|
Post by Karen on Nov 21, 2003 0:08:50 GMT -5
I think being fixated on the sex between Spike!Harmony is a good thing. It was a very powerful visual that was used to illustrate - what? That sex for it's own gradification has consequences? I'm not judging anyone's morals, just commenting on why the scene was so disturbing to most of us in one way or another. I just watched the episode again, and Spike had such a look of pain on his face. Harmony too. Two beings trying to connect and failing. Sex is a powerful weapon also. Look how Angelus used it to put William in his place. And all the angry word play between Angel and Spike about Buffy when they fought. I don't know what I'm trying to say here. Just rambling when I should be sleeping. I probably shouldn't have watched Destiny again so close to bedtime. So if desire bends reality, will the desire to drink from the cup of torment have the same effect on Spike and Angel as if it were real and not just a plant by EveL? It seems that Angel was tormented by Spike drinking, but Spike drank and doesn't seem to be affected by the Mountain Dew. He went out to get drunk at the end of the day. Angel had a heart to heart with Gunn. Did you notice that in almost every episode someone asks Angel how he is doing. And he always answers - "I don't know".? I enjoyed all the heart to hearts today. I can't really comment on the right or wrong of sex before marriage, etc. Married 30 years to my "first" and only. Boring, huh? I say to each his own. Ellie - wonderful wish for your kids. I think I'll adopt your sentiment for mine if you don't mind. Sorry for the long rambling post. Nan - good luck with the job hunting. And with the review. And you N'ubies rock! Glad you're aboard the S'cubie train. Always nice to have new blood.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 0:08:55 GMT -5
This might be a dead issue...back from the old segment, but I was away, and thought I'd respond anyway, answering a few different people in general, and Nicki in particular.... [hops of sexual soapbox] [sexual soapbox s'cubie? nahhhh ] Yeah; it'd be like Dave's dog, sh*thead - you'd have to explain it for the rest of your life. Good conversation starter, though. Did you even *notice* that I watched Enterprise last night, what with all the hullaballo over that Angel show?
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 21, 2003 0:14:52 GMT -5
This might be a dead issue...back from the old segment, but I was away, and thought I'd respond anyway, answering a few different people in general, and Nicki in particular.... I said: Nicki said: and then she said: Treading verrrry carefully here, in NO way wanting to insult.. ....Your response to my post really seems to me to boil down to: "waiting is good because I know some women who didn't wait and they regret it" and "waiting is good because God said so." I can't really speak to the second reason - God also said don't wear linen and wool, homosexuality is an abomination, and don't work on the sabbath. I see nothing wrong with weraing linen and wool, homosexuality, or working on the sabbath (although I HATE doing it! ). If you believe God wants you to wait, that's a matter of personal religious belief - not one of reason - and I can't respond to it. With respect to the first reason - that's wholly consistent with my theory that society beats up women for just enjoying their bodies sexually. You don't say WHY these women regretted "giving it up." Did they feel cheapened by having sex just for having sex? Why on earth would they feel that way? I look at the whole "waiting for marriage thing" as something I just cannot understand. God (as I see him/her/it) gave us this wonderful gift of bodies that can experience such pleasure - pleasure we can share with others and ourselves. To let that gift lay fallow for years and years on the hope that some day (a day which may never come), Mr. Right will be met and marriage will ensue does not make sense to me (which of course, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense!). I wonder how many women who waited for years and years and subsequently got divorced 3 years later are "happy" they waited? [As an aside, on top of that, I think the whole "there has to be love for sex" thing messes women up because it gives them conflicting signals. There is a natural urge toward sex and then there's this societal urge toward attaching it to love (which I suppose originated way back in primal times as a way to protect pregnant women - i.e. if the meotional link is there, the impregnator will protect his mate and the species will continue to propagate). I think that this is in many ways a recipe for disaster - i.e. instead of being able to evaluate potential Mr. Right's in a reasonable way (which includes emotions of course), the issue is clouded by sexual urges. i.e. if the only way you're going to satisfy that sexual urge is to convince yourself that there is emotional attachment, you're going to be much more likely to convince yourself that emotional attachment is there.] Well..I think I'm getting all rambly..and it's late..but that ny 2.22 on the issue! (a personal hot button, in case you didn't notice! ) [hops of sexual soapbox] [sexual soapbox s'cubie? nahhhh ] S'exy S'cubie? Great post len. Sorry I don't have more to add, I'm a little more brain dead than usual.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 21, 2003 0:16:47 GMT -5
