...now that my title has caught your attention
It really is about sex though. Only an idiot would deny its prevalence in society. So why do we still have all of these old-fashioned conservatives still trying to deny it?
Dr. Alfred Kinsey is one of my heroes. Without him, people might still be thinking that birth control is evil, and that oral sex can cause sterility.
Honestly though. I'm so sick of everyone making a huge moral deal out of sex. Everyone thinks about it, and most everyone will have it at some point. And why shouldn't they? Humans are sexual creatures. Whether you believe we were created that way by a god or that we evolved that way to be like animals, its just a fact that people like sex, and do it often. There are a million variations on the preferences of human sexuality, and I don't think anyone, especially the government, has any right to try and regulate what people choose to do consensually behind closed doors.
Morals are a personal choice and everyone doesn't have to have the same morals. If you want to wait until marriag to have sex, more power to ya, but if you don't why shouod that make you a bad or sinful person. Just use common sense in your sex lives people. Don't want a baby? Use a birth control. Don't want a disease? Use a condom.
Sex is first and foremost a physical act. Emotion is only added by choice. Sex with someone you love is great, and always the more fulfilling, but I can tell you right now it still feels good with someone you're not in love with. I think if preachy, fundamental, conservatives would stop shoving the sexual sin down young people's throats, many negative repurcussions associated with sex would dissapear. I'm not talking "free love" here cause thats a load of bull too. But the sooner everyone just accepts that SEX happens, the better off society will be.
One of the better blogs I have read this whole month; I completely agree. Thanks for posting what I think but am not so eloquent at writing. :)
Nahhhhhhhhhhhh.
I think it's gosh darn important that people make a big deal out of sex and try and set standards. Yes, I allow everyone their own opinions and choices, but I think that at the very least monogamy should be pushed. Having X number of partners just leads to a large amount of drama, which could lead to unstable individuals (we've all seen high school), and in the end it can break up originally functional families.
Sure---don't wait until you're married. Go ahead, have homosexual relations. Why not use birth control or a condom? But please, try and only have one relationship at a time.
I agree that having one relationship at a time is important. People are going to get hurt in that situation. But in my opinion if two people can have sex with eachother knowing its nothing more than a physical thing, and both parties understand that, then what's wrong with it? Everyone needs to have their own standards, and if you belive strongly in it, then stick to it.
An entirely separate issue is the double standard between men and women. A guy can hook up with a chick on a one night stand and he'll be congratulated, told he "scored". If a woman does this, she's a whore. If a girl just wants some good sexual fun, why shouldn't she be able to go for it?
In response to your first argument, albeit terrribly belated (I never got an e-mail prompting me of a response), I'd have to say that I can't think of anything wrong with it, other than it just sounds wrong to me. Which I know, already, is a wholly relative thing. So, I can't, and therefore don't, go all, "OHMYGOD WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!" with people who do do this. The bottom line is I feel it's wrong, so I don't get involved. If they want to, well, I offer a bit of word against it, but ultimately let it go.
And I agreee with the double standard comment---both of which are enforced by culture. Men are encouraged to be strong and dominant, and the ability to 'seduce' women adds to their 'masculinity' factor, and thus it's a 'score.' As for women, well, I'd say that our culture still views women as they're supposed to be entirely monogamous, and thus, you get labeled a 'whore.' Not to say I agree with it, but, to try and offer an explanation.
by whom? the government? would you be the first person to encourage your politician to outlaw non-monogamous relationships? No, of course not. A less unthinkable alternative is to teach this in schools; but this is creepy also, which means that it's wrong to make kids sit in class and listen to what they should consensually agree to do with their bodies.
another double standard, caeli, is that ahaidaris wrote a blog here on how society unreasonably imposes the practice of leg-shaving on women. But this person is probably fine with gay sex. What sort of double standard is it where feminists decry one private practice, but not another? Now, I don't this to be interpreted the wrong way; my point here is that that attitude is authoritarian and unreasonable.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
I agree with everything you said in your post. Don't have much else to say. =)
On the surface sex as a 'physical' thing sounds great, but I believe that people really ought to put a little more thought into it than that. Because sex can lead to pregnancy--even with birth control and if your aren't emotionally commited to your partner, the woman lands with ALL of the negative consequences and the man with none. If your in a commited open relationship and ready to deal with whatever life throws at you--go ahead. It's none of my business.
