Journal Com2Kid's Journal: On Proper Action and Proper Thought 38
Proper action is that which leads to the reduction of human suffering throughout the world.
For those during the ages of study, best long term results are to be gained through a life of study and a devotion to knowledge. Through knowledge gained may future help be rendered.
A good solid education increases one's chances of a successful career, which means one may donate more resources to do good.
Inefficiency in living during these ages is counted by any such action that is not optimized to increase one's performance or to maintain mental stability at its barest (or near by to) level.
Such actions include but are not limited to;
Partying;
Drug use
Alcohol;
Premarital sex;
Short term romantic affairs;
Staying out late;
Watching to much non-educational TV;
Shopping for unneeded goods;
Non-educational musical concerts;
Sports;
There are over 6 billion people on this earth;
Nearly one half of these people live under conditions which are easily classified as poverty;
Very few of America's citizens have any excuse for wrongful behavior, those that do are to be given help and treatment and then fully expected to follow along the rightful path within reasonable exceptions given towards their individual conditions.
We, as people blessed with opportunity, and with even the lest amongst us having been given a bounty of wealth compared to so many of our brethren, have a moral duty to uphold to maintain a life of studious glory so that one day we may help those less fortunate in a way which is most optimal.
My thoughts (Score:2)
WTF is this?!
Second thought:
You are bitter that you don't get to do enough of the things on this list in college and high school.
Life is short, have fun.
What is the great equalizer between the rich and poor? -- Death.
Sounds like you're advocating marriage by not including it on the list. But marriage distracts you from your persuit of enlightenment. Why don't you never date again, never FEEL anything again, and turn into a Vulcan? Of course even Vulcans marry... So you want all the people in the world out of poverty, good for you. Here's what's more important, making everybody happy. Poor people, not famine starved or sifting through dumps for a sustinance, but American poor people, can have happy lives. The theory is Utilitarianism, and if I'm happy that's good. If I make others happy too that's even better.
Define unneeded goods? Is a cheese grater unneeded because a knife will do? What about a 27" TV when 13" will do? Should we all live in four walls and a sloping tarpaper roofed house because that's a more efficient house? DVDs are unneeded unless they're educational it sounds like from you.
You're trying to tell people to go against they're natural instincts to a degree that can only be compared to the Taliban.
Just read some of your earlier journals (Score:2)
In your ideal world, what is the right balance of surviving and persuit of enlightenment? Does every person spend the same number of hours each day working? Do people who don't work as hard as others immediately die by the police? Do the police get any reduced hours for their dangerous work? How much is enough? Will TV sets have maximum size because any bigger is frivolous? What about speaker fidelity, will there be an upper limit on quality for listening to classical music? Who decides on all these standards? If it is you, what makes you think your system will be enforcable after you die?
well, no. (Score:2)
First off:
"Proper action is that which leads to the reduction of human suffering throughout the world."
So, who's to determine what is proper? You? Me? The Government? Elaborate.
"Inefficiency in living during these ages is counted by any such action that is not optimized to increase one's performance or to maintain mental stability at its barest (or near by to) level."
Again, elaborate. What do you mean by inefficiency?
I disagree with your sports argument. I won't go into it here, needless to say I think you are wrong.
"Very few of America's citizens have any excuse for wrongful behavior, those that do are to be given help and treatment and then fully expected to follow along the rightful path within reasonable exceptions given towards their individual conditions."
Many people are just plain rotten. Nothing you or I can do, short of locking them away forever will change that. Some people are animals and should live like animals locked in cages.
"We, as people blessed with opportunity, and with even the lest amongst us having been given a bounty of wealth compared to so many of our brethren, have a moral duty to uphold to maintain a life of studious glory so that one day we may help those less fortunate in a way which is most optimal."
How I am blessed with opportunity that other people do not have? Can they not change their situation on their own? Are they dumber than we are for living where they are? Is there something that makes us better than them?
Dude, hopefully I won't offend you, just trying to offer a differing view here. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. According to you, we are to help these people by "maintaining a life of studious glory". What do you mean? Do you mean studying the fact that man is greedy, and greed will cause him to steal/starve/injure/destroy his people? Or, by "studying", do you mean giving even more money to them? Do you honestly think the person starving in Africa gives two shits about enlightenment? Hell no, they want food. That's it. They don't give two shits how enlightened you are because of your knowledge. They want the bread you have in your hand. Can you show them how to make the bread? Good, but if you can't, they don't want anything to do with you.
