It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is sex wrong?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Sex is far from being wrong in my faith, in fact, the concept of the Union of male and female is almost central.

Sex is only wrong when destructive and not life affirming. Various sex acts, in my opinion, are not wrong.

Sex with kids and animals is wrong, as is rape, but other than that, my own faith does not reject same sex acts.

Personally, however, I find things like multiple partner relations, group sex, promiscuity, one night stands, and infidelity, are personal sins to me, because they are destructive, degrading, and lessen a persons self worth and esteem.




posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp




So in my opinion, sex is totally up to the individual. Do what makes you happy.


I like eating hamburgers. I want to eat one harburger every one hour. It makes me happy. Shall I do it?

Of course not, but that illustrates my point perfectly.

The point with sex is the same with drugs: it is so addictive, there is no stopping. Once you get pleasure, you can't stop. You always thing about it. For 99%, it is the thing mostly thought about in the course of the day.




Read my quote again, dude.
Do what makes you happy.

It might suprise you that there are a helluva lot of people that don't feel the way you do about sex. There are many, many people out there who enjoy sex but don't find it addictive. In fact I would say that the majority enjoy sex and a lot of people are looking for it, but there are few who are actually addicted in the terms that you seem to be applying. Just because you enjoy something a lot does not mean that you are addicted. An addict tends to have to go and get his fix any way that he can. Drug dealers commit crimes to get their drugs if they can't easily get them, and sex addicts aren't much different, but I don't see the world full of rapists. An addict is somebody who is not able to live his life in a normal way without his daily fix and his life therefore becomes unmanageable. Look at statistics throughout the world and you will see that the vast majority of people don't feel like or don't have the time for sex for long periods of time and they certainly are able to function without. That's no to say that there aren't sexual addicts out there, but it doesn't mean that people who partake can all be branded with that tag.

You like eating hamburgers. But you recognise that if you eat to many hamburgers you will get ill. What's so different about sex in that people can't make a recognition with it? And we'll not even mention the fact that sex doesn't make you ill (I'm not talking about STDs or AIDS here) and that it's a bit of a weak comparison.

What you seem to have done here is place your own experience with sex and lump everyone else in under the same bracket. You have to realise that there are billions of people out there who don't always think about it and don't always want it (my wife for one
). There are billions of people who see sex as part of an enjoyable life. There are billions of people who can take it or leave it at will. There are billions of people who are able to find a place for sex and live healthy lives.

The majorly upsetting thing about sex is that the rules handed down to our societies have been defined by those who have known least about it and were the most uncomfortable about it. And because they couldn't handle it, the rest of the normal world has had to suffer.

[edit on 9-1-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
no sex isnt wrong ....it just sounds like someone doesn't want you to reproduce .............



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The church doesn't want any of us "sexuall iberals" walking around for one simple reason: control. Alright now don't stop reading now because I osund like some paranoid...its true. By claiming that the spiritual world is the only world one should focus on and basically demonizing the physicial body, the church clamps down on individualism through expression. Thus, in a desperate attempt to seperate onesself from the mass of followers, a soul becomes corrupt (better bad than the same, right?). While some claim that society makes us and we make society, the PERCEPTION of what society has made is all our own. Why doesn't the church want us doing anything out of its boundaires with our physical bodies? The perception of the act being good or bad is only an individual opinion. Thus, if we have the power to judge ourselves, the gorup has lost power to take judgement away from us. CONTROL.

They preach to fornicate ONLY tohave children, and if you recieve any pleasure from the act, you have sinned, because pleasure is a feeling of the physical world- the world they cannot control.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
"The church doesn't want any of us "sexuall iberals" walking around for one simple reason: control"

simple, clean, elegant and the truth.

It is a tragedy that people are taught sex is a sin. Its a gift, one to be enjoyed with the love in your life. There are so many confused religious dogmas and doctrines it is Sad.

I had a conversation once with a Church leader that refused to believe jesus would need to have his diaper changed. Its a bit silly, but underlines the mind frame present. This person lives in a constant state of denial.

it is control, control of your mind, your guilt, your state of Being. God sets you free, and organized religions try to bind you in ridiculous doctrines that are in conflict with the Truth. The deeper you study what was actually taught, the sillier religious leaders become.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Toolmaker and Lady V - you two have given this thread what few redeeming qualities it has. I applaud you both!

As a Pagan Unitarian and lesbian, my blood has boiled more than once while reading this thread. Unlike some of the posters here (you know who you are) I have good reading comprehension skills. This "non-breeding homo-who-doesn't-require-penetration-during-sex" has read the original question and will answer it now.

