Subject:
|
Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:39:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3003 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > > During my teen years there would have been no greater incentive NOT to have
> > > > sex than to have to watch my parents going at it.
>
> > I'm not sure what degree of humor is intended by either of you, but I've heard
> > that before and bet you're both wrong. If you had been raised seeing sexual
> > expression of your parents love as a normal event, you would not be squicked
> > by the notion right now.
>
> I was indeed being facetious, but I can see the issue you're addressing.
> I note that you're already putting a spin on it that presupposes your view
> to be right and mine to be wrong; specifically, you are saying that your
> favorable emotional response that directly affects only you is correct but
> my unfavorable emotional response that directly affects only me is not.
> Regardless of the love present in or absent from my parents' coitus, what if
> the simple spectacle of them is aesthetically unappealing to me on a visual
> level? Your assertion seems to claim that I must view all human sexuality
> as being of equivalent beauty (or at least non-ickiness), and that's simply
> not consistent with reality. As evidence, I ask if you are equally
> attracted to every single man, woman, and child you meet? If not, why not?
> And how is it different?
> That certainly doesn't mean it's morally bad or damaging to witness one's
> parents, however. Nor does it mean that my parents should have been
> obsessively clandestine in their sexuality!
> You're basically paraphrasing Diogenes, I believe, who said "if
> masturbation be not absurd, then it be not absurd in the marketplace."
>
> Dave!
K, this one made me laugh out loud. That would be something to see (but
probably still have a high 'Ick" factor). Again, something that others can
do, but I probably would *ahem* abstain...
Is like the new law in Ontario which states that women *can* go topless if
they so desire--it was passed about 4-5 years ago. So far, nada on a
sighting of an exposed female chest (not that I'm looking *too* carefully,
tho...)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