To sum up:
ACTION IS KEY. KNOWLEDGE IS A TURD IN THE TOILET WITHOUT ACTION.
Re:well, no. (Score:2)
nah, just kidding. I was venting and decided it was something I didn't want out there.
Re:well, no. (Score:2)
Oh, the reason you were so WRONG about Apocalypse Now and boxer vs briefs is because you are evil today. I thought you were just being an ignorant git today (I hope you take this all in the spirit it was intended: that someone who thinks Apocalypse Now is a git).
I disagree with your sports argument. I won't go into it here, needless to say I think you are wrong.
I think in various journals, I've made it clear that I have no time or patience for most sports. However, they do serve a purpose. It is a common thing on which modern man can speak to near strangers. Instead of asking 'how goes the war in Ithaca' you say 'how bout them lame ass Yankees?' It also lets us live vicariously and experience destruction in an essentially safe environment. Football is obviously the best for this.
Many people are just plain rotten.
No doubt about that. Let me choose who I want to save. Let the rest starve.
How I am blessed with opportunity that other people do not have?
I don't know, but I keep hearing about how being a WASP male leads you to the land of milk and honey. Where is it?
Do you honestly think the person starving in Africa gives two shits about enlightenment? Hell no, they want food. That's it.
Maslow's hierarchy of need. Psychology 101.
They want the bread you have in your hand. Can you show them how to make the bread?
Not only that, I can use those same ingredients and make beer. I would be like a god walking amonst them:)
Once again... (Score:1)
Not all people react the same way to self-indulgence. As far as I'm concerned, partying is good. I am slowly burning out, and having an evening of enjoyment a week is the only thing that keeps me from curling up in bed and never getting up again.
Re:Once again... (Score:2)
Because trying to not wake the kid while in the throes of exstacy kicks ass!! And the things you can do with a wedding ring...
This argument is in some ways like the arguments about whether or not circumcision decreases sexual feeling. Without having been on both sides of the coin, how can you tell? I've had sex both in and out of marriage. I've had good sex both in and out of marriage. And I've had bad sex both in and out of marriage.
I would also say that not being in short term relationships is not necessarily a good thing. Contrary to what my mother tried to teach me, not every date is a prospective mate. Sometimes you just need a little extra closeness for a little while.
I'm also sorry to hear that you are engaging in activities that you consider improper (you're not getting off on a technicality here, bucko. Sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure).
I take it you are pretty sure what your definition of 'is' is?
Being as in control all the time as C2K seems to recommend is a quick way to massive burnout. That's why Vulcan's have Ponn Far. After 7 years of not showing emotions, you are bound to go a little berserk.
OTOH, if you are the type who cannot do anything in moderation, perhaps zero drinking, zero premarital sex, etc. is the better thing. Constant binge drinking, different sexual partners every night for a month, etc. have demonstrably bad side effects that can happen almost immediately. The converse is not so quickly detrimental.
Re:Once again... (Score:1)
Bingo.
Actualy its more about the kid knowing his or her parents.
(as, opposed to, say, being dropped in a dumpester out back when born)
Re:Once again... (Score:1)
You are forgetting, my moral system is almost completely based upon motivations for actions. Thus while manipulating others may be, err, 'dirty' as far as morals go, it is not strictly unethical. (though it is definitely skirting the boundaries at times. ^_^ )
Also, base survival in Western Culture calls for me to not have to actively protest against[*1] / fight against / physically prevent certain actions. Thus the reason I do not go around reporting to the police every dude I know who is carrying around a bag of weed. (shit man, I'd end up throwing half my extended family in jail.
Also note that the AC dude (who I think I have figured out the identity of from the writing style. ^_^ ) was complaining at me for not "enjoying myself" enough, so if you want to complain about the inverse, take it up with him[*2].
[*1] Funny story there about high school and an anti-drug assembly. . .
[*2] Of course if I guessed wrong, it may come out here, depending on the true gender of the poster. ^_^
He's insane (Score:2)
And yes, no sex before marraige is a good idea.
