Religion and sex

Post Reply New Topic

I don't believe that she's reached infallibility yet.
I can declare it, for some things.


I always wanted to be a priest.
At least once I could look the part.

Allow me my little fantasies, will you?

No, of course she's not infallible (who is)? But she's a friend, and I enjoy and appreciate it when she backs me up on something, especially when I'm not necessarily expecting her to do so. The little things in life tend to provide me with the most happiness.

Good fortune,

- Icarus is Infallible

dddhgg

Don't worry virginity can be cured. Virgins are highly over rated, by the way. Give me someone that has a bit of practice any day. That can be fixed too.

When you see the facial changes of your lover in the dim light. You see the old her, the young her, the current her, it is a wonderment to gaze upon. That what you do or don't do can find uncontrollable responses in another is wonderful. To receive it is nice too. Trust is pretty cool thing to have, you can do things that can boarder on the fantasy and no worries. In other words it can be a lot of fun, I don't get the same thrill pissin in the sink. Although some might find that a fun thing as well.

(Or him, I just was never that good at that side of it, I think I was just into the thrill of breaking the taboo and a bit curious as to where I stood on such things. It didn't float my boat.)

But on topic. My feeling is a lot of the laws didn't care to much if love was involved or not. The leaders just wanted the tribe stronger. Japan is currently seeing a decline in the birth rate, the government is pulling no punches in trying to get it up *giggle*.
Government and religion in the same sentence, you betchas.

I saw a current picture on a Japanese Dr Pepper can. Sexy anime (I guess it is, I can't tell the difference in the styles), mass produced sex object, it sells more then soda. It's the pause that refreshes, or is that another soda?

Physcial pleasure is certainly part of it; but there are other parts of the act that (at least for me) transcend such things. Let's start at the very basic and simple; what if I'm an ape who's less concerned with feeling a nice sensation in my genitals, and more concerned with my partner feeling a nice sensation in hers? How does that fit into your reasonings?


Any proof to back up this assertion?


You have my sincerest hope that this is not so unlikely a possibility as it may seem/you may think.


Just to be clear, I count this not at all against you or anyone else; I simply mentioned it as an experience relevant to the topic. You presume to judge things you have no experience with, which quickly becomes an exercise in conjecture, and carries inherant dangers that go with such suppositoins and extrapolations.


I cannot disagree with you on this. Things don't always work out well. In fact, I daresay they rarely do. But this does not disprove romantic love, nor the closeness and mingling of souls that I've mentioned. I've got a bit of an ace in the hole WRT to this arguement; I've experienced the things you claim may not exist. Maybe I'm deluded, or maybe I know of whence I speak. I sincerely hope that your life experience gives you a bit more to go on here, and in the most pleasant sense possible.

Good fortune,

- Icarus the Heretic

Icarus,
You seem to place one bodily function so much higher than others, in what... emotional satisfaction?
I have seen patients for whom the bowel movement or elimination of the bladder's contents brought a very high degree of physical and emotional satisfaction that based upon my observance could well rival those of having sex.

Perhaps that has not been your experience, but I have had moments when going to the toilet was indeed a very pleasant body experience. I am not referring to masturbation either.

I realize society tends to view bodily elimination of wastes as foul and dirty, but I find it hard to negate the pleasure one can derive from the exercise.

Going so far as to claim that there is a 'merging of souls' is quite a bold move. How would you ever be able to demonstrate this to us?
How do you know that the other soul has merged with yours?
Certainly by your personal standards you can say your soul has committed some such act; I am not so sure you can claim this of another person though.

If you care to share this, I'd be interested in reading it.

Last edited by wsmac on 22 Sep 2007, 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not putting good or bad to any of this, no judgement call. There are things known as fetishes. I have things that turn me on more then others and I'll be the first to admit some wouldn't make the moral majority very happy.

As far as merging of souls, there seems to be an awful lot of folks that have written of such things. I don't see Icarus as the first to make note of it. If you think it happened, then in your mind it did and our opinions on the matter don't count, do they. When two people together feel it, then I would say that's a pretty neat trick. If they did it with smoke and mirrors, so what, I would just say it's a fetish and more power to em. As far as mixing the merging with fluids, that's pretty well documented as well. It isn't a far leap to put what you started with and add it to the merging if you think about it. I find it interesting in the moments of release you can get a feeling of merging. Damn near religious, isn't it.

Fetishes.... I never mentioned those. I was speaking purely from the position that our bodies elicit pleasurable sensations. If by fetishes, you mean pleasurable sensations with sexual overtones, then we are on different pages.

The second sentence of your second paragraph seems a bit out of place. In my post, I merely asked Icarus to explain his position. I have not made any comments as to whether his position is right or wrong and I invited him to expand on his writing. His did state that,
You say, .
So, are you correct in allowing "each to his own", or is Icarus correct in his mission to 'help us understand'?
He certainly takes on an air of the messenger; someone who knows something we do not and his job is to educate us on the message.