This might be a dead issue...back from the old segment, but I was away, and thought I'd respond anyway, answering a few different people in general, and Nicki in particular.... I said: Nicki said: and then she said: Treading verrrry carefully here, in NO way wanting to insult.. ....Your response to my post really seems to me to boil down to: "waiting is good because I know some women who didn't wait and they regret it" and "waiting is good because God said so." I can't really speak to the second reason - God also said don't wear linen and wool, homosexuality is an abomination, and don't work on the sabbath. I see nothing wrong with weraing linen and wool, homosexuality, or working on the sabbath (although I HATE doing it! ). If you believe God wants you to wait, that's a matter of personal religious belief - not one of reason - and I can't respond to it. With respect to the first reason - that's wholly consistent with my theory that society beats up women for just enjoying their bodies sexually. You don't say WHY these women regretted "giving it up." Did they feel cheapened by having sex just for having sex? Why on earth would they feel that way? I look at the whole "waiting for marriage thing" as something I just cannot understand. God (as I see him/her/it) gave us this wonderful gift of bodies that can experience such pleasure - pleasure we can share with others and ourselves. To let that gift lay fallow for years and years on the hope that some day (a day which may never come), Mr. Right will be met and marriage will ensue does not make sense to me (which of course, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense!). I wonder how many women who waited for years and years and subsequently got divorced 3 years later are "happy" they waited? [As an aside, on top of that, I think the whole "there has to be love for sex" thing messes women up because it gives them conflicting signals. There is a natural urge toward sex and then there's this societal urge toward attaching it to love (which I suppose originated way back in primal times as a way to protect pregnant women - i.e. if the meotional link is there, the impregnator will protect his mate and the species will continue to propagate). I think that this is in many ways a recipe for disaster - i.e. instead of being able to evaluate potential Mr. Right's in a reasonable way (which includes emotions of course), the issue is clouded by sexual urges. i.e. if the only way you're going to satisfy that sexual urge is to convince yourself that there is emotional attachment, you're going to be much more likely to convince yourself that emotional attachment is there.] Well..I think I'm getting all rambly..and it's late..but that ny 2.22 on the issue! (a personal hot button, in case you didn't notice! ) [hops of sexual soapbox] [sexual soapbox s'cubie? nahhhh ] ctowner1, please check your IMs. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 21, 2003 0:19:15 GMT -5
what the Angel schedule? Anyone know what the new/rerun deal is for the next few weeks? no episode next week for sure. Not sure how many left before the usual break At least 2, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Nov 21, 2003 0:19:29 GMT -5
<snip>If you believe God wants you to wait, that's a matter of personal religious belief - not one of reason - and I can't respond to it. Groan. I really wish you hadn't re-started this discussion AT MIDNIGHT because I really do have to go (and I really will be off the board probably until this time tomorrow (or is that Saturday?)).
Your only point that I want to address right now is the implication that "religious beliefs" by definition have no basis in logical reasoning. In fact, the Roman Catholic theology on the meaning and import of human sexuality does logically flow from a fundamental premise of belief. And I promise, if anyone really wants to know, IM me, and we can discuss this off the board.
But for now to analogize -- it's kind of like written a mathematical proof -- you start with a couple of "givens" -- you don't argue with the "givens," they're your starting points -- and then, if you follow each one through to its conclusion, you end up with a result. You may not like the result, or you may not agree with the result, but if you're honest about what logically comes next, well, that's what it is.
Or, if you don't like that analogy -- it's kinda like trying to pick the NCAA winner from the field of 64 (65?). You could just go right to the team that you want to end up as the winner, and then do the brackets "backwards" and decide which team you think will win. But if you're being objective about the whole thing, then you start with each of the first round brackets, give your honest answer as to which team you think will when each round, and go from there. And some years, that means that your sentimental favorite gets tossed out somewhere in the Elite Eight.
