Because it hurts people, it’s fundamentally anti-woman, and it is tyrannical. And it doesn’t work, even using the threat of death and torture. It’s stupid, hypocritical ( since it NEVER applies to the men or those with power equally ), and evil.
And yet people who one can find quite easily get away without paying child support all the time. It’s VERY hard to get a deadbeat Dad punished for being a deadbeat.
When they take the chance to bash Christianity even when it’s not relevant to the conversation then it’s more than fair to call them a bigot. You’d be similarly a bigot if you randomly started talking trash about Republicans or Communists.
D
No, your opinion of Christianity has years of confirming your biases behind it. Your views have not become significantly more informed in the time you have been on this forum. As you said yourself, you haven’t even read the bible and yet feel qualified to bash it all the time. The rest of it is just your personal ranting and irrelevant to the topic.
No actually Diogenes the Cynic did you just heard the bell ring and began to salivate.
Can you please back up your declarations with some evidence? I won’t accept evidence about Christianity, we are talking about abstinence not Christianity.
So you are saying that no one who chooses to be abstinent before marriage has ever succeeded at it and that they are hypocritical for trying?
Lets try and delve deeper than shallow feminist slogans on this one ok?
This is what’s known in the business as a false dichotomy. There is an awful lot of room in between abstinece and “promiscuity,” and there’s nothing wrong with promiscuity anyway.
I don’t know what subculture you mean. If you’re talking about armband Christianity, stuff like this is the reason for my distaste, not a result of it. That distaste is not confined to Christianity, nor do I have a problem with Christians in general. As I’ve pointed out many times on this board, I am married to a practicing Catholic, my kids are baptized Catholics and they go to a Catholic school.
I should also be clear that my main gripe is not the practice of abstinence per se, but the intimation that it has any moral or ethical relevance – that people who deprive themselves of sex are somehow morally better than people who don’t. I don’t see it as any different thann starving yourself or refusing to go to the bathroom.
It isn’t. I don’t care about what people do in cliques, I just get irritated when they think everybody else should give them a medal for it.
I never said a word about Christianity until you did.
You are using the term false dichotomy incorrectly. I didn’t set them up as opposites except in terms of getting you to determine what social behaviors based on sex are allowable and which are not. I asked you where you draw the line and did not say that because you disapprove of one you must disapprove of the other. I know you are responding paragraph by paragraph but I listed a whole lot more examples than that.
Ok. So why do you have a problem with people who declare their abstinence publically and share it with their friends?
Well they certainly eliminate a serious level of moral quandary from their lives. The idea that sex is ever truly casual is a bit of a misnomer. It almost never is truly casual.
They only seem to think that others within their clique should give them a medal for it. I don’t see them knocking on my door asking for accolades ever. In fact I am only aware of it at all because of people bitching about the practice.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11330750&postcount=83
Fair enough, you didn’t talk about Christianity, only about a practice that is confined to Christian subcultures. However, me saying, “Translation: Christianity Sucks”, was not a commentary on Christianity that should open the discussion up to a two-minutes hate regarding Christianity. My pithy aside did not bring it up as a topic of discussion. But when Pavlov’s bell rings, the glands MUST obey!
We ARE talking about Christianity; it’s the Christians pushing this stuff. And you are the one making the blatantly wrong claims; the failure of attempts to impose abstinence throughout all of history, all of the world is well known. As is the fact that women throughout history who have suffered the most for this sick ideology.
No, I’m saying that most don’t try. “Abstinence before marriage” is all about self serving lies, and about declaring your ownership of ***other people’s ***bodies.
There’s nothing deep here. Just you defending “traditional values”, which are exceedingly evil and everything the feminists say they are.
Except for the little detail that I DIDN’T bring it up. And it is most certainly relevant to the conversation, anyway.
Because Christianity hasn’t advanced one iota in that time. There’s nothing to become “more informed” about.
I haven’t read the thing from cover to cover, no. So what ? I’ve yet to see any evidence that it’s anything but a collection of ancient myths. Do I also need to become a scholar of Sumerian religion before I dismiss IT as being wrong, too ?
Please link the post where I said Christianity didn’t attempt to impose abstinence? Also, the part you are getting wrong is the part about women suffering the most for it. No, women suffered the most when people didn’t adhere to it. It was never considered ok for men to do it based on Christian values. The point is most traditional societies favor abstinence before marriage. In traditional hindu families it’s considered a core value, why aren’t you talking about Hindu anti-woman hypocrisy?
More meaningless declarations.
So if a man remains abstinent in today’s day and age he is doing evil to women?
Then it should have been easy for you to at least study the subject matter you continually condemn. If you spent 1/10th the time studying it as you do condemning it you’d be a formidable opponent.
Right you cherry-pick, I know. You don’t talk about Sumerian religion every day, so no. Most people try to learn about the topic they spend literally years of their life discussing, not you. You have spent literally years of your lifetime talking and thinking about Christianity and yet do not know it any better than an elementary school age Sunday School student.
