era subsided and went dormant, as if people just didn't want to fight anymore and preferred to just get naked and jump in the hot tub together.
They used to say that Americans were terribly uptight about sex and that we should eschew the old-fashioned attitudes of middle class morality. So, there were active efforts to move us away from that, and yet, when looking at how things are nowadays, it's almost as if we're going backwards. The divisions still exist, and we're still at each other's throats.
I think the lack of sex is symptomatic of our society going downhill, rather than the other way around. Millennial men are particularly hard-hit by the drop-off in sex; no woman wants to have sex with a young man working a crappy job who still has tens of thousands of student loan debt to pay off. And very few men feel ready or safe to have sex when the idea has been reinforced over and over again that any show of authentic manliness or chivalry is "toxic masculinity", and that any attempt to flirt with a girl or show interest in her can potentially get him arrested for sexual harrassment.
Whatever happened to "all you need is love"?
Abstinence hurt me and my future family. I was a new, young Christian in the Army, had met a Christian girl, fell in love, thought I felt the Lord telling me to marry her - I had an epiphany one afternoon on the barracks steps with her in the presence of crepuscular sunbeams beaming down on us - proposed having never had sexual relations, got married, and finally tested the goods. I don't want to be unkind here, but there was never any hope of a mutually satisfying sexual relationship. She was terrified of sex and said it hurt her. She became tense and rigid.
Unfortunately, we had two children before I realized that I just couldn't live like that, and got a divorce. I was just too young to know better.
Looking back, I can now see what a bad idea abstinence was. Toward what purpose? To please God? What god? Where is this god? Why would a god care anyway?
And did that outcome please anybody?
This is why I am such a huge critic of faith-based thought, at least the kind that affects decision making. It fine if you believe that angels exist on faith, but if you believe that you can drive recklessly because they will protect you, now you're at risk, just as I was when I let my faith affect my decision making.
Nope. There is no virtue in either celibacy or abstinence. There are no benefits for a person able to enjoy an active sex life without undue complications sufficient to justify an irrational practice that simply denies one physical pleasure and a spiritual connection. Toward what purpose? How would my life have been better is I adhered to Christian dogma? I just showed you how it made it worse. Plus, there are additional good reasons to have an active sexual life if one so desires - for both mental and physical health.
This is the problem with believing without sufficient reason. I believed what my Bible and preacher were telling me because I believed a god existed and wanted me to do the things I was being instructed to do, there being no other reason to do them. When I returned to atheism, I discarded my faith-based beliefs.
If that is all that you mean by discipline - depriving yourself to no benefit - then that is not a virtue either.
The value of discipline is to be able to perform a task that you are averse to, but want to accomplish anyway. Practicing denying oneself the benefits of a healthy sex life is of no value.
When I was in medical practice, I used to encounter patients in pain that refused adequate analgesia despite experiencing considerable suffering. They would rather suffer through a migraine headache, for example, without help than to take a medication that could ease the suffering.
Sometimes, it was for religious reasons, especially hospice patients getting ready, they thought, to meet their maker, a maker that wanted them to suffer just as Jesus suffered just prior to His death.
Sometimes, people were just afraid of medication.
But sometimes, it was for no purpose other than to prove to themselves how much pain they could will themselves to endure undertreated. I used to think to myself, how pointless is this? Now they can put on his tombstone that he only took 700 Excedrins in a lifetime when 3000 would have benefited him more. Congratulations on pointless discipline. .
And of course, disciplining yourself to refuse safe, legal sex doesn't prepare you for any other task that requires discipline as you suggest, such as controlling outbursts of rage, or not procrastinating. Those are tasks that are worth accomplishing - behaviors worth controlling - and every success reinforces the good habit. Your sexual abstinence discipline probably won't help you in disciplining any other aspect of your life such as these, as you imply.
With time, the urge to rage or procrastinate diminishes form relative disuse. This is authentic discipline, and it has a purpose unlike seeing how long you can hold your hand over a flame or how many migraines you can endure needlessly untreated.
Sometimes, nature doesn't make the best decisions. For example, it seems to want my home to be a mess and in disrepair. If we stop cleaning it and performing upkeep, things get dirty and cease working for good.
So, we veto nature in that area and work against its tendencies. In fact, nature doesn't seem to care if we have a home, which is why they are built by human beings. Likewise with clothes.
We transcend nature and choose intelligent design instead, especially when it comes to reproduction.
This thread was started by you as a snarky attack on liberals. Constructive criticism is not abuse, but this is not constructive criticism. This is just you telling liberals how much you dislike them.
Yes, in a sense, but not just for the irresponsible and unaware. It's for any pregnant female seeking a safe, legal abortion for any reason. Maybe his condom broke, or she was raped by her uncle, or her parents armed her with nothing better than an abstinence-only type of sex education. You might as well start discussing baby names when you take that last approach with your daughters, as Sarah Palin learned. What did they name that baby? Tripp?
Money well spent. If the mother doesn't want this baby born, forcing her to deliver it seems like a bad idea. Every abortion prevented is another unwanted baby born into the world.
Unfunding abortion and agencies like Planned Parenthood because of the dominant religion's beliefs is a particularly poor idea for multiple reasons, many already given, not the least of which is allowing the American church to impose its will on all Americans, including those that do not share its values, by using the power of government to essentially turn these women into incubators for the church.
For me, opposing that is a no-brainer. It's not about whether any given woman should get an abortion or not, nor what her reasons are. It's about who gets to make the decision - the private citizen, or the church and state.
And if its money you're concerned about, keep in mind that if we allow pregnant teens to get abortions and continue their educations rather than dropping out to wait tables and raise babies, you'll get your taxes back in spades when she goes on to become a middle class professional rather than an unskilled, uneducated, single mother living in poverty.
Those are your values, but not mine. If public dollars prevent unwanted babies from being born, I'll gladly chip in to support the cost.
I'd also be willing to underwrite a share of her college tuition and her first small business start-up loan. Developing human potential and expanding opportunity for all are prominent liberal and humanist values.
Conceded? I freely admit it. Abortion is a form of birth control. That's its purpose. That's why abortions are done - to prevent an unwanted birth. That's why we want to keep it a safe and legal option. American girls and women including Christian ones will continue having abortions whether they are recriminalized in America or not. Some will go to other countries, some will visit underground abortion clinics.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
My wife could not have children.Alyssa Milano's sex strike is misguided. Here's what actually might work (opinion) - CNN
Hmmmm so she's encouraging women to not have sex to negate the risk of pregnancy?
Congratulations, you just backdoored your way into sexual morality!
I hope all liberal women join Alyssa Milano and support her sex strike. She might make moral people out of pro-choice supporters after all!
It would have been sad for her and me if you ruled the World. Glad you don't!
Huh? Non-sensical but ok.
He is indicating that if you ruled the world, sex would only be for procreation. Since she could not have children, you would be barring her from the pleasures and expression of sex.
You're welcome.
I know, I also never said it should be only for procreation. Only that its primary purpose is procreation.
Need some more intelligent people on that are able to keep up.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
What rot
Who said so.
sex is sex. Most people enjoy taking part, but it is not compulsory. Nor is having children.
Biology says so. The primary purpose you have sexual organs and a reproductive system, is to reproduce. Fun is secondary.
Biology doesn’t “say” anything. Purpose is the invention of a sentient mind. Biology has function, not purpose.
We decide the purpose ourselves.