- Sam
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
OK, you're welcome to your beliefs. But having stated them in a public forum, you're now going to have to justify them. Explain why premarital sex is a bad idea. On purely logical grounds, I mean. Please don't resort to quoting from your religious book of choice -- I almost certainly believe it to be fiction, so that won't convince me. Why should the presence of a piece of paper with some governmental approval have any difference to whether sex is a good idea or not?
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
I have read about two thirds of the Bible, and have found that what the Bible actually says is, in many ways, very different from what fundamentalist churches think the Bible says. I had the amusing experience of reading the first book in the popular "Left Behind" series when reading the Bible. Since what the Bible really says was fresh in my mind, I realized that what "Left Behind" was saying and what the Bible says are two different things.
My argument is a not a biblical one (nor one based on the Quaran, nor the Book of Mormon, etc.). The old testament has numerous stories of people in the old testament having various different kinds of extra-marital sex, including having harems and seeing prostitutes.
The reason I feel that people should not have sex before marriage is because the act of sex is something that is very sacred. It has its place. Once we allow sex outside of marriage, we lose a very important sense of boundaries which women need to feel safe interacting with men.
Evolutionary psychology states that men and women view sex very differently. As shown by the actions of gay men, men will, if given the oppertunity, have anonyous origes and oral sex with strangers. Women, on the other hand, want long-term comitted relationships before making love to someone.
Dating used to be popular back in the 1950s and early 1960s. The sexual revolution killed dating. When dating became synonymous with having sexual relations with someone, women could no longer date multiple men without looking like a "slut".
Once we take away no sex before marriage, there is no clearly defined boundary which a woman can use to tell a man whose friendship they value that they are not interested in a sexual relationship. The woman has to be more aloof to her male friends because men can and do interpret signal of friendship as signals of sexual avability.
This is why, at my college, there are a lot more women at religious youth gorups than at faternity parties. A woman can feel safe in a religious youth group; she does not have the same safeguards at a frat party.
By putting up a boundary which allows men to interact with women without each interaction being a sexual power play, men can develop deep and meaningful friendships with women.
"No sex before marriage" is that boundary. It is clearly defined; being in a group which belives in this boundary allows men to interact with women without the sexual games.
- Sam
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
Thank you for an interesting and thought provoking viewpoint, even if I disagree with it. Marriage is no different from being in a non-marital committed relationship. The only difference is the piece of paper. And whether a woman has sex before being in a committed relationship is for her to decide. The boundary a woman can use is simply to tell the other party that they're not interested in a sexual relationship. For the record, I have only once mistaken friendship signals as something more, and a simple "no" sufficed. We're still very close friends to this day. In fact, I have on several occasions missed sexual overtures, because I assumed it to just be friendship.
You appear to be claiming that all women should refuse to have sex before marriage, just so those that want to do so don't have to reject the advances of men. What about those that don't feel the same way? In my circle of friends, there are several women that indulge in casual sex, and do so because that like it. They don't want to be restrained by your morals, so why should they? Yet despite their relaxed attitude to sex, they are not being plagued by unwelcome advances from our group of predominately males. None of us see them as sluts, and we are not prevented from developing deep and meaningful friendships with them.
Oh, BTW, I wasn't raised by Christians, and bear no particular hostility to them (at least, no more than I do to any other group of people who believe they know how and what I should think). My personal viewpoint is that I've yet to have been presented with a rational argument as to why a deity should exist, and therefore, Occam's Razor would tend to imply that no deity exists. Science answers "how", but not "why". Religion doesn't answer either, hence until convinced otherwise, I don't believe.
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
Because people are responsible for the consequences of their actions which can harm society as a whole. Every action of sexual intercourse (between a man and woman) has the potential for there to be a kid. A kid takes a lot of resources to care for. A kid with parents who do not have the resources to care for him is more likely to become a drain on society (since the government has to use welfare to care for him [1]) than a contribution to society.
The sexual revolution of the 1960s has resulted in divorce being at a all-time high. This has serious consequences for the emotional well-being for the kids involved, not to mention the society that the kids are raised in.
Saying that you have the right to engage in whatever sexual action you want whenever you want to is selfish. It completely ignores the many ways in which promiscous sex harms others.
- Sam
[1] Things are even worse when this happens in México, where there is no welfare system.