There is another place where I'm not sure what you're getting at... you mention the "...mixing with fluids...". It seems that you didn't understand my post... purposely or accidentally.

I agree that there have been many people throughout history who have written about this mystical "merging of the souls", but I see that as mere poetic license.
I have experienced euphoria when in physical contact with another person, but I hardly feel that equates with the so-called "mixing of souls".

Please explain what this mixing is.
Again, I will ask... How do you know that the other soul has mixed, or merged, with yours?
Did you have some sort of agreement beforehand with your partner on the definition? Was there physical or emotional feelings that you and your partner could describe independently which matched precisely?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here. Icarus makes big claims and uses big words. It's all very provocative... even he/she says so
I am merely calling him on it.
I am just asking for something more substantive than grandstanding on what appears to be an enormous ego.
This is not an attack by me... I am just explaining what his posts sound like to me.
Icarus may be a wonderful person... in person.

Cannot say Ive found entire chapters of the Bible devoted to sexual sin, just the odd scripture or two but having been one of a group of toddlers in a Childrens home who used to stare at the electric light bulbs at night, trying to make ourselves go blind, "because our Mummies didnt want us", I can perfectly understand why God deems it a kindness to place restrictions on the act of human reproduction.

Read Leviticus, chapter 18 for instance.

I just came across this thread and skimmed through the first post.

So what makes something sexual a "sin"? Pleasure. The fact that its healthy. The right hand path leans completely towards destruction subliminally, and knocks everything off balance. One big lie, and a filthy joke on humanity I might add.

Perhaps someone can check me on this, but I view the bible as a historical text that contains 'books' which pertain specifically to the time and place they are written about.

This is why it was acceptable to stone people to death for adultery, and a brother had first dibs on his deceased siblings wife for his own, yet today we do not necessarily condone these same things.

Same thing with sin... what was sin a long time ago, is not necessarily sin today. I believe Man invented sin... not God.

I can see sex as both healthy and unhealthy, depending on the individual's use of it. The only sin I see with sex is when it is in the form of rape or when children are involved.

I also wanted to say.... now that I've had some sleep... that I realize my post from earlier this morning (3am) might come off as harsh towards Icarus.

I don't know this individual other than from posts here at WP.
I'm not trying to attack Icarus, I am just reflecting his words and what I see as a certain image his portrays here online.
I am actually looking forward to a reply. I am interested in understanding him a bit more... just out of curiosity... I'm not looking for a commitment or anything like that!

Humm no, I didn't purposely misunderstand on this one. It may well be I'm not seeing something or more then likely making mental leaps that no one in their right mind could follow. I plead guilty to the above counts, from time to time. I do like debate, doing it correctly is another matter.

I didn't see you coming across in a mean spirited way. But I certainly can't answer for Icarus_Falling either. As nice as forums are they do leave a bit to be desired. Often times quoting someone and then address them and then try to address the thread at large isn't easy for me to get across sometimes. And you did address it to Icarus and I took the liberty of responding to something that interested me is all.

I felt if I didn't expand correctly on any one thing, it was the very last line I wrote. And that referenced the religion, the sex act of release (release of choice) and the feeling of merging (feeling of merge of choice) souls. The Ying and Yang and the space in between (feeling of completeness, the mystical, a reborn feeling). But that would have taken a damn book, with many footnotes. I'm saying that man comes almost prewired for religion. We just didn't understand it was just the basics of life to begin with and make it all complicated. Toss in the fear of loosing your soul and being afraid of the dark and you've got a sales job that just can't go wrong. Lol, sometimes.

Your reference that we may not be understanding had nothing to do with sex really. But some people do get into it from a fetish point of view. In my off way, I see them both as sex. Release, merge and fulfillment. That all three can happen in the same moment. It's freakin cosmic or it sure can feel like it. I just choose a different way to do it, when I can reach that state at all. Some are masters at it. I'm not but a student.

Please excuse my poor writing. It's still hard for me to use writing as a tool. This isn't an excuse for half baked ideas either. I'm loaded with em. And if you don't like the above, give me a minute and I'll give you another one.

Hey, thanks for the reply!

I don't see what's wrong with somebody not finding sex such an important pinnacle of life. I don't, though I wouldn't relate it to defecation. I'm a virgin, and I'm in no super rush to have sex (despite the fact my best friend thinks I should have this as a main goal). School is a lot more important to me at the moment than finding a random female with which to fornicate. Though if it happens, cool. If it doesn't, oh well.
Not to mention the fact the first time you do something sexual or romantic with someone you'll want more of it. So the fact that I get a girlfriend once every year for a period of 2-3 months, would leave the rest of that time to be aching for more sex (just like with what i've actually experienced).

Haha, well; I seem to have gone to bed too early, and missed most of the fun.

"Ahhh. Good. A fight!" - Dr. Channard, Hellraiser II

wsmac, heuristic analyses of your message content, structure, and style indicate a significant probability that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It is not the thread subject here that interests you; it is arguing with me that does, and trying to out-argue me. I'm very familiar with this phenomenon. You likely fancy yourself to be a master debater and logician (and perhaps you are), and my overly "bold" proclamations have gotten your hackles up. Excepting this, I did not take your arguments as overly harsh or mean spirited; debate is simply a whetstone to keep the wit sharp; I welcome challenge to my ideas, though some of them (like the one at hand) will be so far outside the realm of what can be tangibly nailed down that a reckoning is beyond practical reach. But, remain cognizant of the fact that we are arguing opinion, as I have already said; an inherent characteristic of such arguments is that there can be no true victor. That said...

You front-load your argument with the assumption that lovemaking is simply a bodily function; already we differ; lovemaking, for some at least (including myself) is much more than a bodily function. How so? Well, look for a hint in this next bit...

Your analogies with pleasurable waste elimination are inherently flawed, because they lack something fundamental to what I was trying to convey; I wonder, did you miss that important difference, or leave it out on purpose? Lovemaking is an act that (typically) involves two people; unless you've got some very strange bathroom habits (really, I don't want to know), your comparisons fail on this simple difference.


I cannot dispute your characterization of my position as being quite bold; in essence, you define one of my fundamental characteristics. I believe boldly, speak boldly, and act boldly. I've done each of these in this thread. I have a strong believe in the old mantra, "Fortune favours the bold." And, yes, I believe strongly in fortune; ironically, it is one of my bold beliefs; but I have many others...


You pose questions here; they are interesting questions, but I think a better one is: why do you ask questions that you already konw the answer to? You seek to challenge me to prove and demonstrate things that we both know are un-provable and indemonstrable; you attempt to apply precise quantification and qualification to things you know full well cannot be qualified or quantified. This may seem to be an easy way to shoot down my arguments, to make me flail about helplessly as if I do not understand the nature of that which I speak of. But... We also both know that there are many things in life that are un-provable and indemonstrable, unqualifiable and unquantifiable, but they are still true, and they still exist. Can we agree on that, or shall I whip out with a litany of examples? For now, I will restrict myself to just one.

First, a few questions. Let me assume for the sake of argument that you love your daughter, and that she loves you. Before this bond of love was formed, did the two of you agree beforehand on the definition of this love? If the two of you were to describe the connection of love that bonds you, what those descriptions be precisely the same? If the answers to these questions are "no" and "no"... Does that mean there is no bond of love between you and your daughter, no connection of any kind?

Now, a thought exercise towards putting your money where your mouth is; it is not my intent to be inflammatory; this is hypothetical only. I'll be impressed if you can substantively prove and demonstrate how these notions make you feel.

1. Go tell your daughter that she is simply the result of you pleasurably going to the bathroom inside her mother.

2. Also tell her that sex is nothing more than a pleasurable bodily function. Of course she needs to be careful of the ramifications of that function (i.e. disease and pregnancy), but those are easily compensated for, and she should feel free to have at it. At 14, a girl is plenty ready for the simple bodily function of sex.


Um... You seem to have glossed over that last part of my statement sentence, the part which, oddly, you excluded from your added emphasis. In the world of online debate, we call that "cherry picking".


Why do you presume these to be mutually exclusive conditions? I purport that they are both correct.


Trigger11 once told me that I'm too cocky; he's probably right.

Here we get to the real crux of your argument. Icarus has a big ego and needs to be knocked down a peg or two. I understand your inclination here; you're right, I do grandstand sometimes, often perhaps. I do make big claims, and I enjoy doing so; I cannot argue with that. My words are just my words; if my words seem "big" to you, it is because you are unused to dealing with me; adjust bigness threshold up, and my words will seem quite normal. As for my ego, it is an easy thing to be threatened by, for at first glance it does seem to be rather large; but the real question is, do I puff it up to seem larger than is real, or is it simply is what it is? And, if my position seems "unsubstanitive" to you, so be it; such is the nature of what we are discussing here, as you well know.

In the end, I maintain the spirit of my original argument; those who see sex as little more than going to the bathroom are robbing themselves with this limited notion. Accept what I said or not; argue with it or not; dismiss it or not; but, there it is.

Good fortune,

- Icarus is Egotistical

Last edited by Icarus_Falling on 22 Sep 2007, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just to be clear, my position is not that sex is the pinnacle of life; I simply take serious issue with the notion that it is "little more than going to the bathroom". My overly bold, grandiose proclamations are thus because I wish to destroy a notion that I believe counterproductive and possibly harmful. I use the same tactics to attempt to destroy misperceptions related to Asperger’s Syndrome and autism.

Good fortune,

- Icarus Is Too Bold