Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[carpedm9587]

The consistent theme seems to be that it is bad and only to be exercised in order to procreate.

That is probably far too simplistic, Tass. I have not met anyone in a religion or out that has held the position "sex is bad," though I have no doubt a few outliers probably hold that position. But there is a tendency to see it as for procreative purposes OR to express love between two people, but the latter is narrowly constrained to "in marriage, man and woman." And there does appear to be a fair number who have an "approved" set of sexual practices, and things outside that set are not moral/healthy/good. I'm not sure how widespread the latter is.

My views on this particular topic are decidedly more "liberal" and significantly more pragmatic. Fundamentally, what two consenting, intellectually capable adults do is not my business, and sex itself has little or no moral content. I do not see the sex act itself as having moral content - I see the context in which it occurs as deriving that moral content. So my views on sexuality will be decided more "lax" than I think would be the case for most Christians, especially conservative ones.

[mossrose]

I think they commonly take an extremist view of a small minority as representative of the whole - it just makes them look really ignorant.

And sometimes they are really ignorant of scripture and the character of God, too.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok...I guess...

Honestly, Pixie, I have no idea what you're trying to communicate. Possibly you did not understand my initial observation?

[lilpixieofterror]

That is probably far too simplistic, Tass. I have not met anyone in a religion or out that has held the position "sex is bad," though I have no doubt a few outliers probably hold that position. But there is a tendency to see it as for procreative purposes OR to express love between two people, but the latter is narrowly constrained to "in marriage, man and woman." And there does appear to be a fair number who have an "approved" set of sexual practices, and things outside that set are not moral/healthy/good. I'm not sure how widespread the latter is.

My views on this particular topic are decidedly more "liberal" and significantly more pragmatic. Fundamentally, what two consenting, intellectually capable adults do is not my business, and sex itself has little or no moral content. I do not see the sex act itself as having moral content - I see the context in which it occurs as deriving that moral content. So my views on sexuality will be decided more "lax" than I think would be the case for most Christians, especially conservative ones.

[carpedm9587]

But you agree with me that bondage is a subject that should not be raised with children.

It depends on what you mean by "children." It is certainly not something I would discuss with a 3 year old. But once a child begins to enter into puberty and is becoming physically sexually mature, no topic about sex is off-the-table, IMO. If I do that, then they will simply go and find out somewhere else. And when movies and books like "50 Shades" are out, and they can quickly get a copy using Kindle or an ereader, and other kids are going because their parents don't monitor them, so it is being talked about at school...closing my eyes and saying, "it's not happening, it's not happening," won't position me to be able to advise and guide my children.

[carpedm9587]

Yes. That kind of statement by Tassy just proves how ignorant atheists are about scripture and the character of God.

...and THAT comment suggests YOU are just as quick to paint all atheists with a single brush as some atheists are quick to paint all theists/Christians with a single brush...right?

[JimL]

Comments like this show me you have no idea what it is like to be young or love someone. It takes a second to go from sitting together to much more. Getting caught up in the moment is far more common than you might think.

Right, so being educated and knowing what the risks and protections are would not have helped you at all as a teenager, correct?

[carpedm9587]

So you apparently did not understand it. My post was not about the amount of time spent, so much as it was about the apparent need, for so many, to control and define "appropriate" sexuality for other people in general, not merely children. It is in a thread about PP and children, so I can see how my failure to make the more general nature of my statement clearer could have been confusing.

[carpedm9587]

I understand many people think that way, Pixie. As I said, for me - it is context that renders a sexual moral or immoral - not the act itself. The act is merely a human, biological, physical function. It has no more moral content than breathing or raising my left arm or kissing. However, if I force sex on someone, now we have a moral issue. If I engage in sex with someone not cognitively able to voice resistance, or over whom I have power in other ways (i.e., I'm their boss), now we have a moral issue. Because some versions of the sexual act are potentially procreative, if I do so without proper care for the child that could result, or lack the means/willingness to care for that child, then we have a moral issue.

Clearly, there will be significant disagreement with that position, especially here.

[seer]

The act is merely a human, biological, physical function. It has no more moral content than breathing or raising my left arm or kissing. However, if I force sex on someone, now we have a moral issue.

Why? As I have linked in the past forced sex is very common among higher primates, and in the history of man - merely a biological, physical function...

[JimL]

Why? As I have linked in the past forced sex is very common among higher primates, and in the history of man - merely a biological, physical function...

You're confusing forced with biological function.

[mossrose]

...and THAT comment suggests YOU are just as quick to paint all atheists with a single brush as some atheists are quick to paint all theists/Christians with a single brush...right?

Whatever you say.

[Cow Poke]

Clearly, there will be significant disagreement with that position, especially here.

[ gibbs ]
Ya THINK, DiNozzo?
[ /gibbs ]

[seer]

You're confusing forced with biological function.

If sex is biological, physical function so rape...

[JimL]

If sex is biological, physical function so rape...

so rape...... what?