~CallieV
I think this depends on the people involved. Are they smart enough to realize that there are risks involved? I have no problem with people persuing sexual relations as long as they don't punish someone else for their carelessness (also known as abortion) or become reservoirs of sexually transmitted diseases.
People should not be scared of something just because someone tells them something or they read something in a book. The people who say that sex is bad have not done much research into its risks and how to prevent the risks from affecting their life. They are scared of it because of arbitrary reasons. In the modern age we live in, arbitrary reasons are unnecessary.
i think you cna control sex.
Sex has to be a big deal. I hate it when people say conservatives should lay off because something is so common. Something being common is not necessarily a good thing. Cancer is common, so should we just stop trying to find a cure? Underage drinking is common, so should be just lower the drinking age? Running stop signs is common, so should we remove stop signs? Of course not. The popularity of something means nothing about its effects. Sex comes with the risk of AIDS, other STDs, pregnancy, and emotional issues. It's a serious topic.
People can and should control their sexual desires. Sex is a sacred gift from God and should not be abused.
I agree that paying attention to the risks of sex should be a big deal, whether they be emotional or physical. I'm not saying it shouldn't. What shouldn't be a big deal is when a guy decides he's not into women. Or when a girl decides she wants to have sex, because she enjoys, and doesn't want to get called a whore for it. I'm just tired of people with very strict morals who believe in enforcing it on everyone else. I have no problem with people who view sex has a sacred gift from God, but not everyone sees it this way, and they shouldn't have to be condemned by society for the decision that they feel is right.
That's why I love all the men I fuck.
At least for 15 minutes.
(Sorry Seraph, I couldn't help myself.)
People shouldn't have to "control" their desires; they should find suitable ways to express them. If this includes safe sex, regardless of marriage or relationship, I think that's fine.
If this includes masturabation, I think that's fine.
I agree. I think th eonly people who think sex is a big deal are those who have yet to experience it. I've had a lot of sex, and it means something when I'm with my boyfriend, but at the end of the day, if you are safe and you understand what it is you are doing, and you understand the consequences, I see nothing wrong with it.
And Kinsey was a great man, I enjoyed the movie too!
PPF-give me proof that "sex is a sacred gift from God".
Better-give me proof God exists first. Then we'll discuss the rest.
Until then, sex is a biological natural act, and shouldn't be viewed as dirty, perverted, or tabu. Hell, without it, we wouldn't exist now would we?
I have my own proof that God exists. I've written about it countelss times in many other posts so i'm not going to get into it again on this one.
Yep, we wouldn't exist without sex. And no, it isn't dirty. Though masturbation, premarital sex, and homosexual sex are. It's a gift from God intended for procreation & the unity of the married man and woman.
And I have my own proof that God doesn't exist. So who is right?
PS, you should just say "anal sex" not homosexual sex, because a lot of heterosexual couples engage in it too.
None of those things are dirty, in my opinion. They are forms of expression, that when done safely and consciously harm no one.
No I shouldn't because I'm not saying anal sex is wrong.
But anal sex doesn't lead to procreation now does it? So how come it's ok? What if a couple only has anal sex?
If they only have anal sex then yes, it's wrong. But if they have that followed by regular intercourse, then it's fine.
Where in your religious texts does it say that its ok to have anal sex if it is followed by regular sex and anal sex is not ok otherwise?
