GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Male and Female Imponderables--The Fields of Athenry

POSTED BY: TRISTAN
UPDATED: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4702
PAGE 3 of 3

Thursday, November 23, 2006 5:54 AM

SPACEANJL


Happy Turkey Day to all you folks Stateside. Just another Thursday here.

Just running through the thread very quickly - no real time to catch up. The whole house-purchase has gone to hell. We got The Survey back. Words like 'rising damp' and 'woodworm'. The first words out of my mouth were "We were going to pay money for this? On purpose?" Gak.

Anyhow, so I'm back in the thick of sorting it all out solo, since husband is away working again, and boss has left me in charge of the shop this side of Xmas. Zen hugs to you all, and thanx for keeping me (kinda) sane.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:42 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD


Verseeplorer - I've actually found that sexual purity has been a virtue in nearly all cultures in some form. I mean, especially in the sense that women are supposed to remain celibate until marriage. I think that's a pretty universal expectation, even if it sexist. But looking past the gender specificness of it, there is always the same intent behind it: Remain unsoiled. Men are expected to do the same in many cultures, but it's not as easy to keep track of with them. Even you say that it's something you would recommend to younger people. Why? If it's being done purely for pleasure instead of procreation by so many adults, why is it important for children not to indulge as well? Physiologically speaking, we're supposed to start utilizing the urges around the same time we start having them. That is how we've evolved, that is what is most "natural" in the literal sense of the word. So why do we place the expectation on the young not to do it? You can say it's because they're not responsible enough to chose partners, as if every person of age hasn't engaged with several people that they regretted or didn't stay with. No, it's nothing more than a cultural expectation, and for the record, not one that I disagree with. My only disagreement is that it suddenly becomes more justifiable with age. It is a virtue when we are young for the same reason it should be a virtue when we are older.

Jamesthedark - I have a recorded 17 confirmed kills in my military jacket. I've never brought that up before, because it's never really been pertinent. But it is now. I've seen the horrible things that life has to offer, I've seen two halves of the same friend still twitching before he bled out, and I've had to testify that it was his own dumb fault for mishandling UXO. But I'm still a virgin.

You reference FireFly... I think River was the ultimate embodiment of purity and innocence. She had little to no control over her own actions, and was only ever sure to have killed people who were intending to inflict harm on herself or those close to her. Kaylee was a classic example of a person who fails to act. It doesn't make her bad, but that she was able to indulge in sex as a selfish act for personal gratification, and not able to kill in order to defend is deeply regrettable. Only when she was able to kill, in the movie when the Reavers attacked, was she serving a greater purpose. This is actually touching on my main point prematurely: That killing is equally as important and more selfless an act than sex. But I'll get to that later.

Finally, I am referring to virginity in the sense of mindset, those who have engaged in the act willingly. I'm not looking to argue specifics about if a woman fell over and busted her hyman, or if she was raped. We're talking about sexual innocence here, the will and the action of partaking in sexual intercourse.

This goes beyond being a truly Christian virtue to me, by the way. Sex is one of the most overpowering urges that people have. Much the same as fasting and sleep deprivation are ways of disciplining the mind and the body, so too is abstinence. Perhaps even more so. You have to eat and sleep eventually to stay alive and healthy, to be able to use your body to perform. But sex is always looming, one of the strongest desires we have, and is not lethal to abstain from. It makes us stronger to deny ourselves.

Buddhism recommends it to distance ourselves from the material. Christianity and Judaism have the Nazirites, those consecrated by God from birth, who were not to partake in it. Shinmen Musashi said "Have no heart for approaching the path of intimacy". Tsunetomo said, "Do not scheme for physical pleasure".

Although the goals might be different (Enlightenment, heaven, awareness, etc.) the reason is always the same: Sex distracts your. No matter what your goal is in life, unless it's to have sex, sex will take your further away from it, distract you from it, make you less proficient in it. Japanese swordsmiths would purify their bodies through chastity when they committed to making a new blade. Perhaps it's enough for some people to be as good as they are at what they love. Maybe it's only worth abstaining for perfectionists. But I think those who don't abstain mentally and physically are missing out on a much deeper experience.

[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:58 AM

JAMESTHEDARK


CMH: You make several good arguments, which I cannot contradict. Lust is a powerful sensation, and it is a daunting distraction, but it is also not, of itself, a thing of perversity. In the same way that a university student shuts down his social life in order to study for final exams, a motivated person can ignore the lure of carnal delight. And I do mean anybody. But, like a force of nature, it will still be there, and like a force of nature, it is not good nor bad... simply present. You're right in that there's no reason sexual activity should become less bad with age, but I don't see any reason why it should be considered wrong in the first place.

Also, my assertion was not that virginity was not a virtue (although, I do believe so), my argument was as to why virginity was so often equated with innocence. As you can no doubt testify, this is almost never the case.

(Yes, I love a good, sensible arguement)

--------------
I ain't lookin' for help from on high. That's a damn long wait for a train don't come.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2006 7:16 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD


I agree with you about the lack of there being good and evil behind the act itself. I try to stay clear of labels like that, if you've read anything I've typed in the past, that's always been an important emphasis for me.

Even though "wrong" might be the improper word for it, I would say that having sex is "unfavorable" at least for people who are just getting the urge at around 13 years old. And in my personal view, I don't see getting older as any reason to lose it in the first place. For some reason, it seems to just be a socially accepted norm that you "should" lose your virginity at around 18, and that it doesn't matter if you're intending to stay with the person you engage with. I had two girls, both of whom I would have married, in my life. They both ended up cheating on me, and I am forever greatful that I didn't waste my sanctity on them. I did not believe that just because I was of age and had someone I loved that I should engage with them. I knew better than that.

There are certainly cases in which someone remains untouched for reasons other than their own will. I've certainly wondered if my personal commitment to virginity is a result of my own will, or just a result of no one wanting to be with me. But I've withheld myself even at times where I thought there may have been possibilities, and I am proud of that. The same can be said for others. Someone else here mentioned about being obsessed with sex before ever actually doing it, and I say that on that note, virginity is a form of mind and action. Not willingly partaking in the action, and having the mind to avoid the temptation. This could dissolve into an argument of semantics; I really hope that it doesn't. I think that everyone here's smart enough to know what I mean when I equate virginity to purity.

[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2006 8:17 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
Quote:

Originally posted by magdalena:
Oh dear... Hells Kitten if you can't hack it over here, how are you going to cope with a 3 way battle with me and PR??? Give up now Darlin'... I'll pm you my address so you can send the Kaylee outfit by air mail!!

Er. So. You're going to ramble incoherently at me? That's your fight strategy?

I am all aquiver.

