Want to be a conservative?

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex.

Maybe it''s particularly exhausting sex.

Anyway, thought I''d chime in on the recreational sex thing. I practice it that way. Granted, I''m in a monogamous (sp?) long-term relationship with the woman I intend to marry, but it''s still recreational for us. Okay, so it''s more than just that, but what I mean is that we don''t just do it for the express purpose of making babies (yet).

This completely unnecessary post has been brought to you by Extreme-Sleep-Deprivation Farscry. *clunk* zzzzzzzz.....

""recreational"" sex and ""recreational"" drugs from what I''ve seen produce similar downward spirals. Both leave you feeling empty at some point aftewards, and in need of more (addiction) to fill that emptiness, which in turn leads to a ""feeding the addiction just to feel almost normal.""

Sex inside a committed, caring relationship (even a gay one! woohoo! gay people!) where there is trust, real intimacy, giving...all that...is truly freaking amazing. I saw alot of my friends in Men''s Glee Club in college waste their lives pursuing one or the other or both (sex and drugs). It was pretty enlightening to hear two of the biggest pursuers of both have great life changing moments in their senior years. Each of them was in love, in an amazing relationship for the first time, and each told me how they looked back on four years of trying to get laid and high, as the most emtpy, meaningless and depressing experience.

Substituting what you really want, with what feels good or is easiest at the moment leads you down the dark path, dude. Real relationships are hard. Really dealing with your life is hard.

And yet I also agree, that hearing people who came from a life where they could see all of their choices and opportunities, glibly assume that people who grew up in much tougher circumstances *even realize they have those opportunities* makes me shudder. It''s pretty naive to assume that without some intervention, people at some poverty levels even know they have ""bootstraps"" to pull up.

The problem with recreational sex is one side 99.9% of the time feels more than the other. Which means that, unwillingly, one side is taking from the other. The side that gives more than they recieve can react defensively and become calous, trying to convince themselves that it isnt hurting.

Also, for the inexperienced, this feeling imbalance often leads to the confusion that sex = love. This person can then be manipulated and hurt further, damaging them for future relationships.

"Roo" wrote:

I saw alot of my friends in Men''s Glee Club in college waste their lives pursuing one or the other or both (sex and drugs). It was pretty enlightening to hear two of the biggest pursuers of both have great life changing moments in their senior years. Each of them was in love, in an amazing relationship for the first time, and each told me how they looked back on four years of trying to get laid and high, as the most emtpy, meaningless and depressing experience.

If I said that I knew some friends who spent their college years doing nothing but playing videogames and now looked back on that time as depressing, wasted and empty, there''d be no end of people here ready to point out that the problem wasn''t videogames in of themselves.

In my experience, people who are addicts will find things to get addicted to. Some will overcome their propensity for addiction, some will not.

There are plenty of people capable of having safe, recreational sex without feeling like they''ve wasted part of their lives, just as there are plenty of people who can drink without becoming alcholics.

"Strekos" wrote:

In my experience, people who are addicts will find things to get addicted to. Some will overcome their propensity for addiction, some will not.

There are plenty of people capable of having safe, recreational sex without feeling like they''ve wasted part of their lives, just as there are plenty of people who can drink without becoming alcholics.

Ahhhhh MMMMMM Beer. I have tranfered my addicition to my computer, it is much more PC. Just ask my wife.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

The problem with recreational sex is one side 99.9% of the time feels more than the other. Which means that, unwillingly, one side is taking from the other. The side that gives more than they recieve can react defensively and become calous, trying to convince themselves that it isnt hurting.

Also, for the inexperienced, this feeling imbalance often leads to the confusion that sex = love. This person can then be manipulated and hurt further, damaging them for future relationships.

I had about a two year period where that was the story of my life, experiencing one side of that imbalance, then the other, then back again. Gawd it sucked, but I''m just glad to have grown up and gotten myself out of it. If I could go back to then, I think I''d kick my own ass!

There are plenty of people capable of having safe, recreational sex without feeling like they''ve wasted part of their lives

The trouble is, that they are basically all men.

Preface: I''m married, monogamous, and content.