I think it is ok as long as it is done safely. You see, people are afraid of sex because they do not know and understand sex as much as the rest of the population. People are scared of the idea of normalcy because they are closed-minded. They do not consider and give thought to other viewpoints. They think one book written when people did not know as much as they know today will always be right no matter what.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
-George Bernard Shaw
It's okay to have foreplay, anal sex, oral sex, etc, as long as it ultimately leads to intercourse, which may have the possibility of procreation. You can't just fool around, though, because that is solely for selfish purposes.
What is selfish and what is not? Do you go to the movies? Do you buy and/or read books? Do you play games? Do you undertake any activity for fun? If you do, it is for "selfish" reasons since you are doing it for your own fun and enjoyment.
Do you work, get money and give away every cent left after buying food, clothing and shelter? If you don't give all of it away, that means you are being selfish.
Here on Earth, we do many selfish things. We would rather spend money on cable TV and other unnecessary things than on charity. Instead of helping people who have never seen a $20 bill, we hoard money and dub it "savings for a rainy day." Does that mean we are all going to hell? Keep in mind that the little or even no reliable proof of hell's existence is not irrefutable and hell may not even exist.
EXACTLY.
i see...so again, maybe you should say "strictly anal sex". Because it's not just gay people who have anal sex without following up with regular sex.
Are you really going to argue with me about my wording? You know my point. Now you're just arguing for argument's sake.
I am going to argue with you about your wording because I think you're misinformed about anal sex and "homosexual sex"...among many other things.
Also, if you see sex in a purely "selfless" way, explain to me what the clitorus is for? Explain to me why women are capable of orgasming? Clearly men orgasm, they ejaculate and release sperm, but why do women orgasm? Not every woman orgasms during sex, so it isn't neccessary for conception....so explain to me why God gave us the power to orgasm, explain to me why he attached a little bundle of nerves to our vaginas if not to satisfy them? They serve no purpose other than a pleasurable feeling. So please, explain that to me. If sex is merely for procreation and "strengthening bonds", why does it feel good and why are women capable of orgasming, to slfishly feel good, for no purpose other than to feel good?
Because God makes it a pleasing experience for us. If it wasn't pleasing, fewer people would be procreating. Since it's all about procreation, he makes it feel good so that couples will want to take part in it, therefore possibly procreating.
The funny thing about me is that I used to take PPM's side. I thought homosexuality was unnatural, I was going to wait till I was married to have sex, and I thought that every time I masturbated I was going to hell. I believed very strongly that there was a God. What happened? I questioned my beliefs and found that I could no longer follow them and still be honest with myself. I realized there were more logical solutions. I hate it when people say masturbation is wrong. I'm sure research has been done on the topic but what I know is what I've seen from experience. The more people suppress their natural sexual desires, especially as adolescents, the more likely they are to be unbalanced as adults.
As for me personally, I masturbate at least twice a day. I've had sexual relations with both males and females, some of them people I cared deeply for, others not. There's a fullfilment that comes from sex with someone you love that does not come from one night stands, but I'd be lying if I said I did not enjoy my one night stands. I have always been responsible and safe with my sexual experiences, and whether or not I still talk to these people, I don't regret a single thing I've done. With as many sexual partners as I have had, I have never felt that I "gave them a part of me I'll never get back" nor do I even feel there were any of the negative emotional consequences that I was told I would have, and believed I would have. Not everyone feels this way and therefore, not everyone should act this way. But many people do know how to have fun, casual sex responsibly, and I don't believe anyone should tell them they are wrong for it.
"I thought homosexuality was unnatural"
-For the record, I don't think homosexuality is unnatural. I believe that people are born that way. I just don't believe that they need to act upon their sexual desires.
How would you feel if you were told it would be a sin to act on your heterosexual desires? If you were never allowed to partake in them, even if you were married?
Well I would make myself a bride of Christ. That's what every priest and nun has to do...and every person who takes a vow of celibacy.
I meant if heteosexuality was wrong and homosexuality was right? You had to choose either to sin or to act only on your homosexual desires. How would that make you feel?