Garbage. Women have historical been punished for being “sluts”; men’s transgressions were ignored or approved of.
Because Hinduism isn’t significant here.
In other words, I’m right and you have no counterarguments.
No, he’s probably lying. Abstinence isn’t about men being abstinent in the first place; it’s about declaring women’s bodies to be men’s property.
Why waste my time on garbage ? It has NO chance of being true, after all.
I have not heard of men’s transgressions being approved of. Ignored yes, approved of? No.
Why not? We’re talking about traditional abstinence culture.
You haven’t supported your argument yet. There is nothing to argue against. You asserted some stuff and I am waiting for you to back up what you’ve asserted. When you make a real argument, I’ll reply. You haven’t said something substantive enough to be right or wrong.
That doesn’t fit with any definition I have heard for abstinence, certainly not the one in the dictionary.
Yeah, that’s what I don’t get. Why have you wasted literally years of your life on something you hate and don’t want to know anything about? I really don’t understand why you devote more time to Christianity than you do to any other subject. Particularly since you are disinterested in actually knowing what you are talking about.
So ? History, not to mention current events shows what “abstinence” is really about, and it’s not what it’s proponents say it is. They are liars.
I don’t. I mainly react to OTHER people bringing it up, and I talk about all sorts of other things. And I care because the Christians won’t leave the rest of us alone, that’s why. Which is an obvious reason for me to care, but requires you to admit what Christianity is really like which is why you are expressing bafflement as to the obvious.
There isn’t much to learn. I don’t need to become a scholar on Tolkien to know that The Lord of the Rings is fiction; I don’t need to be a biblical scholar to know that IT is fiction.
If history and current events shows what it’s really about then why can’t you come up with a solid demonstration to backup your argument rather than calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar?
Right, if someone makes a pithy aside about Christianity you run with it and try to make the topic about it. I don’t see any Christians making a big stink in this thread, but I see a couple of people bashing Christianity.
How would you know there isn’t much to learn if you haven’t studied it? You also don’t spend 1/100th of the time talking about Tolkien that you do about Christianity. Disbelieving in it is beside the point. You don’t know it well enough to solidly refute it, as evidenced by your inability to say why abstinence is evil other than some vague reference to oppression of women. If I choose to not have sex I know it oppresses women, but only because I am depriving women of my sexy body. 
Since I am loyal and monogamous to my wife, I am already oppressing all women but her. A couple dozen were able to overcome that oppression for a short period of time, but now they suffer twice as much for having tasted the fruit they no longer can have.
I think too that we need to teach kids about WHAT a real healthy realtionship actually IS! I mean too many kids still think that there’s something different about romantic relationships vs just realtionships. I mean sheesh…a lot of girls still take the " How to Land a HAWT BOY" advice in those dumb teen magazines seriously.
Many guys also seem to have a " gotta have as much sex as possible to be a “real” man mentality.
We also need to emphasie that sex shouldn’t be taken lightly…and that when you’re in love, just cuddling can feel just as awesome as “doing it”
It’s all good and well to say that anyone who thinks that people should be careful about sex has a bug up their ass about sex…BUT it’s a fact that sex creates emotional feelings and a bond that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Many if not most teens really can’t handle that too well. I mean teens are just learning about realtionships and love. Heck, I just got out of college a short while ago, and SO MANY of my peers were still learning about realtionships and the hurt that sex can create when it’s not used properly.
Teach your kids about loving caring healthy realtionships.
What exactly do you want, besides all of history where those “traditional values” were practiced ? Women were treated as the sexual property of men under those rules. You are in the position of someone demanding a cite for the sky being blue.
We see you raising a big stink defending Christianity. You’ve done your best to make this thread about Christianity. Probably because you know how morally bankrupt those traditional values you are trying to defend are.
Because it’s completely impossible, that’s why. Because it has no evidence for being true, and ignores physics, logic and historical fact.
:rolleyes: You know perfectly well that I’m talking about the fact that traditional values are all about forcing women to abstain, and punishing them terribly if they don’t. It’s not about you, the man abstaining. Quite the opposite; traditional values would hold them responsible even if you raped them.
Of course we do. But you’re assuming a fact as true, when this thread demonstrates that it isn’t universally so. Namely, sex doesn’t require a relationship in the romantic sense. Sex is a biological function. It can exist inside and outside of an emotional, romantic relationship. That doesn’t make it unhealthy any more than being an emotional, romantic relationship implies the that such a relationship is healthy.
This probably has a lot to do with kids being more savvy now than in generations past. There is a difference between a romantic relation and “just” a relationship. You and I have just some relationship. We aren’t dating, thus it isn’t romantic. Does that necessarily preclude us from fucking? Well, no, it doesn’t, but many other factors might, like, um, your personality, for example. It might not be compatible with mine for us to hang out long enough to get to that point.