I see no trouble with recreational sex, as long as everyone involved agrees. If you have a disease, don''t do it. If you''re afraid of getting a disease from someone, don''t do it. If you have moral problems with it, don''t do it. Otherwise, it is frankly no one''s business.

There''s little that bugs me more than some puritanical asshole trying to tell me what is allowed for me to do in my home when it comes to sexual relations with another consenting adult. Don''t like hummers? Don''t give/receive them. But don''t legislate that it''s illegal because of your own moral ruler. ""Sorry, kissing -- while using tongue -- is an abonimation against God. Therefore, it is forthwith illegal to kiss anyone and use your tongue."" Ridiculous? Sure. But not far removed from the issue at hand.

No, Johnny, this isn''t directed at your post, but more of a general statement for the truly close-minded.

Nobody advocated legislation. I made that point before. It''s the nature of advice; you can follow it or not.

"Gorack" wrote:

Nobody advocated legislation. I made that point before. It''s the nature of advice; you can follow it or not.

Like I said, this wasn''t so much directed at stuff in this post, aside from the general topic. I was just extended it to the extreme of those who would and do propose such legislation.

*ColdForged reads back*

Okay, I see where that comes from... I took a header into the legislative track right in the middle of my argument. Such is the nature of my rants, they''re so unfocused :oops:. Lemme put it a different way.

Your moral compass is yours. Mine is mine. If I don''t harm you or others, leave me the hell alone.

For those of you who have the power to legislate, if you attempt to inflict your moral compass on me in a legal fashion for things that cause no harm to people, I''ll hate you and do whatever I can to get you out of office.

If I don''t harm you or others, leave me the hell alone.

I don''t think that government has the authority or ability to legislate much of what you are worried about, but don''t confuse ""in the privacy of my home"" with ""doesn''t harm anyone else"". When single parents stop churning out criminals and going on welfare, I will stop lecturing on the dangers of unprotected, pre-marital sex where no long-term relationship is likely.

I will stop lecturing on the dangers of unprotected, pre-marital sex where no long-term relationship is likely.

Lecturing this forum on that is preaching to the choir.

We need to teach teenagers to respect themselves.

We need to teach them that waiting is better.

We need to teach them that sex is much more rewarding with someone you care about.

We need to teach them that desire and sex does not equal love.

We need to teach them that they need to use condoms. If they arent responsible enough to use condoms then how can they be trusted with having sex.

We need to teach them that they have to be able to hold an adult conversation with the parents of their partner.

The male teenager has to know what the expectations of the parents are should their daughter become pregnant. When my future daughter becomes a certain age, you''d better believe Im going to have a man to man talk with her boyfriends. Not to scare them away, just to find out how much they care/know about her. Im no fool, I understand that hormones are involved largely. Im just going to make sure he realizes what the consequences are and that I raised my daughter to be more than a piece of ass.

When single parents stop churning out criminals and going on welfare

Thank you, Roe vs. Wade.

But, I don''t want to be a conservative.
I... I want to be...

A LUMBERJACK!

(piano vamp)

Leaping from tree to tree! As they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia! With my best girl by my side!
The Larch!
The Pine!
The Giant Redwood tree!
The Sequoia!
The Little Whopping Rule Tree!
We''d sing! Sing! Sing!

Oh, I''m a lumberjack, and I''m okay,
I sleep all night and I work all day.

Left, Right, Center, Up or down.
You should all stop fooling yourselves and become reformed krypto transcendental pragmatists like me.

Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!

-- illum MP for Bedlam and Broadmoor

Fnord?

[size=9]Thanks for reminding me, I need to get back to that one. I just *hate* reading books on a monitor though.[/size]

*Comes down with a terrible headache*

Ohh you really...really should by the Paperback... aww my poor head.

Possibly the best and worst book in the history of English literature...simultaneously.

Quote:
ralcydan wrote:
When single parents stop churning out criminals and going on welfare

Minase wrote:
Thank you, Roe vs. Wade.

No, thankyoufor one of the most offensive statements I have ever read. Hopefully that comment was either sarcastic or made completely without thought... because otherwise, the idea that we should be thankful that we are killing millions of black babies (which is the demographic the article is talking about) to keep them from growing up to be criminals is incredibly repugnant.