Something tells me you're very sexually repressed. If you would rather choose celibacy over sin, what does that say about God's supposed intentions to make it pleasurable? In your case, either you don't know, or its not that pleasurable, since you would gladly give it up. Plenty of very spiritual people who have strong convictions in their sexual morals have gone back on them. Why? Because it feels good. Because there is that desire within us. Not all desires have positive affects on those who act on them. But part of life is learning which things we do are good for us and which aren't. If you don't have some willingness to take risks, you could be missing out. That was why I wrote this post. It's not right to do whatever you want heedless of consequences, but neither is it right to never take risks, just because they might have consequences. It's about learning from the consequences you experience, whether they be good or bad. In my experience I have had both. I do not regret, but I do know what to do again and what not to. I'm still learning, but it has made life good for me.
And I would have the same answer. Right now I can't act on any heterosexual desires since I'm not married. And some heterosexuals take vows of chastity, like I said before, therefore vowing to never be sexually active.
Of course I would choose celibacy over sin. God is my number one. But I'll probably get married and then be able to be sexually active.
You're avoiding answering my questions too. You say you'll probably get married and then be able to be sexually active. This is something you want for yourself? All I am saying is, think about how sad you would be if there were no possibility for you to get married. Because it were illegal. Unless you wanted to marry someone of the same sex, then it would be fine. But until you realize that all of your heterosexual desires are sin and that you must be homosexual to be accepted under God's wing. Would you find it so easy to accept this, even for your God? If your God found sin only in heterosexuality, but not homosexuality, would you be willing to change yourself? Would you even be able?
Of course I would be sad. I'm not trying to say I'm not. It's difficult to be a folower of Christ. There will always be crosses that need to be carried. But if God only wanted homosexuals to marry, then that's what I would have to accept. I'm not trying to avoid your questions. Some things that God requests are hard to accept, but we need to try as hard as we can to accept them.
"Would you find it so easy to accept this"
-No, but following God's path is never the easy route. I know that those who follow Jesus' teachings will be persecuted, but I still try my best to follow Him.
Change yourself? Do you mean changing to a homosexual? Or just changing my ideas? I would have to try to change my ideas, obviously, I would have to accept the fact that I will never get married. But to me, that still wouldn't be the end of the world because even if I do get married, God will always be my number 1 in life...coming before everything else.
and what makes homosexuality just a sexual urge? Is heterosexuality just a sexual urge? If so then aren't they the same things, and should be honored is such. My brother is gay, and he doesn't just have sexual urges towards men. He is attracted to them, the same way as straight men are attracted to women. Then he forms a relationship and falls in love the same way that straight people do. He fought this for 7 years, praying to your God, to help him feel different, think different. He would cry himself to sleep because of how he felt, and because despite his constant envolvement in church, the bible and prayer, it wouldn't go away. During that time he never acted on his "urges" and he was in so much pain for denying himself to just be himself. Then he went to college and found people who support him for who he is, rather than expecting him to be the perfect chirstian soldier.
It makes me ill to think of all he suffered. So if it is just an urge, I think you should start thinking about it from an equal point of view.
So wait, you're saying god gave a woman an orgasm so she'd want to participate in sex...meaning, that becoming pregnant is not the only reason to have sex...meaning that a woman who is married and just wants to "feel good" isn't being selfish when she only has sex with her husband to have an orgasm? You don't view married couples who only have sex for the pure reason it feels good as "blasphemous"?
Good god...people, have sex if you want, my only advice is to be safe, know what you're getting into, understand the consequences and research if neccessary. It's really not as big of a deal as everyone makes it out to be, I swear.
I already mentioned the 2 reasons for sex:
1. Procreation
2. Closer bond between a married man and woman
But you're not answering my question-if a woman, who is married, just wants to have sex to stimulate her clitorus and feel good, is that being "selfish"/ If she isn't engaging in sex for purpose of procreation or to "strengthen her bond" with her husband? What if she is just horny and wants to have sex with her husband to feel good?
Oy. Strength of relationships aren't based on your virginity. It's not like the longer you wait the more you love someone.