While I admit to the great potential for me being entranced by your Aussie accent, there are few and far between who can simply TALK me out of my clothing. *snikker*

But please do pm me your mailing address! Then I'll be able to send you my condolences for your loss! ... to PhoenixRose ... cuz I'm starting to think she can kick both our asses. *giggle*



Ah... yeah Hell's Kitten - I did actually think about that possibility myownself... my Mei Mei is pretty tough to beat... I know grown men who've given up trying!

And though you were not on my list of those I intended to entrance with my Aussie accent, I will certainly give that some consideration... hmmmm mid-battle I'll cry "Strewth! Crikey! Howzzat?" And there are all those FFF.net men who will enjoy me talking you out of your clothes!!

Now... if I turned on the English, American and European accent repertoir I have... that could be the decider!!




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:18 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


what...? a double post... where?...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:18 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


More to add, ...of course!

WARNING: Long Post!!!!!

Quote:

James the Dark
To reference Firefly, Kaylee was in no way a virgin, but she was the most innocent character on that show. In contrast, River, despite being a virgin, was the least innocent



I love this insight James - you certainly put your finger on it when you pointed to this aspect of the characters personalities... I also love examining and pondering the relationship and juxtapositions of the Kaylee and River relationships with each other and the 'verse...

Hi Odds... I find that story about your parents marriage really lovely - your parents may have felt pressured into marriage - but the marriage has lasted and they didn't make a production number out of it! I think there is too much emphasis on the 'wedding' and not the marriage per se...

Pleasure and pain - I had a deeply Spiritual experience once which I equated to a wound - it was both extremely cleansing and deeply moving, as well as making me feel very vulnerable and 'tender' at the same time... I think healing wounds, bruises and stiff muscles are another good analogy - you almost delight in the progress of the injury/stiffness and can miss the discomfort when it fully heals - you certainly forget about the pain and tenderness in time! It is a bittersweet thing, to be sure...

Hello Mei Mei you are both pure and innocent, and powerfully wicked my Darlin'!

Quote:

Desk Top Hippie
Well, when I came of age my Dad gave me a Bible and a packet of condoms and told me to use both wisely. I think that pretty much sums up his attitude.



I love the wisdom in this DTH... no wonder you are so well adjusted!

Awwwww.... SpaceANGL!Kiss: Sorry to hear about the house - but so glad you're not committed to it already! Huge hugs and love coming your way from Australia, Honey!

CMH... I agree with you that virginity cannot be stolen - though I suspect the virgin who has been raped will never feel completely 'virginal' again... I was assulted when I was 17 - not raped, though that was the intention of my attacker - but the 'dirty feeling' would hit me for years afterwards when I thought about it... even recently when talking with a friend about it I was more distressed by the recollection than I thought was possible after 22 years...

I didn't decide to sleep with a boyfriend until I was 22 and had been dating the guy for almost 6 months - and I was a late starter among some of my friends, but one of the first to experience sex among another set of friends of the same age... it was special and not at all dirty, and I think it was a sign to me that I was growing up and accepting my own sexuality - having said that I would never imagine anyone who choses to wait for marriage to be puritanical or prudish and I have more than one friend, who are in their 30s who are also virgins, and recently attended a wedding of a friend in her early 40s for whom I know her wedding night was her first experience. I think that having grown up with the sense of chastity being a virtue was empowering for me and helped me to not treat my body and my own desires with contempt or rush into something that a lot of my peers were doing in their teens... I have always held any sexual encounter as a deeply personal and emotional experience - though there have been greatly varying feelings/emotions, the main aspect of it being deeply personal has always prevailed! I have had very few partners and have been intentionally celebate for the last 5 years, which I have not regretted, though I know I would not wait for marriage, I would certainly need to trust anyone I was with and would need to have some degree of love for them...

I agree with Odds when he says that it should be clear what emotion is attached to the encounter too... I have known too many people - especially women, though not exclusively - who have had a sexual relationship/encounter and misunderstood completely what that meant to the other person.

Well... after that rather serious ramble - I realise I did not mention my own penchant for shopping... I do not like large shopping complexes or 'malls' but I love wandering around antique shops, markets and book shops... especially 2nd hand bookshops! I have had a misunderstanding with a friend who I suggested meet me at the antique shop at 1pm and we'd get luch afterwards - well I was there at 12.45 and was wandering around, drinking in the items overflowing with untold history, and wondered where my friend was (not that I minded her being late) at 1.20... turns out she was standing outside the shop assuming that is what I had meant and was fuming that I was not there at 1pm... when we realised our error we did laugh about it - and it is now a ritual of ours to wander through the biggest antique shop we can find in any given location... living with me for 5 years did turn her into a bit of an antique nut too... I think she actually owns more than I do!!




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 2:25 AM

VERSEEXPLORER


CMH, You are right the majority of cultures stress that women should be celibate before marriage, and they’re more tolerant of a man’s sexual conquest. Women were to remain unspoiled not necessarily because it was the virtuous thing to do, but because they were going to be some man’s property. The horrendous part is that it is still the case in many parts of the world. Historically there were Polynesian cultures (and others) that did not have this ethical view. I believe that being less restrictive would be better. Sex has the draw of “Forbidden Fruit” because it is considered something that you should stay away from before marriage. When that stigma is released, sex is viewed as more of a natural act without so many taboos.

I did recommend that young teens should not have sex right away. I mentioned it, not because it is virtuous, but because of the society that we live in right now. In past cultures or more primitive cultures, children married and had sex when puberty hit around 12 or 13. Now if an unexpected pregnancy happens, life here would be very hard for anyone that drops out of school at 13, and tries to raise a family. It is more acceptable to wait until 18 because most have finished high school. I’d like to add that the current brain research has shown that a teenager’s brain has not fully developed especially the reasoning part of the brain. I don’t remember the exact age, but it is around 18 when the brain is fully developed.

I do admire that you have made a choice to wait until marriage, but I don't feel that it is necessarily right for everyone.




Help Spread the Word to Non Sci-Fi Fans
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=20&t=25063&m=412141#412141

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:03 AM

VERSEEXPLORER


Hey, Magda, good to see you. Thanks for sharing your stories. My heart went out to you when you mentioned being assaulted at 17. It has happened to way too many women.

It might be a topic for the Imponderables. I've often felt that men don't realize how prevalent it is. Every woman that I have ever met has had a close friend or family member that was attacked, abused, or raped. We have all experienced it or had someone quite close that has.

There was a "Six Feet Under" episode where 3 college guys were following a girl on a dark street, and they started to hoot and holler. The girl took off running across the street, and she was hit by a car and died. (The show always had an opening death.) The awful part in the story was that the 3 guys knew this girl. They were only teasing her. They saw her as a strong confident woman, and they never imagined that she would be so terrified.