Thank you, Roe vs. Wade.

I think Ral summed it up nicely in the post above. So, does this mean that the new method for solving crime is not to repair the tattered structure of the black family, but instead to just kill all black people before they can grow up to be criminals?

That''s just messed up. I am glad that they were able to reach the conclusion that killing 30 million babies reduces the pool of potential criminals. Of course, it also reduced the pool of potential Nobel prize winners, scientists, soldiers, teachers, business owners, etc.

Reading the link might help.

Levitt and Donohue stress that their findings do not carry an endorsement of abortion. "We do not take a position on abortion, and the study was not undertaken as a study of abortion, but crime," said Levitt. "Neither is the study about race or class. Many studies have shown that children who are born unwanted have unsatisfactory outcomes, including involvement in crime."

Oh, and I have no problem with a woman choosing to remove a nonsentient mass of tissue. Whether a tumor from her breast or a lump of cells from her womb, I see them exactly the same way. If you want to make the ''potiental for life'' argument, I should be in trouble for the cruel slaughter of trillions of innocent sperm cells, and every woman who uses birth control or has a miscarriage should also be put away for killing those poor eggs and unviable fetuses.

"Minase" wrote:

Reading the link might help.

My issue ws with your post, not the article:

"Minase" wrote:

Thank you,Roe vs. Wade.

Oh, and I have no problem with a woman choosing to remove a nonsentient mass of tissue.

So once brain tissue develops, you are opposed to abortion?

I don''t really care for ''partial-birth'' abortions where the baby could be born prematurely and still live a normal life, unless the mothers life is in danger of course. I would think that you should probably have figured out that you were pregnant and done something about it by then.

When single parents stop churning out criminals and going on welfare

According to the study, you should thank Roe vs. Wade for giving single mothers the choice to stop ''churning out criminals''.

Here is another link that I''m sure you won''t like:

http://www.imnotsorry.net/

I''m still waiting for somebody to determine when sentience develops in the womb. Until then, I''m going to err on the side of caution and consider abortion to be immoral.

I''m still waiting for somebody to determine when sentience develops in the womb. Until then, I''m going to err on the side of caution and consider abortion to be immoral.

Same here.

Before my girlfriend and I took the step into physical intimacy in our relationship, we discussed the possible consequences. Because frankly, as others have pointed out, the only truly guaranteed birth control method is abstinence.

That said, we decided that if she gets pregnant, we will keep the child and raise it. Frankly, she''s the woman I intend to marry, and I don''t think I could otherwise take that step with her.

*edit* To qualify that statement, she was my first (and so far my only). I kept my virginity until the age of 25, and I''m proud of that. I hope my frankness doesn''t make anyone uncomfortable, I just figure that my own personal experience is incredibly relevant to this discussion.

Yeah, I''m one of those weirdos who doesn''t get uncomfortable talking about sexuality.

"Farscry" wrote:

I kept my virginity until the age of 25, and I''m proud of that.

You know, it''s worth more to collectors if it''s in its original packaging.

On a more serious note, we had to give abortion a hard second look when my wife and I became pregnant with our first: not because we didn''t want to become pregnant (we did) but we stepped through the various ""serious birth defect"" scenarios which came to mind.

It''s easy to be cavalier about it when you''re single or you already have a healthy child. If we had found, through ultrasound or other tests, that one of our children had severe mental disabilities, I don''t know if I could honestly say that I could adhere to my pro-life principles. The determining factor for us would be quality of life for our unborn child: is it the ""right"" thing to bring a kid into the world who really won''t have the faculties to take care of himself or perhaps even have a sense of self?

It''s that kind of thinking, when you''re lying in bed next to your pregnant wife (or, I suppose, if you''re the pregnant one) in the middle of the night that makes abortion such a nasty issue -- religious dogma notwithstanding.

I guess in the same sense that there are no athiests in foxholes, there are fewer anti-abortionists in pregnancies with serious complications.

Wait... this thread was about conservtiv... no.. laser humping... no wait... abortion?

Oh, right! It was about LOCKED!

As usual, start a new thread if you feel the need gents.