All that matters is that procreation is possible. Of course married people can still be selfish.
But do you realize you're saying it's ok to be selfish in terms of sexuality? That it's ok to technically use another person, egardless of whether or not he is your husband, simply to satisfy your sexual desire?
Oy. I can't argue this anymore, I hate trying to argue logically with people who can't see more than religion. I'm out!
I just re-read what I wrote and that wasn't how I intended it to sound. I didn't mean "they can" as in "yes, that's fine to be selfish." I meant " they can" as in "some people will always do that, but it isn't right."
I think that sex should be used for both procreational and recreational purposes in marriage. Some Christians say that recreational sex is always wrong, even in marriage, and - as a prooftext - they often cite the Old Testament case of Onan, who was killed for "spilling his seed upon the ground." A careful reading of this passage, however, shows that that Onan's sin was not sexual. Instead, his crime was refusing to fulfill the obligations of levirate marriage.
PPM: Regarding the question about what you would do if heterosexuality was considered evil and homosexuality was the norm. This is a classic chestnut thrown out by gay proponents who want to shame Christians into renouncing their "evil bigoted" views. A great rebuttal is to point out that their scenario is not consistant with reality. If heterosexuality was a taboo, we wouldn't be here. The entire human race would have vanished thousands of years ago because not enough people would practice recreational sex.
I'm not trying to shame anyone, and the reality of the situation is irrelevant in my question. I simply wanted to dispute the common misconception that homosexual desires are voluntary, and that the only remedy is for them to ignore it and try to be heterosexual. It is helpful for anyone, Christians and non-Christians alike to put oneself in another's shoes. Asking PPM how she would feel if she were only allowed to act on homosexual desires is just my way of asking her to do so. She answered my question with her unfaltering faith in her God, and although her willingness to follow a god over logic goes against my own beliefs, I have accepted her answer.
As to the argument that my question was irrelevant due to its inconsistency with reality, let me ask you this: How consistent with reality is the act of walking on water? How consistent with reality is much of the Bible? About as much as can be found in say, The Odyssey by Homer. And if you think about it, how consistent with reality is the idea that homosexuality is an evil thing? Millions of people practice it, safely, consenually, and without moral guilt. What is so sinful about it? Who is it hurting? The only thing evil and bigoted about Christian beliefs is when they start interpreting every doctrine litterally and persecuting or condemning those who dissagree. Would we litterally use the exact battle tactics Caesar used and wrote about 2000 years ago, or would we take the basic message and apply it to modern times? You can be a dedicated, faithful Christian without being a judgemental fool.
How consistant is walking on water with reality? It's not consistant at all, which is precisely why Christ did it. During his earthly ministry, he backed up his teachings with miracles to demonstrate precisely who he was.
Your statement that Christians should lay off homosexuality because millions of people practice it is a weak argument. I've pointed out elsewhere that many people practice polygamy without any shame and no one is getting hurt there. I'm curious as to why people who condone gays will condemn polygamists. They really don't have any moral authority to do so.
You make a huge assumption in your final statements, asking if Christians would resort to military bravado in order to wipe out homosexuals. I know very few who believe gay sex should be considered a capital crime. The Christians I align myself with - and I have to say this is the overwhelming majority of those in evangelical fundamentalist circles - is that gays are like all other people. They are sinners who need to hear the good news of the gospel. Some will believe. Some will not. But the gospel must be brought to them.
First of all, I do not condemn polygamists. I don't condemn anyone for their beliefs, and that is my point. Second of all, you severely misunderstood my argument. I was not by any means suggesting that Christians take military action against gays, you're absolutely ridiculous for assuming so. I was talking about how litterally people interpret the Bible, and used Caesar's writing as an example from the same time period, to point out the idiocy in taking 2000 year-old documents and trying to apply it litterally in today's world. As I said, we might heed some of the more general advice that can be found in Caesar's writing, but we would not use the chariots, spears, and swords, nor do we fight in lined battle ranks anymore. The same goes for the Bible. The messages of love and tolerance that can be found are very important and useful. But Leviticus for instance? When was the last time you heard a religious leader preaching about the sin of wearing clothing of different fibers? Yes, I am aware this is OT and that there are parts about homosexuality in the NT, so don't tell me my argument is pointless for that reason too. The point is, the sooner the sin of homosexuality is considered some ancient concept, the better off humanity will be.
