|
Post by karalee on Nov 21, 2003 2:17:02 GMT -5
Rob I am prime filet mignon, no 1/4er pounder, here; aged, yes, but nevertheless prime. YOU may call me Mary. I've always pronounce your name, m-ay-kd, in my head. I must be the only one.
|
|
|
Post by Becky H on Nov 21, 2003 4:02:56 GMT -5
Let me put this out there immediately before I wade in here: I am not Roman Catholic. In fact, I do not actively practice any organized religion. Still, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of faith as "irrational." I'd wager we all have faith in something, whether we realize it or not. Corny as it sounds, I believe in love. I choose to think that if one believes in love, they believe in some sort of God. I also believe when one dies they don't simply disappear into nothingness. Whatever made a person who they were fundamentally - that pesky"soul" thing - goes somewhere in my opinion. I sort of HAVE to believe that, otherwise all this earthly rubbish is meaningless. There is not one iota of science to back up the feelings I've just described...but they're strong and absolute within me nontheless. That certainly doesn't make them rational, but it does make them valid in a personal way...and in the end, that's all the validation a person should need. My point (there is one coming, I swear) is this: the right time to have sex might be influenced by external forces, such as religious doctrine and common sense real-world issues like pregnancy, venereal disease or the emotional risk that your partner may not view sex with the same relative importance. To me, though. it all boils down to how much faith you have in yourself AND the person you're about to do it with. Science and religion might enter into it when one is having a philosophical discussion, but everyone here is old enough to know how fast that goes flying out the window in the heat of the moment. Those kind of moments define people. God doesn't do it. Your parents don't do it. Scientific facts certainly don't do it. They definitely influence, but they don't make the decision. Only YOU can define you...and that is all about faith. Just not necessarily the religious kind. Might not be rational...but it is what it is. Hi, fellow S'cubies. I've been super busy with travelling and visitors the last few days and have only done some light skimming but this is such a great discussion, I had to jump in. I think this was a great post, Rob. It reminded me of two quotations that you might like as well: Reason is our soul's left hand, Faith is her right, By these we reach divinity. John Donne I take this to mean that we need both but, just as each soul is individual, so too must be the personal balance between reason and faith. La foi consiste à croire ce que la raison ne croit pas.(Faith consists of believing that which reason cannot). Voltaire Faith begins where reason ends? For me, that doesn't mean putting blind trust into a doctrine or dogma but rather recognizing that there are "stranger things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in [my] philosophy." And I can live with that. I haven't been watching and I'm trying not to know every detail of what's been going on but the Harmony-Spike posts reminded me of yet another quotation that might be food for discussion: Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point. The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. La Rochefoucauld Ellie, Len, makd, Anne D. - I liked a lot of the points you made about sexuality in your posts as well. What a great little intellectual salon we have going on here in cyberspace. And as Rachael said, we also spell really well
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Nov 21, 2003 5:08:22 GMT -5
[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.] My take has long been that that's a bunch more sociological hooey (not meaning to insult you here because...why on earth would the male and female the species have "primal" drives in direct conflict with each other (i.e., for one to have the drive to have lots of indiscriminate, unattached sex and the other to have the drive to *prevent* the other from having lots of indiscriminate, unattached sex)? Oh, wait! The latter is what most of the *males* of *other* species do! LOL! S
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Nov 21, 2003 5:16:30 GMT -5
Agreed, for the most part. I often wish I didn't have the emotional hang-ups associated with sex - I love it, but only with the right person. Who that person is seems to be entirely dependent on factors I don't understand - until after I figure out they are the latest "one". And they don't come around that often; I often wish that I was able to have that connection and the fun associated with it in a less serious context. Okay, enough wallowing. More cookies! ;D ("M'fashnik. . .kind of like mmm-cookies. No, quite different, actually.") Be who you are, Rachael; don't wish you were different. You need what you need and that's not a bad thing. I can't hang around and socialize and be friends with someone I dont have an emotional attachment to (respect, fondness, appreciation of *some* sort) so why should it be different with sex? S <edit> Mind you, that makes it sound like I would have sex with any of my friends...And now that I think about it, there are a couple who...
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Nov 21, 2003 5:34:26 GMT -5
I also believe when one dies they don't simply disappear into nothingness. Whatever made a person who they were fundamentally - that pesky"soul" thing - goes somewhere in my opinion. I sort of HAVE to believe that, otherwise all this earthly rubbish is meaningless. I love this (I mean, that we can talk about these things and it's...perfectly fine LOL!) Oddly enough, my take is and always has been completely opposite. I try to live my life as if there is nothing other than this world we're in now. I don't live as though this is the qualifying run for a place in eternity; if I did, I would feel that "all this earthly rubbish is meaningless". For me, this is IT. When we're done, we're done, so now is the time to get it right; there won't be another chance. It doesn't matter to me whether there is or there isn't something else besides pushing up daisies when we die. Which, when I think about it, I find it comforting, being ultimately connected with the cycle of life, whether we "know" it for eternity or just for the few moments we're alive. Everybody has to have something that gets them through their day. Shanno
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Nov 21, 2003 5:36:36 GMT -5
Too much talk of religion and sex not involving Spike. Hot-button topics on which consensus is unlikely and therefore prone to rants. To be used only in moderation. Thud. [glow=red,15,300]Spike is a sex god![/glow] On topic enough for you now?
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Nov 21, 2003 5:54:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Nov 21, 2003 6:38:57 GMT -5
makd! OMG![glow=green,2,300]Riverdance![/glow]
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 6:40:41 GMT -5
One of the drawbacks if you will to being a Technopagan, if I post in a closed section, I don't get the announcement "Hey dummy, you can't post here". It lets me post anyway, which in the surface reads like a good thing, except who is reading the closed sections? So here is a thought I posted in Part 71 before seeing that Part 72 had been openned -- I agree - that's how it is. Personally, I think it goes back again to the whole sexist society thing which makes a woman feel guilty for being "slutty" if she just wants to enjoy her body like a man would. In order to avoid this feeling, I think many women convince themselves that there are emotions there, even when there are not - and that there SHOULD be emotion there (otherwise, why would society be condemning them simply for enjoying themselves?). This is the message women in our society get from birth - and I think it REALLY screws them up sexually/psychologically (IMHO here only) - causes tons of guilt when none should be felt - takes away from their enjoyment of an act which should be pleasurable (i.e. you're not "supposed" to be having sex w/o emotion, so you can't enjoy it when you do). AND, worst of all (well, not worst, but still...) it also makes it tougher for guys to get laid! I have good news (and no, I didn't switch my car insurance to GEICO, thanks for asking). In my experience, women are more and more starting to let go of that old stigma and just allow themselves to be sexual beings as much as guys; "slut" seems to be losing it's place in the English vocabulary. I know for me personally, lately it seems that sex is entering the equation much, much sooner than it used to (in a couple of instances, by the first or second date). So there is hope.
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Nov 21, 2003 7:05:44 GMT -5
Hey! "Forrest" (Leonard Roberts) is in tonight's episode! He seems to be the bad guy, which on this show means he's probably not! Hey! I finally got to see Tru Calling. Not bad. Not Joss... But not bad!
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Nov 21, 2003 7:08:18 GMT -5
To me this is a fascinating topic- I guess b/c I don't feel there IS any one right answer. What I as a parent want for my children is a magical connection that will sustain and last them for the duration of their relationships. How they come to that particular relationship ...that one is a conundrum...I see so many wonderful relationships that have had any number of beginnings. Some...have felt that the magic was due to waiting for marriage and the 1 right person. Others whose relationships are just as tight feel that they personally needed the period of experimentation to figure out who they were and how they wanted to commit to a person and a lifelong relationship. Some people regret all of their prior relationships- or they regret just one... some people regret that they did not bring more experience to their first consummated relationship. It all depends. Today's hypersexualized environment renders this a hot button topic for any sexually active person or parent endeavoring to raise morally responsible children. Two women in the park came to a parting of the ways b/c one objected to the other's giving her 7 year old a Britney birthday bash. Issues of exploitation vs nurturing vs a good time always engender complicated answers and that is as true of the response of the 2 moms at loggerheads over Britney-bash as the response of our board to Spike boinking Harmony- Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Nov 21, 2003 7:09:51 GMT -5
I have good news (and no, I didn't switch my car insurance to GEICO, thanks for asking). In my experience, women are more and more starting to let go of that old stigma and just allow themselves to be sexual beings as much as guys; "slut" seems to be losing it's place in the English vocabulary. I know for me personally, lately it seems that sex is entering the equation much, much sooner than it used to (in a couple of instances, by the first or second date). So there is hope. So you find this hopeful, not confusing...or...I don't know. Just wondering... S
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 7:10:43 GMT -5
Hey! I finally got to see Tru Calling. Not bad. Not Joss... But not bad! The early responses to Tru Calling have been mixed at best, so I've not been watching -- I'm simply afraid of becoming attached and having Fox do to it what they did to Firefly, which wasn't pretty at all. Besides, part of me is sort of hoping it will fail miserably, just because I want Faith back in her own series. Sorry Eliza -- nothing personal. I just miss Faith.
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Nov 21, 2003 7:32:24 GMT -5
I return to the living room to find Spike, my adorable yet vicious little tabby, who not five minutes ago I chased away from my freshly-baked cookies, sprawled across the warm spot I left on the couch, looking like he owns the place. I love cats. ;D Cats are wonderful creatures. I love being in the middle of the endless war of wits and determination (read: stubborness) between my cat and my Englishman. We've all lived together for 10 years. Neither of them has yielded an inch! Neither is one iota closer to understanding the other since the day the big furball brought home the little furball. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Nov 21, 2003 7:43:08 GMT -5
The early responses to Tru Calling have been mixed at best, so I've not been watching -- I'm simply afraid of becoming attached and having Fox do to it what they did to Firefly, which wasn't pretty at all. Besides, part of me is sort of hoping it will fail miserably, just because I want Faith back in her own series. Sorry Eliza -- nothing personal. I just miss Faith. I understand and agree with you. Every time someone called Eliza "Tru" I kept wondering 'who?' That's Faith. Right? Oh, no. It confused me a lot. Husband, who doesn't like American TV (except for Law & Order) watched grumpily at first and then with growing interest. He didn't respond when I told him how pretty I think ED is (this may be normal male response, fearing subsequent jealous outburst from one's mate.) However, by the end he was somewhat caught up in the story. ED needs to go back to Joss for a show worthy of her. A roundup of a few BTVS alumni plus a cast of new, interesting characters and "Faith, the Vampire Slayer" could be off and running. In Cleveland.
|
|