Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few comments

June 23, 2004

what i meant, was, that prostitution is an (inappropriate) OUTLET for

(unmarried) people. I'm not saying a good outlet!!! I'm not condoning

prostitution!!! prostitution will always be around. as long as there are

women willing to sell their bodies, there will be men willing to buy.

I'm just acknowledging the reality of life.

it's a place where people 'go' to have sex (as a fact, as a reality) if

they can't or won't have it at home. I'm not saying it's right or even

that it's okay!!!

hey, i know i might be sounding really liberal at this point and I'm a

right wing Christian.

I'm just saying it's better to have extra marital sex relegated and

'contained' within the realm of prostitution rather than seeing it all

over TV and the movies. if given a choice!!!! you can never eradicate

immoral sex!!!

but i am not saying i am right!!!! i 'm just expressing an opinion

and i might be wrong!!!

maybe i should just keep quiet.

laura

HERE'S THE POINT OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY AND I'M NOT SUCCEEDING

OBVIOUSLY:

all I'm saying, is I'd rather see a return to the n era where sex

was mum. prostitution DID exist.

now, sex is all over the place, and prostitution still exists. i would

rather have the former!!!!!!!!!

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:12:12 -0000 " chrismasterjohn "

<ChrisMasterjohn@...> writes:

> ,

>

> but don't you think prostitution kept sex somewhat CONTAINED

Uh... contained within WHAT?

Chris

June 23, 2004

--- In , " Anja " <schnittie01734@y...>

wrote:

> Well, *I* wasn't looking into something to " prevent " my

> children from being gay, I was just thinking this and that

> might cause this and that. The next point would be a gay

> person saying they (or their parents) had never eaten

> margarine in their whole life.

My family has always been firmly in the butter camp. However, I was

adopted, and I have no idea what kind of formula I was fed back in

1961. I happen to be masculine enough that I can easily pass for

straight, and I sometimes wonder if masculine gay guys and flamingly

queeny gay guys are two completely different phenomena.

> But it's interesting. I know a gay guy and he always hung

> around with girls (without sexual interest in them, just

> like any of those girls) and every guy said he was gay. Then,

> at like 18 or something he had a girlfriend. After they broke

> up, he had a boyfriend, started dressing gay and such.

Dressing gay? In my case, that's 501's and a t-shirt. Cool! I can now

assume any guy in jeans and a t-shirt is gay!

June 23, 2004

> the same with sex. what the heck is sexual incompatibility

anyway? did

> you ever fall in love with someone you were sexually incompatable

with?

> if you LOVE someone, the sex falls into place. i think people who

are

> basically sexually 'normal', who fall in love, don't have major

problems.

> and if you DO have a problem, you try to solve it.

ITA laura and besides, even if you could somehow miraculously find

someone who was *completely* sexually compatible with you today,

there is no guarantee that it will always be that way. as humans we

change, evolve, grow, etc etc. if you demand complete compatibility,

then what? divorce and find someone new?

> i hope that doesn't sound too simplistic. my husband and i have

had our

> share of problems, difficulties and incompatibilities. the word

divorce

> has come up more than once in the last 17 years. things have been

hellish

> between us at various times. but i guess we both wanted to work

things

> out, and thank God we did. things are better than they ever have

been.

> i shudder to think what we might be missing out on if we had

succumbed to

> our major dissatisfactions and divorced.

