Subject:
|
human sexuality
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:01:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1512 times
|
| |
|
|
John,
I know my views are in the minority. I’m not sure what made you think that I
didn’t know that. (How could I not?) That doesn’t make them wrong. There have
been a great many people through history who had unpopular ideas that are now
widely accepted as truth.
I don’t understand the repeated use of the word clarity in your post. Are you
asking me to explicate my opinion on indecency? I have in the past and we
disagreed then, but I’ll do so again if it serves a purpose.
Also, I want to take a moment to apologize. The claim that you get off on
harming people requires some clarification and I actually think that Larry might
well have censored me instead of you. (I mean, you were certainly
inappropriate, but self-defense even justifies murder, so I’d call it no foul.)
So the deal is, I think that having people behave in the way that you want them
to -- and repressing open human sexual expression is one of these way, is
harmful to the individual and to the social sphere (particularly perniciously
becuase it perpetuates itself). But I don’t think that you believe that this
harm exists. So I don’t really think you get off on the harm. I suspect you
are blinded by abusive early-life programming and should be treated as mentally
ill but not evil.
I don’t expect you to like that characterization, but it’s a much more acurate
depiction of my belief about you and I thought that since I had crossed the
line, even for .o-t.debate, I should set things “right.”
As to whether children are harmed by being exposed to open sexuality, I think
the proof is obvious. Most of the world’s population through most of history
lived in one-room dwellings. Most of humanity watched parents copulate,
hopefully lovingly. I believe that kids might be (probably are?) harmed by
witnessing violent non-concentual sex. But it is obvious that they are not
harmed by watching “normal” sex. This is further made obvious by the fact that
I and many other kids in modern western society have had access to pornography
(and even live displays of sexuality) during our formative years with no ill
effect. I’m not even sure how you can come to another conclusion.
You claim that I think that “one day, the entire world will be bisexual.” And
then you refute it with “Cukoo.” I suspect you can do better. But what’s the
point since I never did assert such a thing? My point was only in defending
Larry’s very reasonable point that you were oddly hostile toward. I think some
“clarity” on what you didn’t like would be valuable.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: human sexuality
|
| (I'm at a client, so it's a hassle to switch identities, but I'm wearing my Admin hat in this post) This post is not just directed at Chris. (...) To clarify. we did not censor anyone, nor did we wish to. LUGNET does not practice censorship. I (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Clarity, Chris. That's all I want. I think you will find that your views are in the vast minority. (...) Excuse me??? What exactly do you mean by "get off"? Why don't you just shut your ignorant piehole, Chris. And who is this "most of us" you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