"Must be broght to them"
Why not leave it up to them to allow themselves the privacy of seeking "therapy", i suppose, through religion instead of ramming it down their throat what Christians think of them? You do not gather "believers" by telling them what they are doing is wrong and the only salvation is to turn to God-you're attacking their stucture of life. It would be more beneficial (and in my opinion compassionate) to allow these people to make the personal choice to hear the "gospel" and allow them to decide whether or not they feel the need to change their ways and find God.
And tell me, do you constantly bring the gospel to those who are overweight, clear practicioners of glutony? Do you go to Jenny Craig or better yet, do you weight outside Taco Belle to give the gospel to those who perform sins outside of homosexuality?
Would it not be prudent to first conquer your own sins? I feel like this whole "we have to bring the gospel to the gays so they see the error of their ways and stop sinning" is simply putting off the fact that you too make mistakes and sin. Once you get them to stop being gay, will you get them to stop masturbating too? Will you get them to stop sinning in other terms? Or will it not matter because the other sins aren't as bad as homosexuality?
As for polygomists, I think the reason so many people are against polygomy is because of situations like with Warren Jeffs-they see girls who are 13, 14 years old being FORCED to marry men three times their age and have babies at the first chance they can. They see child molestation and statutory rape. I don't think it's the multiple wives so much that people are against (though clearly there are those who are against it all together), they are against a lot of the attributes they see with polygomist colonies such as Warren Jeffs. They see women cut off from the outside worlds, child molestations, little boys being dropped off in the middle of no where and "excommunicated". They see polygomy attached to a cult like religion that has many negative effects on society and on its followers. And while homosexuals have been convicted for child molestation and such, it isn't something you can connect to homosexuals as a whole, like you can with polygomist sects-it is an accepted way of life within those sects to marry and sleep with 13 year old girls. It is not an accepted way of life for all homosexuals to have sexual relations with 13 year old boys. That's the big difference.
Personally, I think if polygomy was more like the show Big Love, on HBO, it would be easier to accept. Easier, not easy, but easier for some.
Christians have a responsibility to reach out to a lost and hurting world. In fact, doing so is called "the great commission." Before his ascension, Jesus commanded his disciples to go out into all nations, proclaiming the truth of the gospel and calling for people to obey God's decrees instead of chasing after their own lusts.
Obviously, the world does not like to hear this. The Bible says that many people will reject the gospel call because they would rather chase after the desires of their flesh. It also says that Christians who are faithful to the great commission will be villified, mocked, and insulted by those who have hardened their hearts against God. I am thankful that many Christians take the commission seriously. They are more concerned with being obedient to God than what Stefanie -- who lives a very wonderful life and has experienced more than most people in her 20 years on Earth -- might think of them.
Regarding if I "weight" (sic) outside "Taco Belle" (sic) to witness to gluttons: Your argument stems from your ignorance of the scriptures, I'm afraid. 1 Corinthians carries a list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. That list includes homosexuals. It does not include fat people. While I think you could build a biblical case against gluttony, it doesn't necessarily follow that obesity is a cause for anaethema.
Regarding polygamy - I'm not talking about polygamists who practice pedophilia. I'm talking about one adult male who chooses to be married to five adult women, all of them consenting. Is this wrong?
