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.
Originally posted by tovenar
Originally posted by albertabound
This really confuses me. Sex is not a "desire", it is a necessary biological function.
Don't make the freshman's mistake of confusing your own culture with biology.
There exists a people of the Amazon who employ shamans to protect their communities. They believe that one of the requirements for becoming a shaman is to abstain from orgasm for a year. More progress is made, until the candidate develops what Westerners would call "psychic powers."
Interestingly, the possessors of strange powers in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism were all known for practicing abstinence. The folks who could miraculously heal others, or know what is taking place at a great distance, or even seem to levitate off the ground while in a state of ecstacy---all of them practiced sexual self-denial.
What could that possibly mean?
Originally posted by Freeborn
If sex is so bad, as many overtly religious people will have us believe, and God is so perfect, why did 'he' make it so enjoyable?......Or is it another one of his 'tests'?
Originally posted by tovenar
Originally posted by albertabound
This really confuses me. Sex is not a "desire", it is a necessary biological function.
Don't make the freshman's mistake of confusing your own culture with biology.
There exists a people of the Amazon who employ shamans to protect their communities. They believe that one of the requirements for becoming a shaman is to abstain from orgasm for a year. More progress is made, until the candidate develops what Westerners would call "psychic powers."
Interestingly, the possessors of strange powers in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism were all known for practicing abstinence. The folks who could miraculously heal others, or know what is taking place at a great distance, or even seem to levitate off the ground while in a state of ecstacy---all of them practiced sexual self-denial.
What could that possibly mean?
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
As to the first part, since these laws are based upon integrety and respect of persons 'affected' by the "no sex outside of marriage taboo" I am uncertain how you determine the rightfulness or wrongfulness of this particular taboo, compared to say murder. Sex outside of marriage is and can be very injurous to parties other than yourself, so in effect all you can say with certainty is that within yourself you have yet to see any "harm" from breaking this particular taboo as opposed to other possible injurous taboos, like that of murder.
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
We see daily in America the injuries to children, to families, to communities, and society at large caused by the regular breaking of this particular taboo, one which some appear to believe my tax dollars should be paying for the indulgences of others where concerns this particular taboo.
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
That said, it is not my business nor my concern what others do, so long as they do not expect me to pay for it, no matter how round about that way might be. I however, have the higher intelligence to understand, some taboos, although may appear at first glance not to cause any "harm", just might in fact be the most harmful of all acts, to everyone, not only those involved.
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by OpinionatedB
I'll post when and how I want, whilst ensuring to remain within T&C, and certainly not in accordance with you or anyone else's wishes.
If you choose to reply then that is entirely up to you - I have no problem either way.
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by OpinionatedB
I can be a cantankerous old misery guts at times.
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
I am blaming the cart for the horse? How so? Permiscuity...
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
In your society what is best for society is not taken into consideration, I do get that, but you also cannot knock those societies who do take what is best for all into consideration, rather than only what you percieve as best for you as an individual.
Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
I am blaming the cart for the horse? How so? Permiscuity...
This is where you are missing it. You are so conditioned to go straight from non-monogamy to promiscuity, disease, and bastard children.
Just because a person isn't monogamous doesn't mean they are promiscuous, diseased, or having unwanted children. That is caused by people not being responsible. The same thing as if they were irresponsible with hazardous waste.
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
In your society what is best for society is not taken into consideration, I do get that, but you also cannot knock those societies who do take what is best for all into consideration, rather than only what you percieve as best for you as an individual.
So if you as a monogamous person lived in a culture which required you to have 3 wives because the balance of men to women is 1/3... you would do this even if it caused you emotional distress and discomfort and ultimately led to you resenting two of the wives and leaving them broken and shattered?
I'm absolutely taking what is best for society into consideration, though I understand why you can't see it yet.
You are making an *assumption* about what is best for society based on a very limited data set. You aren't looking at the bigger picture and thinking about this from the perspective of if YOU were the one trapped in a society with taboos that don't work for you how you would feel.
Namaste.edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
My 'limited date set" is from these countries which see sexual promiscuity...