I've had second thoughts. It would probably not be a good Imponderable. It is too uncomfortable to talk about. It's just something that I thought should be said.




Help Spread the Word to Non Sci-Fi Fans
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=20&t=25063&m=412141#412141

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:40 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


I'm here for you, jie jie
I have known too many victims in my life. Both male and female, actually. Some of them have gotten past it to some extent, some have not and maybe never will. You have not seen scars until you've talked to someone about the effect that sort of attack has on their lives. And the younger they are when it happened, the worse it is.
It is an uncomfortable subject, and I'm not going to go into detail because there are many things that were told me in confidence, and even without naming names it would be a violation of their trust. Plus, it's not something anyone wants to hear about because it is, of course, disturbing.
It is something that needs more awareness around it. If the stats are true and 1 in 4 women is raped, that is WAY too high and it's something that must be stopped. I actually suspect those stats don't even tell the whole story, since so many victims never go to the police or anything.
The scars never fade, even if someone can live beyond them. Taking something that is supposed to be a loving expression, a natural thing, and using it as a weapon can destroy the way someone views the world. I've seen its effects, and I don't ever want to have to see it again. It is so wrong. I truly think it's the worst thing you can do to anyone.
I try to be peaceful and calm, but I fully support the death penalty for rapists and child molesters.


[]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:43 AM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


Hey VerseExplorer!! It's not something I think about very often to be honest and it is something I rarely ever talk about! Not because it is too horrid, just that it is a subject that doesn't come up much - it just seemed to be appropriate in this discussion...

When this topic does come up though I , like you, am horrified at the percentage of my female friends that have had similar, or worse experiences! You are right - it is not a comfortable subject to discuss and I don't think anyone should relive it for us all in a public forum, but it does happen so much more than many of us realise! What really got to me at the time, apart from the disgust & 'dirty' senstaion I felt, was that he was so mcuh stronger than me... men are physically stronger than women! He had me pinned down with seemingly little effort and still had one arm/hand free to do things to me...

I agree that we not discuss this here in a public forum - though I would welcome anyone who wanted to make contact, if they need to talk - I am really fine with it all and, if anything, I am a stronger and more aware woman as a result of what happened... though that took a long time. Please feel free to PM me if anyone wants to... and do tell someone if you have been attacked or received unwanted attention that makes you uneasy in any way...

... and yes, guys... odds are that you know several women who have been assulted in some way!




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:46 AM

SPACEANJL


Going to jump in with one little thing here.

There are violations that don't meet the definition of rape, but are violations none the less. Anytime pressure is exerted, physical or emotional, that forces someone into a physical intimacy that they do not wish, it verges on assault. And it leaves a level of damage. And it doesn't matter if the realtionship is sanctified by law or some other social convention. Nobody has the right to force themselves on another. Ever.

End of.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:47 AM

ODDSBODSKINS


i do know one who has told me it happened (i tend to figure there may well be more, but it's not something they feel like sharing) who was told in no uncertain terms by the police that it was her fault, she wore a minskirt.

Ah! What is not a dream by day
To him whose eyes are cast
On things around him with a ray
Turned back upon the past?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:59 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
Any time pressure is exerted, physical or emotional, that forces someone into a physical intimacy that they do not wish, it verges on assault.


Well, I guess I could say I've experienced something verging on assualt. I wondered if it counted. I was heavily pressured by my first 'boyfriend' and went a lot farther than I would have wanted. I ended it for that and various other reasons. Fortunately I was old enough that it didn't shape my idea of sex and I didn't allow it to be too damaging, though I do still have trouble with certain things and have to feel really comfortable to do them.
There's no legal process over feeling 'pressured' though; they require DNA evidence and all kinds of things like that. And if you're married or even in a relationship, it makes the case even weaker (which I agree is horrible beyond words) In a way I understand the need for evidence, since innocent people shouldn't go to jail for it and have it on their record, but I think too many people get away with it.

*edit* Those police should be shot.


[]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:16 AM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


Actually Odds - my gut reaction was... (since I saw a report on TV today about how men in uniforms look 'so hot') that those policemen should be raped and then told it's their own fault for looking so provocative in uniform... nice twist and equally as outrageous I think...

But seriously, yes SpaceANGL - coersion, unwanted touching - these are often overlooked, though I hope not entirely so... there is no excuse for anyone - male or female - to be treated in such a way.

It saddens me that in this day and age there are still people who seem to think that women are somehow responsible for being attacked! I have never understood that mentality and think that maybe this sort of thing should be taught and explored more in schools so that we can educate men and women in self-respect as well as respect for one another...




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:27 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by magdalena:
But seriously, yes SpaceANGL - coersion, unwanted touching - these are often overlooked, though I hope not entirely so... there is no excuse for anyone - male or female - to be treated in such a way.

It saddens me that in this day and age there are still people who seem to think that women are somehow responsible for being attacked! I have never understood that mentality and think that maybe this sort of thing should be taught and explored more in schools so that we can educate men and women in self-respect as well as respect for one another...


That, jie jie, is a most excellent idea. Not one I can see being implemented because of all the hysterical mummies and daddies that exist in the world, but it is an excellent idea.


[]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:56 AM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


Ah...too true Mei Mei therein lies a few issues I don't want to start to deal with...

I need some sleep - I was going to start a new thread but I think I'd like to see where this discussion does go!

Thanks you everyone for your honesty and willingness to share - it is a privilege to be one of the Imponderable family on occassions like this...

Goodnight Imponderers - Magda x x x




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:01 AM

VERSEEXPLORER


SpaceAngl, I agree that the coersion and unwanted advances when you're in a relationship or from a stranger can leave scars.

Magda, you are so right. There should be more education about it. It's that ignorant view that a woman has caused an attack that helps to breed the shame that a victim feels.

So to all compassionate gentlemen of FFF.net know that atleast one out of four (and probably more) of the women that you know have had negative encounters. We won't usually talk about it, but it is at the core of who we are.

Edit: PR, I just read your comment about being pressured. Glad to know that you don't feel any major scars from it, but it is not a pleasant experience. Hugs from me.




Help Spread the Word to Non Sci-Fi Fans
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=20&t=25063&m=412141#412141

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 6:19 AM

HELL'S KITTEN


Quote:

Originally posted by magdalena:
And though you were not on my list of those I intended to entrance with my Aussie accent, I will certainly give that some consideration... hmmmm mid-battle I'll cry "Strewth! Crikey! Howzzat?"

Oh, jeez... add "spat the dummy" and "good on ya, mate" and I'm done for.

************************************************
Not captioned for the sarcasm impaired.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sara013

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 12:36 PM

HELL'S KITTEN


Yeesh, I'm behind again and I just started...!