Re:He's insane (Score:1)
True, but once again, where's the relevance of marriage to all of this? The probability of sex resulting in an unplanned child is exactly the same both in and out of wedlock. Equally, marriage has little effect on the resources a parent has to care for a child (tax breaks being the only one that I can think of). Statistically, you may well be able to show that children born out of wedlock are more likely to have parents with insufficient resources to care for the child. But is it the fact that they're not married that makes them poor? I very much doubt that. It's far more likely that the social culture in which the poor tend to live places less importance on marriage than those in wealthier conditions.
Re:He's insane (Score:1)
Less time, child, for.
Also, less financial resources. Given if 1 person has X amount of "extra" income (not necessarily disposable), then 2 people would have 2X "extra" income. Well not necessary linear, but the idea is that each person adds a little bit.
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
If you wish, we can take this to email, where I can discuss things which I would not discuss in a public place.
- Sam
Re:He's insane (Score:1)
Please Correct Yourself.
The results of misinterpretations of the practices and goals and the application of human sin to the sexual revolution has resulted in yada yada yada
The talking about sex thing, hey, that is great. Seriously, people need to be educated. Knowledge is freedom and freedom is knowledge, don't hold back.
But knowledge is not something that action has toaware of their mind's sexual aspect and as such are able to gain control of it, rather then say, having a female be raped and society forcing Her to hide in shame.
Unfortunately, things kind of ended up in reverse. Being raped is still often times results in the female feeling that she has done something wrong, and people are screwing like rabbits.
Doh.
But hey, now the knowledge is out there, it is just that the proper social pressures have to be applied.
Namely a revitalizing of feelings of loyalty, dedication, and responsibility towards not just the community, but towards the human race as a whole.
(So stop having butt loads of kids, we don't need an more people.
Oh, and before anybody tries telling me that the death rate is higher then the birth rate in America, and that our population growth is just solely due to immigration;
No it is not.
Birth rate: 14.2 births/1,000 population
Death rate: 8.7 deaths/1,000 population
(sorry, that one always teed me off, this is the United States of America, not some country in Western Europe.
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
My problem with the "sacred" and "marriage" argument is that you could make the same argument by replacing the word marriage with any old thing, and have it retain exactly the same degree of logical consistency. For instance: "The reason I feel that people should not have sex outside of cardboard boxes is because the act of sex is something that is sacred. It has its place. Once we allow sex outside of cardboard boxes, we lose a very important sense of boundaries which women need to feel safe interacting with men." Your entire post could be rewritten in this way, and would make about as much sense.
Boundaries are quite simple. You sleep with someone when it's mutually agreeable. You seem to be claiming that we as a society can choose only between "I don't want to have sex at all" or "I want to have sex with everyone". That's so weird. Isn't "I don't want to have sex with you" a sufficient boundary? Or do you think that without the hold of marriage, the inherent rapacity of men will over run their respect for women? Please.
I have friends of either gender. Occasionally, one of them might want to have sex with me, or vice versa. When this happens, there's usually some sort of a check to see if it's mutual. Like you grin foolishly whenever you see the other person, and you laugh at their jokes, and give them glowing compliments. And you ask them if they want to view your stamp collection, or at least go out for dinner. And you ask before you have sex, too. Yes, this check engenders awkwardness. But unless you're proposing arranged marriages, too, that sort of awkwardness is inevitable. If it's mutual, we collect $200 and pass go. If it ain't, well, we're still friends.
P.S. Some men only want long term committed relationships. And some women are willing to sleep with just about anything, given the opportunity. Some people sleep around more than others. This is true whether you're male or female, straight or gay.
Re:He's insane (Score:1, Troll)
Isn't "I don't want to have sex with you" a sufficient boundary?
For many men, it is not, as shown by the number of date rape cases.
My experience is that women who are promiscous are people who are either what our society considers very unattractive (either very overweight or without breasts), and signal sexual avability to compensate for their lack of reproductive attractiveness, or women who have have self-esteem issues or issues with childhood sexual abuse; there are many kinds of psychological conditions which can interfear with a woman's normal healthy sense of sexual boundaries.
A lot of people are deluded and think sex is the most important part of a long-term relationship. It is not. Relationships based on sex are much more likely to end in very unpleasant ways than relationships based on the important relationship factors (talking, communicating, etc.).
- Sam
P.S. Marriage is not a cardboard box. Having sex in a cardboard box or in a playground not signal a long-term comittment. Waiting until marriage does.
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
Whoah there. That's a very large brush with which you're tarring us all. What you mean is some men. I certainly don't know any that wouldn't take no for an answer. Do you (and if so, why do you still associate with them)?
women who have have self-esteem issues or issues with childhood sexual abuse
I'm in the unenviable position of knowning far more people (both male and female) that were sexually abused as children that I would wish. Either it's unbelievably widespread, or I have a non-representative sample of friends. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two. But the point is, my abused friends are split fairly evenly among those who have casual sex, and those who don't, and I'd be hard pushed to say there's a causal relationship (although I certainly wouldn't rule it out). For that matter, I also know some very attrictive women who lead a promiscuous lifestyle.
A lot of people are deluded and think sex is the most important part of a long-term relationship. It is not.
Here at least is one thing we definitely agree on. A relationship based purely around sex is doomed to failure. But sex can be a very pleasant bonus on top of a relationship built around other things.
Re:He's insane (Score:3, Insightful)
I find this offensive in the extreme. What does how I look have to do with anything? Who are you to judge me? What does any of this have to do with the points I raised? The best I can tell is that this is an attempt to needle me with some kind of ad hominem attack, to imply that I only want sex out of marriage because I see myself as wanting in some way. And that is a logical fallacy.
Am I attractive? I run gentoo, understand quantum and statistical physics, and I overclock my computer. I'm brilliant, I'm funny, I'm compassionate, and I'm clever. I've won awards for my teaching and prestigious fellowships for my scholarship. I make friends easily, both male and female.
You have the gall to tell me that my picture matters more than all of this? You tell me how much "important relationship factors" matter, but you think that a .JPG and a couple of numbers will tell you more about me than my demonstrable intelligence, confidence, and wit? Is not judging a woman's arguments by her appearance the same sin as basing a relationship solely upon sex? You didn't ask Tet for his dick size or body fat ratio. I must ask: what does my gender have to do with my arguments? And what do my looks have to do with my arguments, regardless of my gender?
Whether I'm ugly as sin or a totally gorgeous babe doesn't matter. What matters is, am I right or not? All you've done is dangle lurid accusations. I don't need to see your picture to tell you that I'm underimpressed.
Sex is another method of communicating, and it is a very, very important one. The sum of a relationship is greater than its parts. Sex magnifies a relationship, strengthens affection, encourages closeness. One can have a relationship which recognizes that sex is important without having a purely sexual relationship. You are right that one cannot have a good long term relationship which is based purely on sex. On the other hand, one can't really have a good long term relationship completely without sex, either. Good sex goes a long way. Don't underestimate it.
Please don't blame your lack of an innate understanding of balance, your inability to read relationship lines, and your mental inflexibility on me. Just because you can't handle premarital sex in a responsible, psychologically sound way doesn't mean that I can't.
One other thing. Rape is rape. Men that rape are rapists, and will not be harried by societal attitudes towards marriage. Rape occurs in all societies, regardless of attitude; in the ones where sex is frowned upon before marriage, rape quite literally ruined a woman's prospect for a healthy, loving relationship. No man wants "used goods". In our society, women that are married are raped and sexually harassed by friends and colleagues. Rape has nothing to do with societal attitudes towards marriage. It has everything to do with people who are not entirely sane.
P.S. Marriage is demonstrably neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for commitment, although a sufficiently weird society might construe it as such. The same could be said for a box.
Re:He's insane (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoohoo!! I hope that Some Woman also comes through here and does a good Diatribe, hehe, I am scared of Her scoldings. ^_^
I think the point he was trying to raise with the picture is that if you truly think such things have no value, then you not care if you posted them online.
What he fails to realize is that you DO place some value in sex, even though it is not the same type of value that he places upon sex, and he has troubles seeing that you place any value upon sex at all.
Now quite frankly one way or the other I don't give a flying frig about the "value placed upon sex", as far as I view it, all the emotional aspects of it are a series of chemical changes that take place and placing any value upon chemical reactions is just, well, uh, silly. ^_^
(yah, I'm a heartless bastard. Sue me.)