Then again, I needn’t like a person to think he’s attractive enough to sleep with. I just wouldn’t wind up dating the guy.
Many of them want to have sex as much as possible because, well, it feels good. That doesn’t make them a real man, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever thought that it did.
No, we don’t. We need to emphasize that it should be undertaken freely with protection. But one is free to treat it with as little regard as they like. I don’t consider taking a piss a significant emotional event. It is no different than having sex, except one feels good and the other is pissing.
Please cite this fact. I have had sex with many people for whom I have no emotion. I’m completely ambiguous on them but for the quality of the sex we have. If it was great, then I’m inclined to continually do it. If it wasn’t, then I’m not. The same can be said with a massage therapist: if they give great massages, I’ll continue to shop there. If I leave feeling the same as when I went in, then my money was poorly spent.
Or it’s the same as having some pizza. If the pizza is great, I’ll order from that place again. There’s no particular attachment to the place except that it’s a place from which I know I can get great pizza. Beyond that, it carries no meaning. This is the same with casual sex. But for the quality of the sex, the person in question needn’t be even a blip on one’s RaDAR.
Cite? All of the teenagers I’ve had sex with seem to have grown up just fine. I had a lot of sex as a teenager and my life, near as I can tell, is just fine. I’m emotionally stable and successful despite all of these supposed facts you lay claim to existing.
This last part of your argument is, after all is said and done, the only true statement you’ve made in this thread: you just got out of college a short while ago. Period. The rest of it belies thousands of years of history.
You also don’t seem to understand how to assign blame. If I assume that your insight into your friends is accurate, which I have no reason to believe, you’re still ascribing the source of the “hurt”. It isn’t sex. It’s the premature emotional attachment to people. This kind of issue is common among emotional vampires. You know, the ones who “need” to be in a relationship to feel “complete” and “loved”. They lack the ability to function well as an individual, fully half of their persona will at some point be completed by another person. Two half people does not a whole relationship make.
They should simply make better choices for whom they choose to bed, and stop putting undue emotion into something which doesn’t require it. At the very least, they could find out how the other person feels about sex and their feelings. I think they’ll find oftentimes that the other person isn’t as interested in the emotional shit as your friends are: in other words, it’s sex.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. To claim that sex in a casual way is harmful is quite silly. Some people might have problems with it, but the standard of the world hasn’t been to factor the emotional vampires of the world into the decision making process. Except for this subject when you get a very small, but oddly well-funded and vocal group who want to proclaim the virtues of abstinence while having never themselves abstained. It’s quite silly.
I do teach my kids about healthy, loving relationships. But I don’t lie to them and say sex can only happen inside of them.
Thanks for the gratuitous insults to my intelligence and my faith, I’m sure it made you happy.
Virginity = Agreed that he qualified the term “dysfunctional” and he didn’t use any term like “must”, “definitely” or “necessarily”. However, if virginity is the reason or consequence he may/may/could think there could possibly be any sort, type or form of dysfunctionality in a person, then it is a probability greater than 0 that either virginity may/might/could be the cause of the possible dysfunctionality or that the possible dysfunctionality might/may/could cause a person to remain a virgin.
Maybe.
Consensus = Agreed that it was imperially and continentally qualified in its adherence to it.
Wold you agree that, in the end, it is your invhis words his own personal opininon what decides the rationality/applicability/relevance of the arguments and how he will react towards them?
Both ways = simply answering the post where he said “The idea that you can’t prove a negative applies to morality as well: It’s up to those who think it is immoral to prove it”, I meant the “not being able to proof a negative” could go either for “it is not moral” or “it is not immoral”, hence "both ways.
Preachers = What I tried to say was that preachers (or anybody for that matter) should teach what they believe is the right thing and of course it is always much more effective if you do it.
Lying = Not good and doesn’t erase the sin or make it a virtue; ever.
Fornication (as a Catholic) = Sex with any person not your spouse (I was unaware that in Catholic theology it had, at any time, only referred to prostitution or “archway” sex; do enlightmen me with a reference).
Whether you/he consider(s) it as a sin or even if you/he recognise(s) the category “sin” is irrelevant for whatever argument I made, I simply stated my own personal opinion and in no way tried to make anyone beleive it or take it as true only on my word.
What I’ve said is, casual sex carries a risk to the society of the participants. As long as it continues to do so, members of said society will continue to make it their business.
I’ve no idea what you’re asking. Interesting you mention the “high rates of divorce” though. Go and check what the divorce rate is for those who abstain until marriage. If you’re looking for arguments to support your case, look elsewhere from divorce rates.
Just about any person that has ever contracted HIV or Hepatitis can thank, many times over, every link in the chain of transmission (which will be the vast majority of links, if not all of them) that was formed from a sexual interlude between two non-committed partners.
Err… yes it does.