I disagree with the article about the "physical" thing, but I'd rather take the time to respond to the Christians. When Jesus atoned for our sins, He didn't skip over sex. To my knowledge, only one sin is unforgivable, and it isn't sex of any kind. Why, then, is there so much focus on sex, to the point of hushing it up and condemning those who do it? How does it show Jesus' love to look down on others? Isn't it more likely that it is our own discomfort with the subject, something to be corrected? I read Jesus' statement to "judge not, that ye be not judged" to mean that we are not to judge another as a person. Their behavior can be judged, but to judge them as "good" or "bad" is ourside of our ability and rights. Modern psychology since Rogers has emphasized that such judgements only hurt the judger and the one being judged, and I believe it. Those who have sex without commitment are probably denying themselves the full benefits of a commited monogamous relationship, but everyone must walk their own path with God. Preachers and congregations can't save a person, and they are more likely to hurt when they interfere. Also, to my knowledge, masturbation is never even talked about in the Bible. It was inferred from the story of Onan, but only if you take it out of context (the real problem was that he was disobeying a direct commandment from God to have a child with his brother's wife; it's also more likely that the action referred to was withdrawal than masturbation). Medically, not masturbating causes multiple problems. For what it's worth, a Mormon physician wrote this article on the subject, contradicting the whole LDS Church, which is infamous for Boyd K. Packer's "For Young Men Only" packet.
having sex before your married, it is happening and the bible tells that if you cant control yourselfs then it better to get married then to burn in hell, and it doesnt matter what you or I think what's wright or make excuses to make it sound better, but remember GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD READ YOUR BIBLE
Congratulations. You've succeeded in saying everything that would make me want to run even farther away from your religion. If you want to convert people, you really need to come up with a better plan.
I have read my Bible; many times actually. I like my morals, which are a compilation from many sources, including, but not limited to, the Bible. But remember, Christianity teaches that Jesus forgives all our sins, so I wouldn't be so quick to condemn people who engage in premarital sex to hell just yet.
Yes, so if you really want to have sex and you JUST can't control it, you should just marry the first shmuck you see because God would love much more for you to marry someone you don't love just for the sex, than to have sex with oh, say, your boyfriend or significant other.
Read my Bible? If I had one, I still wouldn't...I choose to live my own life, rather than allowing men who lived 2 thousand years ago to dictate it. Thanks though, real insiteful
Holy Moses how did I miss this mud fest?! Wow. I find so many of these topics, which explode because some conservative is trying to convince a bunch of hory 18-25 year olds that sex is wrong -- unless you're making babies -- to be amusing. Such emotion, such rigor... why don't we all just have an orgy right now?!
My first thought when I began reading the comments was "open relationships, for the win". I am, by nature, not particularly monogamous. (I am also, by nature, female, on the pill, and keep a hefty stash of condoms.) I like my many men, and they like me -- they also like their many women, and I'm okay with that.
My second thought, as I scrolled down to the post that says '"anal sex is okay as long as it's followed by regular intercourse" was "ew". Wash it off or change condoms after anal, is all I'm gonna say. The next thought was "dirty is fun". Then it got to the hypothtical married woman's orgasm, and "as long as procreation is possible". So infertile couples should not, I repeat NOT have sex. Ever.
Finally, I just wanna say that those people who think that homosexuals should "control their sexual urges" because "homosex is a sin"; should practice what they preach and decide to control their sexual urges and not breed.
Rachel, I think we clashed heads on a blog once, but you're starting to rub off on me. I like your style.
PS, the uber christian god hates sex unless it makes a baby blogger "Peppermint Frost" no longer blogs here. She took the scholarship and ran. She was in it for the money. She'll probably put it towards protesting outside Planned Parenthood. Good times.
No surprise, lots of people clash with me.I'm a bitch like that. I've got a strong personality like that. And I'm irredemably sarcastic. That gets to people sometimes. :)
Rachel I can completely relate to that. When I originally wrote this blog, I couldn't even begin to say all of the things I wanted to say. I too tend to remain polygamous, because very rarely do I find someone worth being monogamous for. In between my serious relationships - which are in face few and far between - I like to have my fun. And if I can bring some of that fun into the relationships (ie, being open or having threesomes) even better. I was so pissed when peppermint frost won. I would hardly consider such conservative and closed-minded views "progressive."
Word.