As a Pagan, sex to me is is spiritual act. Anything that renders sex "unspiritual" is unacceptable: sex with animals, sex with children, sex that is harmful, sex that is meaningless, sex between strangers, etc. I would think that these would be pretty common guidelines.

I would love to hear from those with other faiths who also have good reading skills. Are my "common guidelines" really fairly common or not?

[edit on 14-1-2005 by wellwhatnow]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   


You also never said that it doesn't. I am not sure that society requires it, but yes the moral obligations of marriage do require it's partners to nuture and nourish their relationship.


The moral obligations you refer to play a great psychological role. That's why it's the woman that usually wants to go through the ceremony of marriage, in order to make the man feel the moral obligations more (and thus the woman feels safer).



However, sexual love itself, is not the privilege of marriage, but a natural emotion we feel for others. So it is erronous to say that love can only exist within the institution of marriage. As we know both statistically and psychologically that the institution of marriage is not a bond of love, but a bond of commitment.




In fact, statistically, love marriages are more unsuccesful than arranged marriages.


Sure, I am not a support of marriage (or no marriage). In fact, I don't care, because for me, it's only feelings that count. But for those people that can't restrict their instincts (read: 99% of them), marriage is important.



No you don't. How are your emotions, desires and urges connected to a legally binding contract? The act of marriage is a social ritual. The act of sex is a human ritual.


Marriage makes you feel more secure, and therefore easier to show your bad side. A little fear is necessary. That's why, as you said above, that many successful relationships are not within marriage.



How can masturbation be anti-social if 95% of men and 80% of women masturbate? Further, what does masturbation have to do with society and how you contribute to it? It's is an act of self-pleasure.


I said 'extreme masturbation'. There are people, especially men, that don't care about approaching a woman, because they can masturbate to porn. They substitute reality with fantasy, with all shorts of consequences. Usually these guys are geeks. I am a programmer and know many of them.



If you are going to give your partner pleasure, it's a good idea, to know how to give yourself pleasure.


Women have totally different needs than men.



Further, studies have shown suppressing your sexuality can lead to sexual dysfunctions. How do you suppose one abstains from acts of sexuality before marriage? You either use it or lose it. In todays culture the age for marriage is late 20's or 30's. Your sexual peak is the early 20's. So, again, if you don't use it in at your peak of youth, you will lose that experience.


Ah, I couldn't agree more with that. But I talked about getting carried away. Roman and Vyzantine orgies anyone? they went hand-in-hand with backstabbings, sibling murders, betrayals, etc.



If your partner masturbates you for you, it becomes right or wrong according to your doctrine?


When one masturbates, he/she musturbates for someone else, i.e. thinking of someone else. I said extreme masturbation.



It might suprise you that there are a helluva lot of people that don't feel the way you do about sex. There are many, many people out there who enjoy sex but don't find it addictive. In fact I would say that the majority enjoy sex and a lot of people are looking for it, but there are few who are actually addicted in the terms that you seem to be applying. Just because you enjoy something a lot does not mean that you are addicted. An addict tends to have to go and get his fix any way that he can.


Ok, let's say that sex is not addictive. Can you stay away from it, let's say, one month? one year? ten years?

Do I hear a big NO?

So sex is addictive as well; it just does not have the rate drugs do.

My ex-girlfriend was saying that sex is for her like food: she can stay away from it for some days, but after that, she can't.



Look at statistics throughout the world and you will see that the vast majority of people don't feel like or don't have the time for sex for long periods of time and they certainly are able to function without.


But their minds always revolves around sex, isn't it so? and they can always 'relieve' themselves in other ways.



You like eating hamburgers. But you recognise that if you eat to many hamburgers you will get ill. What's so different about sex in that people can't make a recognition with it? And we'll not even mention the fact that sex doesn't make you ill (I'm not talking about STDs or AIDS here) and that it's a bit of a weak comparison.


Too much sex can make a person lustful just like too much food can make a person fat. And lustfulness is dangerous.



What you seem to have done here is place your own experience with sex and lump everyone else in under the same bracket. You have to realise that there are billions of people out there who don't always think about it and don't always want it (my wife for one
). There are billions of people who see sex as part of an enjoyable life. There are billions of people who can take it or leave it at will. There are billions of people who are able to find a place for sex and live healthy lives.


I said 'too much sex is dangerous because it can be addictive', I did not say 'sex is dangerous'.

When one reads posts, he/she must read the full set of words, not pick up some random quotes. The meaning can be altered.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join