Edit: Holy crap did this get long!!! Sorry!

Virginity, chastity, purity, blah-dee-blah. I've actually read everything everyone's posted so far on the subject (which doesn't happen all that often with lazy me), and some very good points have been made. What I have to say may be a little disjointed because there are so many issues, so forgive me.

ChrisMoorhead, my reply mainly addresses things you've brought up, since you're the bringer-upper-guy of this line of discussion.

[ disclaimer ] Since I'm new to these Imponderable threads, do I need to point out that my post is not aimed at insulting or offending anyone, even if the text seems to read that way? I'm a little reluctant to reply because I usually get attacked for it, sometimes because my text can be so clinical, sometimes because the reader is on crack and completely mistakes my intentions and reads words that weren't actually written. So, this is all written purely from a non-offensive, non-defensive stance, all for the sake of discussion. [ /disclaimer ]

From my point of view, once you start ascribing intangible, philosophical concepts to a tangible, natural act, you create an unnecessary divide between people, which can lead to hurt feelings, nastiness, and all sorts of other bad things.

Regarding other religions and cultures assigning value to chaste, virginal women: the vast majority of these cultures are patriarchal in nature, or at very least, were built on patriarchal foundations. As has already been mentioned, women were - and still are - seen as a commodity. No Man wanted to pay for a woman who had been with other Men, because He couldn't be guaranteed that this woman would only bear His offspring. That's a base biological characteristic that's seen in both Man and Beast. Some of these cultures go so far as to develop hideous practices such as "The Cutting of the Rose" to ensure that their women remain on a tether. So, the point of saying that cultures and religions through the ages have valued and continue to value virginity and chastity is a point that is null and void in my eyes.

(Perhaps if you quoted a religion or referenced a culture that had matriarchal foundations, I could re-examine that point, but you didn't, and from what research I've done, the two don't generally see eye to eye.)

Personally, I don't recall my parents ever telling me one way or another, I just developed my own beliefs on sex growing up: I didn't wanna get pregnant. That was the whole of it for me. Sure, there's always birth control, but being more of a numbers / sciency kind of girl, the statistics involved didn't justify the risk to me, and just the thought of being pregnant scared the f**k outta me. (Sorry, horrible pun, but I couldn't help it. )

Secondary to that was the emotional maturity - didn't have it, and I knew it. I didn't feel like wrecking myself emotionally over some boy who just wanted to get his rocks off instead of actually believing my romantic notion of being together forever.

You asked why younger people shouldn't be recommended to indulge (something like that, yeah?) in response to someone else's view. I see the answer to that quite pragmatically: In the cultures where young girls (12, 13, etc.) are married off to older men, the sexual act is almost more of a point of ownership and procreation. Those cultures take responsibility for that, in that the men provide for their young wives and their offspring (yes, there are always horrible exceptions). In my culture (American), more and more often, people don't always take this responsibility. I would wager that a vast number of young people (hell, "old" people, too) do not consider the consequences to their actions, pregnancy being the ultimate consequence. If a 13 year old boy and/or girl have the intellectual maturity and monetary means of taking care of themselves and their children (their own means, not my help, thanks), I say go for it. However, most young people are not equiped mentally or financially to cope with offspring, which is why I wouldn't recommend it.

(Just because there may be an urge to do it at a young age, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Liken it to fledglings in a nest atop some crazy-tall tree: at some point, they have the urge to fly, but they don't know how until they've been taught properly. If they try it too soon, they succumb to Darwin.)

You go on to say a bunch of things along the lines of "It makes us stronger to deny ourselves," "sex distracts you from your goals," and "I think those who don't abstain mentally and physically are missing out on a much deeper experience."

As far as personal philosophy goes, I can't say you're wrong and I'm right.

It does make me wonder, though, how one can develop such a strong personal philosophy never having partaken in the opposite side, and therefore having no real means of comparison or "proof" that their side is even valid. I don't mean to belittle your beliefs, but to me, that's akin to saying that chocolate tastes like chicken when you've never tasted either:
"How do you know chocolate tastes like chicken?" "Because I believe it to be so."
"How do you know sex distracts you from your goals?" "Because I have never had sex."

Those statements are often tiny bits taken from a greater whole philosophy, and segregating those tiny bits can often lead to a misunderstanding or outright perversion of the philosophy and its intent.

I also find it vaguely insulting (though, I know that wasn't the intent) to make those statements; to insinuate that people can only be their best when they deny themselves something or when they don't get laid. That seems to be a very simplistic (and naïve) view. As with anything, balance is the key to any success or failure. If someone chooses to blame their failure or lack of perfection on the fact that they were thinking about tits and ass at the time, that's a complete cop-out; their failure was their lack of control, their lack of focus, or the sad plain truth that they just aren't good at what they want to do. This blaming sort of behavior makes me think that there may deeper issues that this person is just unwilling - or unable - to address, so they need to latch on to a scapegoat for their crutch.

And I am completely lost by the notion that someone being free with their sexuality is in any way equivalent to the "greater purpose" of taking a life, with the reference to Kaylee and River. I'll just assume that it's my mistake and I was mis-reading you.

From what you've been writing, it seems to me as though you equate the abstract concept of purity with the real world act of intercourse. I guess I understand that practice, but I haven't been able to understand the reasoning behind it. From my experience, I place no value on purity, per se, and I ascribe no abstract to the physical act. For me, it all comes down to intent. Ejemplo: If your intent is to f**k me so you can add a notch to your bedpost, that goes against how I want to be treated, so I call that a bad. If you've had sex with 1000 women, but want to have sex with me out of pure, honest love, that's an intention that I can accept*.

*(NOTE: No, people, that wasn't an invitation. *snikker*)

I hope at least some of that properly conveys my views on the subject as a whole. If there's anything that you find insulting, again, that wasn't my intent; if there's anything that you have questions on, you know where to find me.

************************************************
Not captioned for the sarcasm impaired.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sara013

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 1:07 PM

VERSEEXPLORER


Well said, Hell's Kitten! I can tell you are an asset to the Imponderable thread.

*Funny comment on the serious topic*
When I first read your words,
"they need to latch on to a scapegoat for their crutch. "
my tired old eyes read -
they need to latch on to a scapegoat for their crotch.
It made my laugh.




Help Spread the Word to Non Sci-Fi Fans
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=20&t=25063&m=412141#412141

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 1:35 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Quote:

Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
Happy Turkey Day to all you folks Stateside. Just another Thursday here.

Just running through the thread very quickly - no real time to catch up. The whole house-purchase has gone to hell. We got The Survey back. Words like 'rising damp' and 'woodworm'. The first words out of my mouth were "We were going to pay money for this? On purpose?" Gak.

