 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Whether or not you think sex should be private is irrelevant. Sexuality has never been private, even if the act of sex has been forced to take place behind closed doors. (...) It may be embarrassing or offensive to the viewer and not the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) I disagree. (...) Explain why the actual act has been forced to take place privately. Are you for allowing public displays of sexual acts? (...) Well, I think it's both their problems. (...) So what? (...) How do you know how I treat (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) That's not what's being debated here. The public display of sexual orientation is. There is a hugely vast difference between having an orgy in the nearest intersection and publicly acknowledging that your SO shops in the same section of the (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Well, before you snipped it, the particular point being discussed was PDA. (...) The point I was trying to make is that sexuality is private thing and that overt attempts to disclose personal matters is appropriate IMO. (...) ARRRG (not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) overt (...) I'll accept that if you never mention your wife... Or indicate that Ross is your son (since that also comes with pre-conceived baggage about your sexuality - or even firm baggage if some folks have their way and only man-woman (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) No, many people are bi. Gays are gay and straights are straight. Everyone else is bi. Chris (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) No. (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) In the Western world, Victorian prudishness is the primary closeting force. But before I answer further, can you give me an ironclad reason why sexual acts must be private? And I caution you against such moral relativism as "society has (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Maybe we should get rid of the Clikits and Primo groups, too, since they go mostly unused. And keep your eye on Quatro and Galidor--they're both ripe for culling, by this use-it-or-lose-it criterion. Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) I believe sexual intercourse is an intimate bonding experience physically, emotionall, spiritually, and psychologically. It is the ultimate "giving" of oneself, and thus should be considered to be a highly meaningful experience. It should be (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Oddly, this is straight out of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and The Profane," which speaks of the investment of "sacredness" into certain places/customs/actions so that those places/customs/actions are preserved against alteration due to (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Though I've never even heard of Eliade or his/her? work, why would that be "odd"? That you aren't a fan and that I sound like (okay, I googled it...) him should sound about right, no;-) (...) Again, the ultimate expression of society isn't (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Well, just in terms of parallel evolution of ideas re: sacred v. profane. And whatever other oddity you'd care to contribute, of course. (...) I do not believe that there are any absolute standards for society, and all standards are determined (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Since that happened well before the civil rights movement, the only applicable legality that I can think of is the 5th Amendment (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), but I believe they were classified as (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Oh, absolutely, but I was giving situation-type examples, and today's racial profiling (of black drivers, of Arab airline passengers, etc.) is of the same species. And regardless of the civil rights movement, it was wrong of the government to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) US citizens of Japanese descent were classified as POWs? I did not know that. It's scary if true. It also gives ammo to the Bushies and their Enemy Combatant thingie. I hope you're wrong... I'm scared you're right. Also I thought the Geneva (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Officially all J-A citizens/residents were termed "dangerous enemy aliens" (technically, so were all German- and Italian-Americans, but everyone collectively turned a blind eye to them). Once you've classified them as enemies, it's pretty easy (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) There were German internment camps also. The numbers were much smaller, so they have got less exposure. (...) Except most of the "enemy combatant detainees" are not citizens. And those who are citizens should certainly have the constitution (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