Neither of these analogies is perfect, and certainly none of them will satisfy people who believe other than as I do. And I'm not trying to convince anyone here that he/she should believe as I do. Just that no one here should make the mistake of saying that Catholic theology doesn't have an intellectual reason for its beliefs on human sexuality. It does. I'm not asking you to agree with it -- just don't say it's not there.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 21, 2003 0:19:34 GMT -5
I enjoyed all the heart to hearts today. I can't really comment on the right or wrong of sex before marriage, etc. Married 30 years to my "first" and only. Boring, huh? I say to each his own. I say I envy you sooo much.
|
|
|
Post by makd on Nov 21, 2003 0:21:29 GMT -5
This might be a dead issue...back from the old segment, but I was away, and thought I'd respond anyway, answering a few different people in general, and Nicki in particular.... I said: Nicki said: and then she said: Treading verrrry carefully here, in NO way wanting to insult.. ....Your response to my post really seems to me to boil down to: "waiting is good because I know some women who didn't wait and they regret it" and "waiting is good because God said so." I can't really speak to the second reason - God also said don't wear linen and wool, homosexuality is an abomination, and don't work on the sabbath. I see nothing wrong with weraing linen and wool, homosexuality, or working on the sabbath (although I HATE doing it! ). If you believe God wants you to wait, that's a matter of personal religious belief - not one of reason - and I can't respond to it. With respect to the first reason - that's wholly consistent with my theory that society beats up women for just enjoying their bodies sexually. You don't say WHY these women regretted "giving it up." Did they feel cheapened by having sex just for having sex? Why on earth would they feel that way? I look at the whole "waiting for marriage thing" as something I just cannot understand. God (as I see him/her/it) gave us this wonderful gift of bodies that can experience such pleasure - pleasure we can share with others and ourselves. To let that gift lay fallow for years and years on the hope that some day (a day which may never come), Mr. Right will be met and marriage will ensue does not make sense to me (which of course, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense!). I wonder how many women who waited for years and years and subsequently got divorced 3 years later are "happy" they waited? [As an aside, on top of that, I think the whole "there has to be love for sex" thing messes women up because it gives them conflicting signals. There is a natural urge toward sex and then there's this societal urge toward attaching it to love (which I suppose originated way back in primal times as a way to protect pregnant women - i.e. if the meotional link is there, the impregnator will protect his mate and the species will continue to propagate). I think that this is in many ways a recipe for disaster - i.e. instead of being able to evaluate potential Mr. Right's in a reasonable way (which includes emotions of course), the issue is clouded by sexual urges. i.e. if the only way you're going to satisfy that sexual urge is to convince yourself that there is emotional attachment, you're going to be much more likely to convince yourself that emotional attachment is there.] Well..I think I'm getting all rambly..and it's late..but that ny 2.22 on the issue! (a personal hot button, in case you didn't notice! ) [hops of sexual soapbox] [sexual soapbox s'cubie? nahhhh ] Right there with you, Scooter. Len, we are in agreement. Incidentally, I've been teaching marriage and family for well over 25 years. I've aged to the point where I sometimes think of myself (when teaching about love, sex, and etc.) as a younger, hipper (therefore, not hip, right?) Dr. Ruth. My observation after all these years? We really do bollix it up with our young people, and I can do a 20 page rant on the hypocrisy our society spews out that effectively separates men and women, leaving them boxed, sealed and ribboned, disconnected, separated, and lonely. I'm not gonna get into an argument on differing morality and different ethics related to sexuality. I will say that, IMHO, sexuality and sex are Goddess-given gifts that enable us to reach out, span the distance between our cores (our souls), and quell the inner loneliness. It's also a Goddess-given gift that enables us (responsibly, I would hope) to have fun and to enjoy a romp and our bodies. So, it's both, and it's so much more. Our decision to use the gift is personal, religious, socially-influenced, spiritual, etc. I don't respect anyone less or more because of their sexual choices, values, or opinions. I do, however, respect/not respect someone if they don't exercise responsibility in their sexuality. Just me. Just sharing on this most intimate of issues.
|
|
|
Post by makd on Nov 21, 2003 0:22:36 GMT -5
what the Angel schedule? Anyone know what the new/rerun deal is for the next few weeks? www.hellmouthcentral.com runs a daily update, that includes episode times and titles. It's usually accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Len on Nov 21, 2003 0:23:14 GMT -5
Yeah; it'd be like Dave's dog, sh*thead - you'd have to explain it for the rest of your life. Good conversation starter, though. Did you even *notice* that I watched Enterprise last night, what with all the hullaballo over that Angel show? no!! I didn't see your post! I haven't watched it yet (on tape) - was it good? Did you enjoy it?? When did you post about it??