Anyhow, so I'm back in the thick of sorting it all out solo, since husband is away working again, and boss has left me in charge of the shop this side of Xmas. Zen hugs to you all, and thanx for keeping me (kinda) sane.


Of all the imponderables I could (and hopefully will) catch up on, yours is the one that, at this moment anyway, jumps out at me.

"Woodworm" puts me in mind of the lesser demon in the Screwtape Letters, Wormwood. It sounds like a very bad thing to have. You have my best wishes regarding the whole house thing. Anything involving real estate generally has a LOT of stress attached to it without adding hints of brimstone to it. (See Glengarry Glenross for insights to the agents' hell, the Money Pit for the homeowners')

Sending tons of Zen hugs right back at you (and husband who sounds like he could use a few, too).


"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 1:56 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Quote:

Originally posted by magdalena:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
While I admit to the great potential for me being entranced by your Aussie accent, there are few and far between who can simply TALK me out of my clothing. *snikker*


And though you were not on my list of those I intended to entrance with my Aussie accent, I will certainly give that some consideration... hmmmm mid-battle I'll cry "Strewth! Crikey! Howzzat?" And there are all those FFF.net men who will enjoy me talking you out of your clothes!!

Now... if I turned on the English, American and European accent repertoir I have... that could be the decider!!


Okay, ya got me with "Strewth". Whazzat?

As to decider of the delightful thought of being talked out of one's clothes:




"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 2:12 PM

EMMARIGBY


Hell's Teeth Hell's Kitten! You have summed up my own thoughts far more eloquently than I could have expressed them, right down to the slight annoyance I felt at the insinuation that someone who has refrained from sex is better and more focused than me
(it's true that I am increadibly unfocused at the moment but that is nothing to do with sex. In fact I am more motivated and able to concentrate when I am having sex more often - but that's not a causal link but simply a correlation. My libido is tied in with depression. When I'm feeling bad I'm not interested in anything). I think you really put your finger on what was bothering me when you touched on the point of assigning value laden tags to an act that I personally consider to be as natural as, for example, laughing. Actually, that's a fairly good analogy. Laughing is fun. Some people laugh more than others, and that's fine and a matter of different characters and should be accepted as such. Laughter can be a deep and profound expression of utmost joy, but does that mean that anyone who giggles at a fart joke should be seen as unclean and impure?! (Can you see where I'm going with this?!)

I have a similarly pragmatic approach to the issue of when a person is ready. There is no set definition. Some people mature emotionally and physically faster than others. I became fascinated with the subject at about the age of 15 and was quite confident that I could deal with sex without committment at the age of 17 (and I was correct in my self analysis) but I have known people who were too fragile to deal with any potential relationship complications until very late in life. Anybody who is confident enough to work out what they really want in the face of outside pressure in either direction (i.e. to do it or not do it) has my respect and admiration.



___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 2:19 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:

ChrisMoorhead, my reply mainly addresses things you've brought up, since you're the bringer-upper-guy of this line of discussion.

[ disclaimer ] Since I'm new to these Imponderable threads, do I need to point out that my post is not aimed at insulting or offending anyone, even if the text seems to read that way? I'm a little reluctant to reply because I usually get attacked for it, sometimes because my text can be so clinical, sometimes because the reader is on crack and completely mistakes my intentions and reads words that weren't actually written. So, this is all written purely from a non-offensive, non-defensive stance, all for the sake of discussion. [ /disclaimer ]


Before I even read the rest of your post (I expect to finish it by sometime Monday morning) I thought I would address your disclaimer.

In answering CMH, you are answering the one person out of everyone out here understand getting attacked for his ideas, contributions, etc. Much moreso in the beginning, but it still happens. We not in a popularity contest, nor are we terribly thin-skinned about disagreements although we're very sensitive about some things and about each other. So unless you adopt a complete trollish attitude (and we even welcome their input on occasion), if you have a "bad" idea, or are guilty of expressing a "good" idea badly, it's okay. We all do it.

That said, I now jump into your post with full body armor (which you can try talking me out of) and fully armed, waiting for you to make the slightest misstep that I can pounce upon and use to cast you from our midst. We are IMponderers; we don't think, we act.


"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 2:53 PM

HELL'S KITTEN


Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Before I even read the rest of your post (I expect to finish it by sometime Monday morning)

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
waiting for you to make the slightest misstep that I can pounce upon and use to cast you from our midst.

Heh, yeah. Well. When I get accused of being "hateful" for telling someone that Whedon's name is "Joss" and not "Josh," I get a little timid when it comes to posting. I'm trying to get over it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:09 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Great holy mooooglies! Emma! Where have you been. I have felt a limerick simmering, but had no one to limerick at!




----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:09 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Great holy mooooglies! Emma! Where have you been. I have felt a limerick simmering, but had no one to limerick at!




----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:10 PM

JAMESTHEDARK


HK: Thank you, for enunciating what I couldn't properly enunciate on my own.

--------------
I ain't lookin' for help from on high. That's a damn long wait for a train don't come.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:59 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Most of this post is aimed as much at you, CNH, as it is at HK. Please don't confuse my third person references as cowardess. I simply chose her post to respond to since it referenced so much of yours and I just naturally started addressing her. That said, on with it. It's a long one. But then again, except for the sweet Magdalena, I believe we three are the most long-winded, so this should come as a surprise to no one.
Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
From my point of view, once you start ascribing intangible, philosophical concepts to a tangible, natural act, you create an unnecessary divide between people, which can lead to hurt feelings, nastiness, and all sorts of other bad things.


Just me, and by no means do I want to get philosophical tonight,(but maybe sometime), but to separate the intangible, philosophical concepts to a tangible, natural acts, you are attempting to the same magic trick of separating the consciousness from the bioelectric impulses of the brain. Is there a soul or is there only the illusion of self? I think they are inseperably intertwined. More on that later. In another vein, if I read PR correctly there's the whole deeply spiritual aspect of sexuality which she has some excellent threadage on but I cannot find at the moment.
Quote:

(Just because there may be an urge to do it at a young age, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Liken it to fledglings in a nest atop some crazy-tall tree: at some point, they have the urge to fly, but they don't know how until they've been taught properly. If they try it too soon, they succumb to Darwin.)

Damn Darwin anyway! They're cute little birdies, for crissake!