>

> but that's just my opinion and i might be wrong. :-)

laura i don't think it's simplistic at all. and it sounds remarkably

like my own marriage, which now i wouldn't trade for the world.

good luck with the realtor!

vera

June 23, 2004

anja are you saying those women prostitues because they didn't have

access to birth control? if so, it seems that's more of argument

*for* what laura is saying: ie, they wouldn't find themselves in that

situation if they had been abstinent.

anyways, i can't control anybody (and don't want to). the truth is

that there will always be people who make poor choices in life, and

they and their children and possibly even their children's children

will suffer for it. you can't legislate morality *or* common sense.

birth control was supposed to cure a lot of ills, but did it? if

birth control (and the women who use it) are all it's cracked up to

be, why are approx 1.5 million abortions performed in the USA alone

every year? there's something really really wrong there (and i'm not

talking about a moral judgement on abortion, either).

but maybe i missed the point of your post?

vera, who should join laura and clean some house <bg>

--- In , " Anja " <schnittie01734@y...>

wrote:

> Yeah and with no real birthcontrol, there were a lot of children

whose

> mother was working as a prostitute and didn't know who the father of

> each of her children was, plus she probably had VD.

> Which means, some husband had it as well and his wife shared it.

> Come visit this part of the city and you get a taste of it, there

are

> SO many mothers who have 4 different children from 6 different guys,

> who are all drunks or something. Those kids have such an unstable

> home, a new " dad " every few weeks and living off welfare. I don't

> think that leads to being faithful...

> CU Anja

>

> > >at least in the n era, people had a CHANCE to grow up

> chaste and

> > >remain faithful during marriage.

June 23, 2004

>

> what i meant, was, that prostitution is an (inappropriate) OUTLET

for

> (unmarried) people. I'm not saying a good outlet!!! [...]

>

> it's a place where people 'go' to have sex (as a fact, as a

reality) if

> they can't or won't have it at home. [...]

>

> I'm just saying it's better to have extra marital sex relegated and

> 'contained' within the realm of prostitution rather than seeing it

all

> over TV and the movies. if given a choice!!!! you can never

eradicate

> immoral sex!!!

,

I interpret you to be saying, basically, that it is better to have

(implicitly equivalently) immoral sex " swept under the rug, " than to

have it out in the open.

I disagree from a few different angles. First, I don't accept that

the two forms of pre/extra-marital sex are morally equivalent. You

seem to be implying that since the only truly moral sex is between

married partners, that all other sex is equally immoral. But

traditionally Christianity has had a hierarchy of sexual sins (let's

speak of the Eastern and pre-Anselm Western hierarchies, rather than

the ridiculous 12th century toppling of the hierarchy). Masturbation

is at the bottom, and pre-marital sex is right after that. Adultery

is at the top, second I think to rape. The idea is that pre-marital

sex, while wrong, is relatively benign because it doesn't disturb the

social order. While casual sex may take sex out of the holiest

realm, at least it doesn't relegate it to blind business like

prostitution, where each party does not even know each other.

Further, if the prostitution patrons were married, they are

committing adultery, which is among the worst sexual sins, far worse

than two teenagers having sex, neither of whom are married, neither

of whom have children and families that need stability, etc.

So, while it might be detrimental to be so open about sex as we are

(I'm not so sure of that anyway; I kind of like it), even from a

conservative moral point of view, it seems to me that contained

prostitution is significantly more immoral than open and accepted pre-

marital sex.

Besides, pre-marital sex has always been the norm.

Chris

June 23, 2004

> Dressing gay? In my case, that's 501's and a t-shirt. Cool!

I thought they wore Hawaian shirts.

Chris

June 23, 2004

I think 's point is that she (nor myself) share every dirty

detail of our sex lives, and we'd prefer to know as much about

everyone else as we share.

> >

> > what i meant, was, that prostitution is an (inappropriate)

OUTLET

> for

> > (unmarried) people. I'm not saying a good outlet!!! [...]

>

> >

> > it's a place where people 'go' to have sex (as a fact, as a

> reality) if

> > they can't or won't have it at home. [...]

> >

> > I'm just saying it's better to have extra marital sex relegated

and

> > 'contained' within the realm of prostitution rather than seeing

it

> all

> > over TV and the movies. if given a choice!!!! you can never

> eradicate

> > immoral sex!!!

>

> ,

>

> I interpret you to be saying, basically, that it is better to have

> (implicitly equivalently) immoral sex " swept under the rug, " than

to

> have it out in the open.