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 21, 2003 0:26:22 GMT -5
I was out most of the afternoon getting registered with yet another temp agency (CBS). That involved quite a lot of testing on a computer (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.) and I'm utterly brain dead at the moment. I doubt very much I'll be able to do the review tonight. By noon tomorrow is about the best I can do, I think. At least next week is a "bye" with no episode. Maybe I'll have time to get rested and brain-alert 2 weeks hence (if we're not into dreaded reruns at that point). I beg the collective pardon of the S'cubies for not being up to making the 24 hour deadline this time. Alas, life happens. 'Tis unnecessary to beg our collective pardons, Nan. What you were doing was much more important.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 21, 2003 0:28:21 GMT -5
I say I envy you sooo much. Ahhh, thanks. I didn't mean to imply 30 yrs has always been a bed of roses and cause anyone feelings of envy. Lots of thorns scattered around. Like a rollercoaster ride that sometimes you'd like to stop. Sometimes I long to be on my own - my own person, to answer to no one. Selfish? You bet. I envy all you single people and your freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Len on Nov 21, 2003 0:28:37 GMT -5
Groan. I really wish you hadn't re-started this discussion AT MIDNIGHT because I really do have to go (and I really will be off the board probably until this time tomorrow (or is that Saturday?)).
Your only point that I want to address right now is the implication that "religious beliefs" by definition have no basis in logical reasoning. In fact, the Roman Catholic theology on the meaning and import of human sexuality does logically flow from a fundamental premise of belief. And I promise, if anyone really wants to know, IM me, and we can discuss this off the board.
But for now to analogize -- it's kind of like written a mathematical proof -- you start with a couple of "givens" -- you don't argue with the "givens," they're your starting points -- and then, if you follow each one through to its conclusion, you end up with a result. You may not like the result, or you may not agree with the result, but if you're honest about what logically comes next, well, that's what it is.
Or, if you don't like that analogy -- it's kinda like trying to pick the NCAA winner from the field of 64 (65?). You could just go right to the team that you want to end up as the winner, and then do the brackets "backwards" and decide which team you think will win. But if you're being objective about the whole thing, then you start with each of the first round brackets, give your honest answer as to which team you think will when each round, and go from there. And some years, that means that your sentimental favorite gets tossed out somewhere in the Elite Eight.
Neither of these analogies is perfect, and certainly none of them will satisfy people who believe other than as I do. And I'm not trying to convince anyone here that he/she should believe as I do. Just that no one here should make the mistake of saying that Catholic theology doesn't have an intellectual reason for its beliefs on human sexuality. It does. I'm not asking you to agree with it -- just don't say it's not there. I thought it's "because God says it's wrong" - that's not the reason why catholics believe premarital sex is a sin? That's not a matter of logic - it's a matter of faith. I'm not saying that it's bad to do something solely on faith - only that it should be acknowledged when that is the reason. Are you saying there's an ADDITIONAL reason why catholics in particular don't have premarital sex? A rational reason? What is it?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 0:34:18 GMT -5
no!! I didn't see your post! I haven't watched it yet (on tape) - was it good? Did you enjoy it?? When did you post about it?? Okay, so it's early on in part 71 from last night - around 1:00 a.m. EST. Don't read it until you've seen the episode - it's a bit spoilery. It was good (waits for the dropped jaw to un-drop), actually. I'm curious to see your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 21, 2003 0:35:25 GMT -5
I thought it's "because God says it's wrong" - that's not the reason why catholics believe premarital sex is a sin? That's not a matter of logic - it's a matter of faith. I'm not saying that it's bad to do something solely on faith - only that it should eb acknowledged when that os the reason. Are you saying there's an ADDITIONAL reason why catholics in particular don't have premarital sex? A rational reason? What is it? I don't know about Laura, but I (raised a Catholic) was taught that premarital sex was just wrong. Ticket to hell. I saw a lot of my friends get pregnant because they wouldn't use birth control because it was a sin in the eyes of the church. Birthcontrol is a major bone of contention among the congregation and I would say the majority of women, in the privacy of their own homes, commit that sin on a daily basis. It takes a very strong woman of faith to adhere to the strict teachings of the church.
|
|