I was thinking of another illustration. The first time I was put behind the wheel of a car I was probably about 4-5 years old. I was on my uncle's lap. This was back in the days just after horse and buggies mind you and carseats weren't even impondered, and seatbelts were optional and for wimps. Anyway, I can recall passing a car once it was determined I could handle the wheel. Naturally my uncle's hands were at the ready but imagine this in the present day! Anyway, since that time being in reared in a rural community I can remember knowing how to drive virtually my entire life. I was capable of driving. That didn't make me a capable driver, able to anticipate the finer points of negotiating a large heavy vehicle in all types of conditions. I didn't get that except with age. And not merely by driving myself but observing others. When I actually got licensed I would still hesitate to say I was prepared, but I was better able than my 5 year old self.
Um, Jonny, what does that have to do with sex? Just that age does make a difference. Not age in and of itself solely (but as VX rightly stated the brain is not yet done growing until later): it's the experience age brings that make all the difference.

And just because I'm old enough to do something doesn't mean I'm ready for it. Just because I am capable of killing doesn't mean that I'm am (or ever will be) ready to do it.

Or put another way. I was born into this world entirely until to fend for myself and remained so for quite some time. The given here is that there would be nurturers to bring me along. I knew how to eat, but I didn't know how to get food. Later, just because I became physically capable of having sex, didn't not, and some would obviously argue should not, make me "mature" enough to go out and get some for myself, on my own, without the nuturers.
Quote:

You go on to say a bunch of things along the lines of "It makes us stronger to deny ourselves," "sex distracts you from your goals," and "I think those who don't abstain mentally and physically are missing out on a much deeper experience."

In limited ways this does work, athletes in training do and dont' do things immediately before the big game. Certain foods and certain activities are taboo. After the game or after the season, a certain amount of indulgence is "okay". If T&A doesn't take you mind off the game something is wrong with you!!
Quote:

It does make me wonder, though, how one can develop such a strong personal philosophy never having partaken in the opposite side, and therefore having no real means of comparison or "proof" that their side is even valid. I don't mean to belittle your beliefs, but to me, that's akin to saying that chocolate tastes like chicken when you've never tasted either:
"How do you know chocolate tastes like chicken?" "Because I believe it to be so."
"How do you know sex distracts you from your goals?" "Because I have never had sex."


Not that CMH has ever needed anyone to speak his mind for him, but I'm bored...He is an excellent observer. He is going by what he has seen. And in my experience it is this: people who indulge in eating fried chicken end up with it all over their face and hands; people who eat chocolate in the correct fashion, end up the same. So maybe chocolate and chicken may not taste alike, people who indulge in either end up the same way: a mess.
Quote:

I also find it vaguely insulting (though, I know that wasn't the intent) to make those statements; to insinuate that people can only be their best when they deny themselves something or when they don't get laid. That seems to be a very simplistic (and naïve) view...If someone chooses to blame their failure or lack of perfection on the fact that they were thinking about tits and ass at the time, that's a complete cop-out...

C'mon, HK, are you telling me that after having some face-flushing, hard-breathing, hair-mussing intensity, you are able to go out and do what you do when you're not engaging in face-flushing, hard-breathing, hair-mussing intensity with a brain full of nothing but acuity?
Quote:

And I am completely lost by the notion that someone being free with their sexuality is in any way equivalent to the "greater purpose" of taking a life, with the reference to Kaylee and River. I'll just assume that it's my mistake and I was mis-reading you.

My take is it was about the contrast of the selfish sexual gratification of Kaylee and the selfless violent explosion of River. (Gonna disagree with JTD on at least this point: River is as innocent as Kaylee any day. She's just been violated and abused in ways only she knows. And she is carrying around some mischanneled energy that still needs to ge worked out for sure. Tangent end.) I do not see Kaylee's sexuality as strictly self-gratifying, or if it is, it isn't a morality question with her. It's no different than that famous strawberry she molests. She is taking delight in the very goodness that God has presumably put there for us to discover and enjoy.

Taking CMH's other argument to it's conclusion, if we should start exercising our sexuality as soon as it presents itself, as would be the natural way as opposed to the way of society, then why would we consider not using the instruments of that sexuality at all? Your parts are there for a reason; isn't denying their purpose, denying a higher calling as well?
Quote:

From what you've been writing, it seems to me as though you equate the abstract concept of purity with the real world act of intercourse. I guess I understand that practice, but I haven't been able to understand the reasoning behind it. From my experience, I place no value on purity, per se, and I ascribe no abstract to the physical act. For me, it all comes down to intent. Ejemplo: If your intent is to f**k me so you can add a notch to your bedpost, that goes against how I want to be treated, so I call that a bad. If you've had sex with 1000 women, but want to have sex with me out of pure, honest love, that's an intention that I can accept*.

This "intent" (and don't get me wrong here, I agree with you) of which you speak, doesn't that even so put a moral spin on it? Aren't you admitting that there is a connection between the physical and the--if not spiritual--emotional aspect of sexuality? Aren't they inseparable as I stated above?
Quote:

*(NOTE: No, people, that wasn't an invitation. *snikker*)

*Tears up fake invitation he was going to present at HK's door.*
Quote:

I hope at least some of that properly conveys my views on the subject as a whole. If there's anything that you find insulting, again, that wasn't my intent; if there's anything that you have questions on, you know where to find me.

Questions. None that I'd share here.


"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:18 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
waiting for you to make the slightest misstep that I can pounce upon and use to cast you from our midst.

Heh, yeah. Well. When I get accused of being "hateful" for telling someone that Whedon's name is "Joss" and not "Josh," I get a little timid when it comes to posting. I'm trying to get over it.


I have a hard time picturing you as "timid". Pick a different word and let rethink your statement. Of course, I don't "hateful" in you either so the whole thing is kind of a non-sequitor with me.

FMF! Emma! James! Good to see each of you! Well, my time is up for tonight. Sleep well all of you.


"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:10 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


OK... I'm startying a new thread

But I also wanted to say Thank You Imponderers - I read all you had to say Hell's Kitten and think you make some wonderful observations and give us a little more insight to your amazing mind! Thank you!!

Oh - and are you 'Fair Dinkum' on that one? I think I might win this battle after all...

Johnny Q- I'm pretty sure 'Strewth' is merely an exclaimation ... along the lines of 'crikey!'

New Thread!! http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=25489





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:40 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD


Quote:

It does make me wonder, though, how one can develop such a strong personal philosophy never having partaken in the opposite side, and therefore having no real means of comparison or "proof" that their side is even valid. I don't mean to belittle your beliefs, but to me, that's akin to saying that chocolate tastes like chicken when you've never tasted either:
"How do you know chocolate tastes like chicken?" "Because I believe it to be so."
"How do you know sex distracts you from your goals?" "Because I have never had sex."



You ever been in a war? Ever taken another person's life? I'm guessing not, but I'm also guessing that you have beliefs about the two of those things, and probably much deeper convictions about them then you do about sex.

JQ's right. I speak on what I observe. I mentioned a very good friend of mine that got blown in half earlier because he had his head in the clouds. It killed me to have to do that, to shame him in death for his negligence, and hurts me even more that I think I know what he was daydreaming about when he died.