Seriously, I'm just sick and tired of seeing kids grow up in crack houses.
People can bitch and moan and complain about sexual attitudes all they want, but until society as a whole puts forth a face of "Noooo fucking around unless you can deal with the consequences", there are going to continue to be Children born into horrific situations, and teenagers having a goodly number of future opportunities closed off to them.
Yah yah I believe that society is partly responsible for the individual, and that we are all responsible for society. Thus we are all at least partly responsible for the actions of individuals. If you do your best to help others along, then so be it, good for you, try harder. (without malice, we should all always try harder.
Not just education, but knowledge of HOW TO USE that education.
Stop teaching kids that they MUST HAVE SEX . Solve half the damn problem right there. Literally, that is what the current mental health institution is preaching . Teach kids, hell, teach by EXAMPLE, live a life without the perceived "need" for casual sex, show that just because two people get together, they do not have to have sex.
Actually an "informational guide for teenagers" that Rosia read through a few years back said almost exactly that, "When ever a male and a female are close to one another for a long enough period of time, eventually sexual feelings will develop, and it is normal for these feelings to be acted upon, yada yada yada blah blah blah "
It gets rather irritating to have to fight against that sort of propaganda.
Re:Plonk! (Score:2, Insightful)
For the record, here's what we're missing here: Why is "marriage" the only allowable cardboard box? I wrote a journal entry [slashdot.org] a while back on my feelings about marriage. It's a bit jumbled, but my point is that the act of mnarriage does not necessarily change anything between two people. Some people need their cardboard box to have a hard edge. They need to know that on this side of the line things are different from that side of the line. My cardboard box has a fuzzy edge. It's nice to have actions separated into nice black and white piles of good and bad, but that doesn't work for everybody. I don't think that because sex has no meaning outside of marriage for you that it has to have no meaning for me.
Your argument also requires that all people share the view that sex outside of marriage is bad, but I think that anybody who would rape a person is morely bankrupt to begin with. If they won't accept "no" befre marriage, who says that they will accept "no" after marriage. Yes, it is rape when you force your spouse to have sex with you. I would much rather know that the person I marry is capable of defining his own boundaries than to constantly need society to do it for him. If the marriage cardboard box is the only thing preventing him from raping me, I'd really rather not spend my life with him.
That said, I understand that some people can only place a value on sex when it occurs within marriage. I am not one of those people.
Re:Plonk! (Score:1)
Show me a culture or society that places any special significance to a cardboard box with regards to sex. There are none. Show me a culture or society which does not place special significance to marriage w.r.t. sex. There are none.
Marriage is something which has existed for a long, long time. A cardboard box is just something whats-her-face (who I have plonked) made up on the spot.
The crux of the argument is this: You feel you have the right to define your own sexual morals as you see fit. I, and many others, feel you do not have this right.
Me experience with lesbian women is that they have some of the worse boundary problems. For example, I once had a lesbian friend who would go out of her way to engage in body language which indicated sexual avability (I noticed this, as did no less than two of my friends) but would deny doing this when confronted about it.
Now, I am not saying that there aren't lesbian women with reasonable boundaries. In fact, I have known three other lesbian/bisexual women who were really nice people and did not have any problems with boundaries. However, this one women has made me rather touchy when around lesbian women (which both you and whats-her-face act like).
Just because some Christians are mysgoginists does not mean that you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater and become an atheist.
And, to the moderator who modded me as a troll: I wish Slashdot did not have anonymous moderation; people need to be accountable for their actions.
- Sam
Re:Plonk! (Score:1)
My experience with heterosexual woman is that they have some of the worst boundary problems. For example, I once knew a heterosexual female who would go out of her way to engage in body language which indicated sexual availability (I noticed this, as did no less then two of my friends) but would deny doing this when confronted about it.
Now, I am not saying that there aren't heterosexual woman with reasonable boundaries. In fact, I have known three other heterosexual/ woman who were really nice people and did not have any problems with boundaries. However, this one woman has given me a rather poor view of hetero-sexual woman in general.
For my grand finale, I am therefore concluding that heterosexuality leads to promiscuity and that we should all become homosexual ASAP.
Now pardon me while I pull my head outa my ass.
Do a reality check bub, you see what the kids are wearing these days? My Word, now I remember why I hate going shopping, I am shocked by the absolute crap that social mass thought is encouraging young females to wear!
The current style seems to be retro almost medieval like, but mostly see through lace with a neck that goes halfway down to the belly button. Ugh. Freezing cold as well, so also impractical. Yeuck.
Not that going around darn nearly half naked isn't showing some sort of "sexual availability" oh nooo, by far, wouldn't dream of it.
Yeesh.
Fact is, sexuality issues of all types are pretty much equably split between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Oh, and nice touch, calling the above posters lesbians. Crap like that will get you moderated as a troll, though flame bait may be more appropriate. It would be so bad if you had not gone that extra step to make it sound like an insult.
A real marriage is different (Score:1)
Re:He's insane (Score:1)
I would point you to any of my long journal entries on the topic, but hey, since you want it direct;
BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN CHILDREN LIVING IN PISS POOR HOMES YOU SELF CENTERED EGOTISTICAL "DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING BUT MY OWN PLEASURE" DICKHEAD. I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK about YOU.
Why do you think this is about YOU? Are you REALLY so damn focused on your own *does a quick check of poster's gender* dick that you are unable to realize that HAVING SEX CAN RESULT IN CHILDREN
Heya, there is a NEWS FLASH for everybody out there
HAVING SEX CAN, AND IN FACT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO, RESULT IN CHILDREN. C-H-I-L-D-E-R-N and no matter WHAT precautions you take, THERE IS STILL A CHANCE OF SOMETHING GOING WRONG.[*1]
Now, normally risks can be balanced out. I mean heck, life itself is a risk, but in this case you are not just risking your own future, but the life of a potential child as well;
and quite frankly, unless a person is well and prepared to be a parent, that is a risk that nobody has the right to take
*steps off of podium*
*pants for breath*
wheew
[*1] Or as the case may be, as mother nature as concerned, going right. ^_^
[*2] Nothing personal meant by this, just directed towards everybody who has premarital sex. ^_^
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
If you understand that even with the best of precautions, sex can lead to pregnancy, and you're willing to deal with the consequences, what's the problem with premarital sex? It seems to me that your gripe is with irresponsible behavior, not with premarital sex.
Re:He's insane (Score:1)
It helps to aid in the creation of a more stable environment, say, uh, parents no longer in high school? That sort of thing. . . .
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
Re:He's insane (Score:1)
Yah, there is still a danger of people ending up "forced together by circumstances", buuuut;
I just object to this entire teenagers must have sex in high school to be psychologically sane humans attitude that America has developed.
Seriously, I have heard psychologists spout that bullshit. bleh. Of course they also say that "there is nothing wrong with drug use amongst teens, just so long as it is in moderation,"
Feh, if the kids could control themselves they would not be doing drugs in the first place. . . .
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
Re:He's insane (Score:2)
Oops. Looks like I hit a sore point there :-)
For your information, I'm not married. Nor are
most of my friends. Yet a) we don't all have
children, and b) my home is anything but piss
poor. I'm in a stable relationship (13 years, now),
and we both have a high income, and a high
standard of living. Neither of us want children,
but if we did, what makes you think it would be
a bad environment in which to bring them up?
Why do you think this is about YOU? Are you REALLY so damn focused on your own *does a quick check of poster's gender* dick that you are unable to realize that HAVING SEX CAN RESULT IN CHILDREN
Yes, it can... both in and out of marriage. But with the right precautions, the chances are pretty slim. Fortunately. No doubt you'll be horribly offended by me even mentioning it, but if it comes to it, unwanted pregnancies can be aborted (whether you think it right or not is a separate issue). I'm just not sure where the marriage part comes into it here...
Re:He's insane (Score:1)
See the addium[*1] to my latest journal entry.
Actually I have been trying to avoid the issue just not to tee of the hard core Christians (or anybody else who is anti-abortion).
Quite frankly, just not having unwanted pregnancies would actually eliminate the entire moral ambiguity of the situation. (Except in rape / incest cases, but if the HC X-stians are not willing to give up on that point, well, quite frankly, they can go bugger off. Err, then again, maybe that would not be such a good idea. . . . !
[*1] Google, Dictionary.com, M-W.com, and Spellcheck.net are all offering no help on this word. Err, how is it spelt exactly? ^_^