>

> I disagree from a few different angles. First, I don't accept

that

> the two forms of pre/extra-marital sex are morally equivalent.

You

> seem to be implying that since the only truly moral sex is between

> married partners, that all other sex is equally immoral. But

> traditionally Christianity has had a hierarchy of sexual sins

(let's

> speak of the Eastern and pre-Anselm Western hierarchies, rather

than

> the ridiculous 12th century toppling of the hierarchy).

Masturbation

> is at the bottom, and pre-marital sex is right after that.

Adultery

> is at the top, second I think to rape. The idea is that pre-

marital

> sex, while wrong, is relatively benign because it doesn't disturb

the

> social order. While casual sex may take sex out of the holiest

> realm, at least it doesn't relegate it to blind business like

> prostitution, where each party does not even know each other.

> Further, if the prostitution patrons were married, they are

> committing adultery, which is among the worst sexual sins, far

worse

> than two teenagers having sex, neither of whom are married,

neither

> of whom have children and families that need stability, etc.

>

> So, while it might be detrimental to be so open about sex as we

are

> (I'm not so sure of that anyway; I kind of like it), even from a

> conservative moral point of view, it seems to me that contained

> prostitution is significantly more immoral than open and accepted

pre-

> marital sex.

>

> Besides, pre-marital sex has always been the norm.

>

> Chris

June 23, 2004

Hi Vera! it's nice to meet someone who has had the similar or same

experience!

laura

laura i don't think it's simplistic at all. and it sounds remarkably

like my own marriage, which now i wouldn't trade for the world.

good luck with the realtor!

vera

June 23, 2004

i respect you for your beliefs, but i don't necessarily agree that

sex is something that needs to be 100% private. i mean, i'd never

have sex in public (or would i? hmmm) but do feel completely ok

about kissing and i certainly feel GREAT about taking my breast out

and nursing my little one no matter if i'm by myself in a park or in

front of hundreds of people. is that just as offensive to you?

i have major problems with some of the clothing that is marketed to

children/young adults these days, but still feel strongly that we'd

be a happier and more relaxed society if we'd follow the lead of the

europeans (and other cultures) who view sex and nakedness and

completely normal and beautiful.

erica z

> reminds me of the book Kosher Sex, a book i have been meaning to

read for

> a long time.

>

> supposedly, the more 'chaste' you are before marriage, and the more

> faithful you are during marriage, the better sex you have.

>

> my husband and i probably come off as prudes to most people. we

believe

> sex belongs in the bedroom, not on TV, not in the movies, and

while we

> are very private about our sex life outwardly, when we are

together we

> have the greatest, wild sex. it's the best. i never had sex this

good

> before i was married and i now regret all the sex i DID have.

>

> we try to explain it to our 13 year old this way.

>

> in the old days, sex was never spoken of. going to the bathroom

wasn't

> either. they are both PRIVATE activities.

>

> nowadays, everyone talks about sex, it is so out in the open, and

it is

> sickening because sex was meant to be a PRIVATE activity like

going to

> the bathroom.

>

> that's why they call them PRIVATE parts!!! you don't go to the

bathroom

> on TV or even talk about it on TV. sex should be the same way.

and we

> have lost A LOT in our culture as a result. I'm embarrassed to be

> raising my son in this culture. i wish he had been born in the

50's and

> saw things on TV like Lucy, which was squeaky clean, and not

things like

> Friends where sex is the main topic. i think Friends is hilarious

but

> it's not for anyone under 18. that's just my opinion. call me a

prude.

>

> laura

>

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:26:49 -0700 Heidi Schuppenhauer

> <heidis@t...> writes:

> :

> >too bad there don't seem to be boundaries anymore. i would love

to see

> a

> >return to appropriate boundaries. not n (although they

had

> >chaperones; i would love to see a return to chaperones. teens

will

> >always be teens...i know i was) , and not the way things are

now. just

> >appropriate boundaries. and i guess, there are probably as many

> >different definitions of boundaries as there are people.