Quote:

I also find it vaguely insulting (though, I know that wasn't the intent) to make those statements; to insinuate that people can only be their best when they deny themselves something or when they don't get laid. That seems to be a very simplistic (and naïve) view. As with anything, balance is the key to any success or failure. If someone chooses to blame their failure or lack of perfection on the fact that they were thinking about tits and ass at the time, that's a complete cop-out; their failure was their lack of control, their lack of focus, or the sad plain truth that they just aren't good at what they want to do. This blaming sort of behavior makes me think that there may deeper issues that this person is just unwilling - or unable - to address, so they need to latch on to a scapegoat for their crutch.


I'm glad that you know for yourself that I wasn't meaning to be insulting, but I stand by that notion. People who've overcome their deepest physiological desires have passed a mental barrier. Have you ever heard of the SERE course? If there wasn't some value in teaching people to overcome physiological need and desire, then the government would be wasting around $10k per candidate. Maybe this is only an understanding that those who've been in circumstances extreme enough to need it for survival can comprehend. All this stuff about balance being the key to life is great, until something comes in and knocks you flat on your ass. Those who've been and are prepared will flourish, while those who haven't and are not will whither and die.

Quote:

If a 13 year old boy and/or girl have the intellectual maturity and monetary means of taking care of themselves and their children (their own means, not my help, thanks), I say go for it. However, most young people are not equiped mentally or financially to cope with offspring, which is why I wouldn't recommend it.


Many older adults who are in no financial place to have children have sex (they use condoms, or something else, which is something any 13 year old could do as well), and I'd say the same goes for a lot of adult's maturity. If it wasn't so, then creepy stalker ex's and cheating partners wouldn't exist. I look around and I see young teenagers having the same problems and people my own age, and yet, these people my age hide behind a guise of maturity. Not talking about you specifically, actually, I'm more talking about just about everyone I know in real life.

However, this is all kind of moot, as you've said as long as a 13 year old meets those criteria that you don't think there's any problem with it. That's just a disagreement of fundamentals, and I don't suppose there's a whole lot of room for argument on the issue.

Quote:

(Perhaps if you quoted a religion or referenced a culture that had matriarchal foundations, I could re-examine that point, but you didn't, and from what research I've done, the two don't generally see eye to eye.)


The early Celts and Egyptians. The Egyptians worshiped women at one time as givers of life, ironic, because they also valued the woman's right to remain celibate. Such women were elevated to high status in society, and even the Goddess Isis was praised as "The Black Virgin". So many people are quick to accuse Christianity of being sexist in it's belief that women should remain pure through not having sex, but like so many of it's other traditions, this was a belief adopted from paganism.

Celtic cultures had a history of maternal succession, and were actually considered barbarians by the Romans and other cultures for treating their women as equals. But chastity was not a lost virtue to these people, either.

Also, the idea that purity through virginity being some sort of male oppression against women is total BS. Most cultures that expected this from women expected it from men as well. Nearly all Christian religious figures in the ancient world were expected to be chaste for life, and a huge majority of them were male. Not just monks, but even knights, and I'm specifically thinking of the the Templar, were to abstain from sex as a matter of self discipline. Over in Japan, one of the most womanizing cultures in history, monks were expected to do the same, and even Samurai were at least encouraged to practice it as a virtue. Sword makers were all male, and as I mentioned before underwent months of ritual purification including abstinence before even beginning to make a sword. And on the opposite side, look how highly valued Geisha were in spite of their sexual promiscuity.

So I really must disagree with any line of thinking that believes the purity of virginity and abstinence were purely some sort of control tool used by the ruling male population to subject women to the role of a possession. I wont argue that women were subjected to being possessions, it's definitely true, but not through sexual repression.

Quote:

From my point of view, once you start ascribing intangible, philosophical concepts to a tangible, natural act, you create an unnecessary divide between people, which can lead to hurt feelings, nastiness, and all sorts of other bad things.


Killing is just as natural an act as sex. People go their whole lives without having sex, and don't die from it. Yet most people would define it as a "need" rather than an urge. But Killing? It's fine to ascribe intangible philosophy to that, isn't it? But then, that's really what philosophy is all about, isn't it? The intangible? Is there a God, isn't there? I mean, even I as a Christian don't consider evolution a philosophy. I think it's a fact. So in the end, it really seems to me like you're questioning philosophy in general. But I know better than that, I know that you must have your own philosophies, and as I said before, I really don't feel like arguing semantics.

[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 6:17 PM

HELL'S KITTEN


Crap. I wish I’da seen this before the rum…….
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
From my point of view, once you start ascribing intangible, philosophical concepts to a tangible, natural act, you create an unnecessary divide between people, which can lead to hurt feelings, nastiness, and all sorts of other bad things.


Just me, and by no means do I want to get philosophical tonight,(but maybe sometime), but to separate the intangible, philosophical concepts to a tangible, natural acts, you are attempting to the same magic trick of separating the consciousness from the bioelectric impulses of the brain. Is there a soul or is there only the illusion of self? I think they are inseperably intertwined.

(Regarding the underlined bit) No, I’m not, and here’s why:

Philosophy is, obviously, a human construct. Judgments on the morality of certain philosophies are engendered by the prevailing society of the time. Different societies / cultures develop different philosophies, and those different philosophies ascribe different judgments to the same human functions. Then, taking it another step, when a society passes judgment on a biological function, and that judgment has a negative connotation – unless you meet certain qualifications set forth by that society (like marriage first or having enough cattle to pay for the woman) – you are artificially creating a stigma where none would naturally be. (And I am totally avoiding the philosophical debate that since man is a product of nature, nothing man can do can be considered unnatural. HA! *cough* Mmmmm, rum. I am digressing.)

So, no, there is no magic trick involved; a particular societal judgment is not equivalent to the workings that produce life and consciousness. In separating the human construct of right and wrong from such natural behaviours, I am separating out the blanket philosophy du jour; I am not separating out the Soul from the Self from the Body. (I *heart* semi-colons.)

The abstract ideas of which I spoke in that particular statement you quoted, were meant to address the large picture, in general. The speficif…specificif…specificities of personal philosophies were addressed later, and I think that’s where your flirting with the consciousness vs. neural impulses is more applicable.
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
You go on to say a bunch of things along the lines of "It makes us stronger to deny ourselves," "sex distracts you from your goals," and "I think those who don't abstain mentally and physically are missing out on a much deeper experience."


In limited ways this does work, athletes in training do and dont' do things immediately before the big game. Certain foods and certain activities are taboo. After the game or after the season, a certain amount of indulgence is "okay". If T&A doesn't take you mind off the game something is wrong with you!!

And a good number of athletes are superstitious. That doesn’t actually make a black cat bad for you.

You’re right, though, in limited ways… specific ways… to specific people… this philosophy works. For athletes, they can make this claim with more merit than one who has never engaged in sex, as most athletes are definitely not virgins; they are speaking from a place of knowledge, not theory.

To broaden it to more of a universal truth is where I take exception. And, also, regarding the quotes I quoted (hee), forgoing the experience completely does not make the philosophy whole, or even sound, because the half of what the philosophy is based on – sex – is completely unknown to those who hold to the philosophy.
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
And in my experience it is this: people who indulge in eating fried chicken end up with it all over their face and hands; people who eat chocolate in the correct fashion, end up the same. So maybe chocolate and chicken may not taste alike, people who indulge in either end up the same way: a mess.

Hai! Hence the statement about balance.

Good or Bad are not inherent in The Thing; The Thing only becomes Good or Bad upon our personal view of it. Partaking in any given thing will not make you a mess; how you choose to handle, or not handle, the partaking and the ramifications of the partaking is what can lead to the mess.

And I think we may be wiggling about the semantics involved here… By “indulge,” I don’t mean forsake everything else thereby doing yourself harm. I mean more of the, you know, have fun but try to avoid the ad nauseam thing.
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
C'mon, HK, are you telling me that after having some face-flushing, hard-breathing, hair-mussing intensity, you are able to go out and do what you do when you're not engaging in face-flushing, hard-breathing, hair-mussing intensity with a brain full of nothing but acuity?

Yes, that is exactly what I’m telling you.

I’m also telling you that if one of my prototypes doesn’t work right in the lab, I’m not going to blame that failure on the fact that I had some face-flushing, hard-breathing, hair-mussing intensity. I’m a proponent of the personal responsibility concept. If T&A distracts me – and being a robot, it does not – then it’s my own fault for not being disciplined enough to ignore the distraction. It’s not the distraction’s fault that I couldn’t ignore it; that would be like blaming the victim.
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Taking CMH's other argument to it's conclusion, if we should start exercising our sexuality as soon as it presents itself, as would be the natural way as opposed to the way of society, then why would we consider not using the instruments of that sexuality at all? Your parts are there for a reason; isn't denying their purpose, denying a higher calling as well?

…? Maybe it’s the – okay, make that probably it’s the – rum, but I’m a little unsure of what you’re saying.

Some cultures do exactly what you’ve suggested. Does that make it right or wrong? It makes it right for them and maybe wrong for you, but it doesn’t make the act anything other than an act.
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
For me, it all comes down to intent. Ejemplo: If your intent is to f**k me so you can add a notch to your bedpost, that goes against how I want to be treated, so I call that a bad. If you've had sex with 1000 women, but want to have sex with me out of pure, honest love, that's an intention that I can accept*.


This "intent" (and don't get me wrong here, I agree with you) of which you speak, doesn't that even so put a moral spin on it? Aren't you admitting that there is a connection between the physical and the--if not spiritual--emotional aspect of sexuality? Aren't they inseparable as I stated above?

Again, segregating the broad scope from the specific. I didn’t put a moral spin on the act itself. I just stated what I like and what I don’t – how I like to be treated and how I don’t – in relation to the specific act. I didn’t ascribe morality to the act, as it’s the person involved that imbues the act with perceived morality or immorality.
Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
*(NOTE: No, people, that wasn't an invitation. *snikker*)


*Tears up fake invitation he was going to present at HK's door.*

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
I hope at least some of that properly conveys my views on the subject as a whole. If there's anything that you find insulting, again, that wasn't my intent; if there's anything that you have questions on, you know where to find me.


Questions. None that I'd share here.

WELL then. Send me a PM … if you dare … muahahaha! *cough cough cough*


************************************************
Not captioned for the sarcasm impaired.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sara013

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 6:47 PM

HELL'S KITTEN


I'm sorry, I can't possibly respond to all of this now cuz this font has suddenly become too small and wiggly for me to read properly, but there are a few things I'd like to say: Thanks for the brief lesson / reminder on ancient civilisations in regards to women and sex. (That wasn't meant to read sarcastic at all. Honest.) You have a lot of good points. Look up the whole "Cutting of the Rose" thing, though, and tell me that's not male oppression of women's sexuality. That's just one example. But there are many examples of both of our views...and I think they may be drifting from the original line of questioning. (?)
Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
However, this is all kind of moot, as you've said as long as a 13 year old meets those criteria that you don't think there's any problem with it.

No, no... I wasn't clear here. I didn't say I don't think there was a problem with that. If someone is intellectually, financially, mentally, etc capable of having sex and starting a family, I am in no position to tell them they are wrong, no matter if I agree or not. And, yeah, I know plenty of adults who aren't in the position to do what they do, which is why part of my point was aimed at a personal level of growth moreso than an arbitrary age.
Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
You ever been in a war? Ever taken another person's life? I'm guessing not, but I'm also guessing that you have beliefs about the two of those things, and probably much deeper convictions about them then you do about sex.
...{cutty-cutty-for-space-saving...your guess is wrong in my case, by the way. XOXO, HK}...

Killing is just as natural an act as sex. People go their whole lives without having sex, and don't die from it. Yet most people would define it as a "need" rather than an urge. But Killing? It's fine to ascribe intangible philosophy to that, isn't it?

I don't think I ascribed an intagible philosophical concept to killing, nor have I described sex as a need. In fact, in a previous post, I even segregated "killing" from "murder," as the word "murder" actually has a negative connotation to it.

I don't need to have killed someone to very reasonably imagine that most people don't actually want to be killed. (Barring suicidal people, of course. And to that end, if they want to die, so be it.) That's the separation I see between killing and sex. When people don't want sex, it's called rape; when people don't want to be killed and they're not trying to kill you back, it's called murder. And as I type through this, I think I've found why I was confused by something you wrote earlier; I automatically read "murder" instead of "killing," and that's not how you wrote it. Sorry, my mistake. And this sudden realisation has completely derailed my train of thought. Must be the sex I just had.

(kidding)

(or am I?)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2006 7:04 PM

HELL'S KITTEN


Quote:

Originally posted by magdalena:
Oh - and are you 'Fair Dinkum' on that one? I think I might win this battle after all...

...???
I am so confused by that, all I can do is giggle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 11:51 AM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Quote:

Originally posted by Hell's Kitten:
Heh, yeah. Well. When I get accused of being "hateful" for telling someone that Whedon's name is "Joss" and not "Josh," I get a little timid when it comes to posting. I'm trying to get over it.


Damn. Missed a one-liner. I must be off.

"You must be Joshing!"

Nope. Not funny anymore. Did it do anything for you?


"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL