dk

dk: Being gay may be nature but it certainly isn’t all nature. Many leading Lesbians and feminist, for example Camille Paglia are quite adamant on the point. For example…
-------------
I won’t get into a dual of quotes but there are equally rampant Lesbians with exemplary credentials that swear Lesbian sexual orientation is the product of Social Forces and personal choice.
dk: I would simply note that people’s feelings change from moment to moment, day to day, and year to year. Not long ago a mother in Texas acted on her feelings and drowned her 5 children in a bathtub. Clearly people should be considerate of one another’s feeling, but I’m curious where you got the idea feelings were trustworthy.
dk: Are you suggesting the normative pagan behavior of the Visigoths, Goths, Ostrogoths, Franks, or Huns of ancient Europe more suitable!. Perhaps you feel the Turks and Moslems more suitable. I doubt it, and submit your answer is a rationalization conceived to blame and disparage others. Hitler blamed the Jews. Marx blamed capitalism. Stalin blamed Lenin. Moa blamed Confucius. Pol Pot blamed the USA. Islamic Terrorists blame US supported Israel. This really isn’t about blame but self justification, and nobody needs to justify (explain) their feelings only their actions. Remember this thread is about sex education and honesty.
dk: I’m simply pointing out the psychology of feelings and reason. A person that trusts their feelings doesn’t rationalize their actions or circumstances with blame. Think about it.
dk: Sounds like were basically in agreement. Sexual orientation is tricky business. For example I could be a Lesbian in a man’s body and never know it; and you might be a heterosexual man in a women’s body. Think about it.
dk: Hey, an honest person feels squeamish at the prospect of telling lies. A Liar will tell a lie when the truth would sound better, just out of habit. I don’t think you’re a liar. An honest person often justifies a lie by saying, “they didn’t have a right to know”.
dk: That’s a rationalization. When a parent takes their kid to school they entrust to the school their child. All schools indoctrinate students, but when a school covertly and systematically indoctrinate kids its called exploitation, and a betrayal of the public trust. The reason public schools are so hotly contested in political circles is because they covertly engage in social engineering. As Dewey said, I paraphrase, “Public School students are trained to cure the social ills left in the wake of progress”. The US public schools system is in crisis precisely because it has become the dumping ground for societies social ills. Overtime public schools have become the personal domain of vested interests groups, bureaucratic empires and special interest groups. Oh what a web we weave ….

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

dk: I submit the pleasure of sex is ancillary to the reproductive function. Hypnotically, 1) if some perverse virus were to universally make sex painful instead of pleasurable, then people would still have sex to reproduce: 2) But if some virus rendered humankind sterile then its curtains for humanity no matter how pleasurable sex became. Therefore sexual pleasure functions to promote reproduction.
dk: - Catholicism doesn’t have a difficulty with sex, it’s called the Marital Act. Its fornicators, adulterers and adulteresses that have a problem with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches it’s sinful to pervert human nature. When a person uses sexual gratification as a self serving ends their partner becomes an sex object. Love doesn’t denigrate people as sex objects. Using people to gratify oneself deprives love of the blessings God intended, fidelity and the nuclear family being consummate with what is good and natural for people. When people denigrate one another sexually they suffer grave psychological, physical, emotional and spiritual deprivations. The Catholic Church has a pretty compelling case independent of one’s religious beliefs. In 1968 the Catholic Church published <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06hv.htm" target="_blank"> Humanae Vitae</a> and in retrospect was right on the money.
dk: No, Catholicism teaches faith and reason are the wings upon which humanity sours (I paraphrase). Clearly its secular governments that claim to sour on wings of fear and desperation. One need only look at the negativity, skepticism and cynicism taught in public school curriculum. The values of modernity are perpetuated by terrifying people with threats of war, oppression, social unrest caused by inequalities, and environmental disaster, then they bring in the heavies from the social sciences to market all the right answers. By the way I used to be libertarian.

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

tronvillain

Obviously it would depend on how painful it was - perhaps you should have said "not pleasurable" rather than painful. I think that birth rates would be likely to decline rather sharply in either case.

That sexual pleasure promotes reproduction does not imply that reproduction must be the primary "purpose" of sex in humans, at least not as directly as you imply.

I'll finish this up later.

dk

My statement on feelings, trust and blame kept me churning. After thinking about it I’m obliged to retract my statement on feelings. My first impulse was that feelings are internal, so we are culpable for our feelings and can’t blame others. My first impulse holds about as much water as a paper bag.

So I should have said we are only responsible for the feelings we hold on to, and we all trust the feelings we hold on to (that’s why we hold them). So I can’t blame anyone for the feelings I hold but myself; but a person like yourself has every right to blame a transgressor for making them feel bad. Anyway I understand a little better what you meant by, “I trust my feelings”.

Ales

I find it absurd that I have to pay from my taxes the operation and the education of members of an antidemocratic organization who, according to (P. Mullen, The phenomenology of distorted mental function, in Essentials of Postgraduate Psychiatry, London: Academic Press, 1979) suffer from deceptions.

I assure you that evolutionary biology, biochemistry, genetics, ethology, psychiatry, sexolology and psychology has shown that the primary purpose of human sexuality is not reproduction. Even you quote Paul VI's encyclics

contradicting yourself, because in this document, which is sometimes called the Second Galileo Case, the pope allowed sex without reproduction. Since the average healthy adult female can in average have 20 living children and since the catholics are allowed to have sex (needles to say that under rather strange circumstances and expressly opposing the teaching of St. Augustine and all the former teaching of the rcc) and have with overwhelming probability no more than 3 children, it is save to say, that the pope Paul VI. approves that the primary purpose of sex in catholic married couple is not reproduction.

It is not true. When I shake the hand of my grandfather, it is not ancillary to reproduction.

It is not true. Deer sexually reproduce only few times a year.

Suppose the catholic priests are healthy and normal, then it is clear that they spend the most energy of all to deny their reproductive natures. (E.g. I need more energy for not having sex for 10 days than for not ingesting for 10 days.)

There is a considerable number of young people that committed suicide because of Christian sexual doctrines. The Christian churches also promote the high occurrence of suicidal behaviour of homosexuals. Also in the history there are known cases of suicides because of of the day catholic sexual politics (of course different from the unchangeable catholic doctrine). The cultic impossibility of divorce is the main reason of domestic violence in many catholic families. The drug addicted often become "church addicted" and vice versa, there is also considerable number of people whom the rcc made become drug adicted-I know about people who suppress their sexual drive by large amounts of alcohol-allegedly alcohol is not such a sin as the sex not according to rcc. There is not any serious sexologist who advises rcc doctrine as a healthy way to avoid sexual dysfunction. The rcc treated mentally ill patients as devil possessed and punished the indwelling devil, it rejected the knowledge of antique scientists, even today the rcc opposes the psychiatry when it teaches that people are possessed by devil and cast them out by exorcism. The psychiatry defines catholic belief as a mental illness. See above. In the state where I live there is 70% of unbelievers, we have two times lower number of murders than in USA where 90% people are christians and this cult is highly promoted. Your allusion to violence is also strange, since the number of innocent murders committed by the command of christian church authority or in the name of Jesus Christ are in the order of 100 000 000. The WHO found that the sexual education, which rcc opposes, prevents premature sex and STD. In the state where I live there is roughly 500 HIV positive people out of the total 10 500 000. Please compare it with similar numbers in states whrere christianity is propagated at the expense of sexual education. In Netherlands and Norway where the christian cults are not suffered very much, the number of STD and the number of abortions is the lowest. When rcc had power and when contraceptives were not available, every third inhabitant was an illegitimate child (Denzler), the rcc was also not able to prevent the spread of syphilis. Even today the politics of rcc is one of the biggest threats to the naive inhabitants of Africa. I always asked how a man like Karol Wojtyla can sleep calmly, until I saw his confused and desperate face in the TV.
In my opinion the greatest threat to the civilization are the revealed doctrines like christianity, facism, communism or islam.

Originally posted by 99Percent:
Your answer to this:

Perhaps you are not normal. Also the rapist is not normal. You missed the point. It is sure that the low self esteem leads to sexual problems. E.g. 41% of German boys have problems with erection during their first sexual intercourse because of fear and low self esteem. (This can sometimes become fixed and be a very serious problem, and that is why I would recommend a professional for the first sexual intercourse. Of course more harmful is to wait until marriage and then not to have the possibility to divorce-it is known that marriages without premarital sexual experiences break down more often and also that christians in USA divorce more often than the average-it is most probably also the influence of the lack of premarital sexual experiences. In my opinion this catholic habit or custom is a very strange aberration)

I don't know of any case when sex became addictive in a comparison with drug abuse. Consensual sex brings no harm to anyone, but drugs do. Overeating, in which many church members indulge-sometimes as a substitution to sex-is more dangerous, remember e.g. the old fat dominican monks. Overeating brings you severe diseases but if you masturbate all the day, no harm-except that you can do something more useful-happens. Also the incense is a hallucinogen.

The catholic doctrine is based on the teaching of St. Augustine, Aquinas and all other great church authorities-i.e. that the original sin is transferred by sex. Until very recently it was the most precious doctrine of the whole rcc. It is also today fostered by some church authorities. It is, however, nonsensical. By means of IVF it is possible to have child without sex. Rcc was during nearly all the time of its existence wrong. Rcc forbids IVF and also other research, because it is afraid that it would lose control over believers. After the rcc has lost in the struggle against democracy, its only mean how to control people and have power is by controlling human sexuality and reproduction. Around 1860 Pius IX announced that the soul enters by conception, until now the abortion was sinful mainly because it was related to sex, it was believed that soul enters later.

This is not true. See above. There are also couples in which fidelity is fostered by other sexual relations with other sexual partners. Other couples require no other sexual relations and are happy. Some animals are strictly monogamous and others are polygamous. It seems that it is caused by the concentration of oxytocine in their brains. Similarly, it is very likely, that people are not the same. What is sure, is that catholic totalitarianism is similar to the communistic one. It also wanted to have a uniform society. It also inflicted on everyone its dream of uniform and obedient people.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that he is exploited by advertisements of sex. I know of many people who are sexually exploited by rcc. Some people claim-and these are often christians-that they are sad, angry or jealous when they see an advertisement of sex which they cannot have-because they are not attracted by women or because of sexual inhibition or because of other problems. But do I complain that I cannot afford some expensive car or house or do I complain when I am ill and I see a sportsman?

It is an interesting trend of rcc. To gratify its desire of power it made allegiance with its archenemy islam at the conferences of UN and now it tends to make allegiance with communists. But it is a well known tactics of introducing the body of Christ in e.g. India.

Consumerism of christianity and other cults is nihilistic.

It is similar as with rcc: You like it but you do not know the simplest and basic facts about it: The sexual orientation is not a continuous random variable and therefore it cannot be normally distributed. Everything you state after this is nonsensical. You should not pretend that you understand anything of mathematical statistic when you do not understand such simple and basic facts, it is hypocritical. Your misuse of the word "normal" is really funny.

According to your definition christians in UK who regularly visit churches are not normal-there are 2.5% of them. Also people with high intelligence are not normal, left handed people are not normal according to you. You are against all minorities. You are a racist (at least in societies where colored minorities exist.)

I think christian churches betray the public trust when they develop a pseudoscience and claim that homosexuality is curable or that homosexuals are pedophiles or that they spoil children. Again to admit that homosexuality is not curable is a serious wound to the christian doctrine and the possibility to control people.

This claim is also ludiocrous. It is well known how Karol Wojtyla shocked the participants of a conference of UN when he claimed that overpopulation is not a problem. (Later the catholics were not allowed to speak at these conferences of UN.) It again suggests that you are not very strong in mathematics. If you have antibiotics in one hand you must carry contraceptives in the second. These are rigorous mathematical truths if you reject it-as pope did-you also reject the reason. Consider the age dependent branching processes and the conditions under which they explode.

It is also very ludicrous. There are two kinds of catholics, some adore the 13 th century when the Church had greatest power and claim it was the golden era in the history of humankind, others claim that democracy and humanism (as we understand it now) are sons of rcc. Both are nonsensical. Nothing changed the history as the christian historian (Emmet Fields).

Multitudes of crusades were invented by catholics, multitude of other atrocities were invented by christians. Out of all other spiritual leaders in J. Christ's name was committed the biggest number of atrocities and murders.

It is not true. Hitler was a believer. He also believed that the Earth is hollow and a lot of other irrational things. Communist did not allow to examine rationally the premises of marxism or the "leading role of the working people" or "iron necessity with which communism must come".

It is not true. Rationalism teaches that knowledge comes e.g. from reasoning.

[quote]
Blaming the RC for modernity is like blaming water for human thirst.
[/QOUTE]

Could you elaborate on this?

No, and it never will.

Why do you regurgitate this constantly? Anytime you use the word neurosis, remember that it was psychoanalysis that discovered it and it was created by rcc sexual politics in this context and in that time. I know people who have severe neurotic symptoms because of catholic indoctrination in an early age, i.e. stuttering, alcohol abuse, etc.

The catholic morality, which is a flawed morality, lead to experiments of changing one's sexual preference using e.g. electric shocs or vomiting reflex.

Interesting change of feelings is the onset of a religious belief. Not long ago a christian acted on his feelings and killed a doctor who provided abortions. Nearly whole catholic doctrine is based on feelings of some church authorities-living or dead. Particular place has the catholic mystics-this is about subjective feelings not about anything else.

I am ready to live under the rule of communists rather than under the rule of rcc.

And believers through the whole history blamed nonbelievers.

You again demonstrate ignorance of scientific findings. The sexology knows the cases of transsexuals who are also homosexuals. The men who are "a lesbian in man's body" are examined for several years by psychologists and then the operative change of gender is performed, together with the substitution of female hormones. In Europe, this operation is routinely performed on transsexuals. I don't if in the countries like USA which are backward in these issues it is also performed, but the first such operation was performed about 50 years ago. (It is impossible to change the mind, but it is possible to change the gender.)

Or by "It is better for the spread of Christ's kingdom" (Eusebios).

It is not true. This "pill's encyclics" is cursed by all competent experts in medicine, psychology, sexology. It is also cursed by a lot of catholics themselves. E.g. in Germany 6% of catholics live according to its prescriptions. I am looking forward to see how again the church will change its unchangeable doctrine, when it is found that something like IVF is safer than usual sexual reproduction-no genetic disorders will be present. Even now I guess that the occurrence of genetic defects must in a variation of IVF be smaller than in the usual sex.

The values of christianity are perpetuated by terrifying people with threats of unending suffering in the hell, where according to the catholics the soul suffers so much as only the soul can suffer or by terrifying children with the "parusie" which can come at any given instant of time and children will immediately be separated from their parents, children must be threatened by a god who killed his child because some people eat apple, children are taught lies or suspicious or absurd assertions which cannot be proved, their character must be corrupted at this age, the parents must promise this to the Bestia trionfante, before they are allowed to have the child, thereby proving, that the christian doctrine cannot be proved rationally, it is necessary to resort to indoctrination.The christianity is and always has been the main enemy to humanity, beauty, rationality and the flourishing of the humankind. It has always crippled the human nature, morality and good character.

I still claim that one of the multifarious proofs of the fact that the main purpose of human sexuality is not reproduction, is the children's sexuality: No sexual reproduction is possible, when there is not the sperm or eggs, but several orgasms a day are present for about 10 years. The children who start masturbating early, start usually at the age of 3.

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Ales ]</p>

ChurchOfBruce

Actually, that's not true. If you were a "lesbian in a man's body" you *would* know it--because gender identity and sexual orientation are *completely* different things.

--Frank
who *is* a "lesbian in a man's body". In other words, I have *ahem* "gender issues" I decided to remain in a man's body rather than go through the whole cut-and-snip, but whatever body I choose to wear has *nothing* to do with my sexual orientation. I like girls, end of story

ju'iblex

dk

Ales I have no idea why you spend so much time on such an off-topic verbose response. The topic isn’t Christianity, and you neglected to blame Christians for pimples, potty training abuse, bath tub ring, and wife beating on Super Bowl Sunday.

ju'iblex

firstly i would like to apologise for continuously making blank posts. my browser keeps telling me the data on the page is corrupt, and posting seems to help somehow. but thats besides the point.

so really you have just proven the point i was about to make. its all very well quoting this at me, but even you should be able to see that it seems to more a matter of opinion on how. besides, im not sure the creation of a homosexual is the issue at hand here.

[quote[ I would simply note that people’s feelings change from moment to moment, day to day, and year to year. Not long ago a mother in Texas acted on her feelings and drowned her 5 children in a bathtub. Clearly people should be considerate of one another’s feeling, but I’m curious where you got the idea feelings were trustworthy. [/quote]

perhaps so. its all very well to say, how can i trust a my feelings when someone elses spur-of-the-moment feelings caused someone to kill their offspring (or ironically "fruit of her love"). well its very simple.
a feeling that i have had for 15 years, coincidentally my entire lifetime, is probably a little more trustworthy than some spontaneous feeling causing someone to drown their children. do you agree? if i cant trust something which i have held to be true for my lifetime, then i really need to go back and start questioning my entire existence.

i didnt suggest that we revive any of those. your twisting my words. i was simply answering a question you set me up for. i felt it only courteous to answer a direct question, and considering my only other options were lies and betrayal, each as ludicrous as the other, i felt my choice fair. i had no intention of playing the blame game, as you seem to think i really really want to do. considering how much you feel the need to raise the issue of blame when i have no intention of going there makes me think you want me to blame someone. i dont. the church is part of western history. the church has imposed an outline of how to live, and what their subjects must and must not do to fit as a part of that society. thats what cultures do, its unfortunate, but a part of life.

too mant people have already pointed out the flaws in that logic so i wont go there. oh, and thankyou to those that did, i really couldnt be bothered myself.

what exactly are you arguing here?

so, you dont think im a liar. then justify your original sentence from post 1.

first, we come back to the blaming. not that i dont appreciate the sentiment of the sentence. but, i will say it again, considering you havent grasped my point. I AM NOT BLAMING ANYONE. im not sure where you got the idea from. when i wrote my original post (oh so long ago now) i was merely sharing my experience with the school system with anyone who could be bothered reading it. i have no one to blame, i have never set out to blame anyone. the idea of blame that appears to be running through this thread was started by you and has been maintained by you alone.

oh, and if theres anything else i've missed then feel free to run through Ales' post. hes covered pretty much everything in there, not to mention very thoughtfully and intelligently. thanks for that.

Danielboy

I do.