>

> It may depend on who you hang out with. In my circle anyway,

> people may TALK permissive but their lives are pretty boring

> and monagomous. But during the n times, people would

> not TALK about sex but they had it a lot ... siphilous was endemic

> (with no cure!) and whorehouses were common. Women were

> expected to be " pure " but men " had their needs " .

>

> Personally I'd rather people talked openly and lived their lives

> more wisely. Discussing a thing openly can keep a person from

> making bad mistakes.

>

> -- Heidi Jean

>

June 23, 2004

ITA -

are we still thinking of confronting WAPF and asking that changes be

made in how it chooses to address this topic??

erica z

> > I think Christie's objection (and mine, although unaired) had to

do

> with

> > talking about homosexuality as though it were a birth defect or

> disease that

> > could be prevented via the mother's diet.

>

> " Defect " is a value judgment. " Variable dependent on diet " is

not.

> I don't think WAPF should be exercising value judgments upon

> homosexuality, but we should be clear that issues of causality or

> mechanisms of occurrence have nothing whatsoever to do with value

> judgments.

>

> Chris

June 23, 2004

hi

everyone is different and thinks differently.

your views are interesting...

we differ, of course.

laura

p.s. actually, i don't think i should really say anything about this.

I'm not God so i don't really know! all i know is He has compassion on

us, in our sins, yet He doesn't condone them.

anyway...

i guess i was raised when sex wasn't talked about. and i like it that

way. I'm 49.

had i been raised later, when it was out in the open, i might think

differently.

i may sound like an idiot here, but i wish people only had sex within

marriage (that would eliminate a lot of societal ills). guess i just

want to live in some kind of la la paradise fantasy land. well, i guess

that's what heaven is for!

p.s. i guess i don't get what you say about pre-m. sex always having been

the norm. how can we know that? and anyway, i might be naive, but i

don't agree with that statement. i think it's a justification to have

pre-mar. sex. pre-m. sex causes too many problems. i could write a book

about the subject. it hurts women. and probably men, too. it doesn't

hurt ALL women. but it can devastate the woman if the marriage doesn't

take place. i know i sound extremely old fashioned and some of you are

undoubtly rolling your eyes. but i can't help how i FEEL.

in a perfect world, people would marry soon after sexual maturity. but

people mature sexually earlier than they used to, and marry later than

they used to. so what do people do? i would say pre-m. sex is the norm

NOW. but i can't say it has always been the norm.

by the way, i don't judge those who have sex outside of marriage. i did

that plenty before i got married so i understand. the sex drive is

extremely powerful.

So, while it might be detrimental to be so open about sex as we are

(I'm not so sure of that anyway; I kind of like it), even from a

conservative moral point of view, it seems to me that contained

prostitution is significantly more immoral than open and accepted pre-

marital sex.

Besides, pre-marital sex has always been the norm.

Chris

June 23, 2004

nursing in public is GREAT! why would i or anyone be offended? breasts

are breasts...i nursed in public too. as discreetly as possible.

i would never make out with my husband in public. is that what you mean

by kissing? but we will give each other a peck on the lips to greet or

say good bye in public. that's not making out.

nakedness is not sex. brief kissing (not making out) is not sex. making

out, for me, is akin to foreplay.

I'm talking about sex between 2 people. not naked bodies. a naked body

is a naked body. a nursing baby is a nursing baby.

i suppose everyone has different sensibilities and definitions of things.

and i don't even know if I'm OFFENDED. i just don't want to SEE it.

sex, i mean. i could care less about bodies. (tho i prefer them covered

up. maybe it's just how i was RAISED.)

and i don't want anyone watching me going to the bathroom either!!!

laura

p.s. i guess modesty is a lost art. some men say the more covered up a

woman is, the sexier she is.

like I've said, I'm VERY old fashioned.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:43:44 -0000 " hlthgrl5275 " <hlthgrl5275@...>

writes: