welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Safe 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17175
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
You meant not kissing or sexing until marriage. The way you phrased it could have been read as not kissing or sexing while married.

_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sinistre



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to derail the discussion about the values of physical intimacy before marriage, but was I the only one who double checked the date that Crim went on way back when to see if he ever held hands?

Last edited by Sinistre on Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse:

I'm pretty sure that is the goldiest, starriest gold star anyone has ever aimed my way. Thanks!


Lasairfiona wrote:
You shouldn't look down your nose at people who want and need sex in a relationship.

I didn't see him doing this.

Lasairfiona wrote:
However, insisting that sex isn't important is just incorrect.

Whereas your insisting that sex is important is just so obviously correct it doesn't require any reasoning to back it up?

Lasairfiona wrote:
Perhaps you should rail against couples rushing into sexual relationship instead of saying that sex is unimportant.

Kibate hasn't said that sex is unimportant, and he is, in fact, doing exactly what you are suggesting, arguing against rushing into sexual relationship.

I would paraphrase his position as: A loving relationship is primarily about getting to know someone, and sex isn't a good way to do that, so sex should wait until after a couple has gotten to know one another well.

Now he's missing a step, there, because the reasoning requires some mention of sex inhibiting the getting to know one another, and he doesn't provide it, but missing a step is a far cry from whatever position (not his) that you are reacting so strongly against.

(unless we were meant to infer that the time spent sexing takes directly away from time spent talking, but I can't imagine that would be his point, since it would apply to every activity other than talking, which would be more than a touch ridiculous.)
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sinistre



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kibate seems to be looking more for platonic relationships. While that may work for priests, nuns, and eunuchs, I don't think it holds for a majority of the population. There's things called hormones that would disagree with a strict "talking" relationship.

Now, all this said, I'm not arguing that sex before marriage is altogether fine, dandy, and healthy, but you really need to have a balance of good communication and physical intimacy to have a loving relationship. If you can date a guy or girl and have no desire to become physical with that person, you have made a friend, not a lover, and not someone to marry.

Of course, if you still wanted to act out the physical aspect of a relationship and choose not to, well then that's an entirely different issue.
_________________
Sinistre (Middle English), from Latin sinistr-, on the left side, unlucky, inauspicious
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gauche wrote:
Kibate seems to be looking more for platonic relationships.

No. He's not.

Gauche wrote:
There's things called hormones that would disagree with a strict "talking" relationship.

And there's things called reason and rationality which put restraint on just doing whatever your hormones tell you to.

Gauche wrote:
but you really need to have a balance of good communication and physical intimacy to have a loving relationship.

Why? Because you say so? A loving relationship must include physical intimacy because Sinistre has so declared?

What's the point of entering a conversation just to declare that someone is wrong, without explaining why you think so?
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dro



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3854

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
What's the point of entering a conversation just to declare that someone is wrong, without explaining why you think so?


Because then emotions are stirred up, which most the time leads to two people yelling at each other then suddenly oh god so suddenly they kiss and their bodies are pressed together and that frustration and anger has an easy out which is to rip the other persons shirt off and then they are laughing and helping each other undress and is there even time to find a bed or anything soft no there is not when a wall works just fine and...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sinistre



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kibate wrote:
So for me, i think it's really great to marry someone without the need to kiss or have sex


No offense, but I think that just screams platonic.

Sojobo wrote:
Why? Because you say so? A loving relationship must include physical intimacy because Sinistre has so declared?


Yes.

Reason and rational are all good, and there are a great number of people who can use both to ignore eons of evolution about certain functioning parts of the human body. But I think you would agree that in the complete absence of physical touch you lack a certain compassion for others. And this is not only lustful compassion, but also just touching for the sake of touching! Kissing isn't necessarily always foreplay for sex, it can be something as simple as "Good morning beautiful, I love you."
_________________
Sinistre (Middle English), from Latin sinistr-, on the left side, unlucky, inauspicious
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dro wrote:
Because then emotions are stirred up, which most the time leads to two people yelling at each other then suddenly oh god so suddenly they kiss and their bodies are pressed together and that frustration and anger has an easy out which is to rip the other persons shirt off and then they are laughing and helping each other undress and is there even time to find a bed or anything soft no there is not when a wall works just fine and...

Yo.

Clearly conversation is a gateway intimacy and needs to wait until after marriage.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sinistre wrote:
No offense, but I think that just screams platonic.

A relationship that starts platonic while the couple gets to know one another is not the same thing as a platonic relationship, although I could see your confusing the two... except for the fact that we happen to be right in the middle of a conversation directly and exactly about relationships that start platonic.

Sinistre wrote:
Reason and rational are all good, and there are a great number of people who can use both to ignore eons of evolution about certain functioning parts of the human body.

Two things. First, you haven't (and I'm guessing can't) demonstrate that restraint from sex is "ignoring eons of evolution." Consider the many examples of animals that mate for life, which is certainly restraint from promiscuity.

Second, even were that argument demonstrated, any "ignores evolution" argument is deeply suspect. There are any number of behaviours modern man engages in which "ignore evolution" according to how you are using that phrase. Change is not inherently bad.

Sinistre wrote:
But I think you would agree that in the complete absence of physical touch you lack a certain compassion for others.

I'm not sure I would, because your claim is very unclear. I don't know what you're saying. In any case, though, no one is discussing anything similar to a "complete absence of physical touch," so I'm not sure that whatever your point is will have anything to do with the conversation.

Sinistre wrote:
And this is not only lustful compassion, but also just touching for the sake of touching! Kissing isn't necessarily always foreplay for sex, it can be something as simple as "Good morning beautiful, I love you."

Of course. I don't think any of us would disagree with this, but again, you don't say how it touches on the conversation. We are talking about sex and romantic intimacy.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sinistre



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Kibate's original statement can easily be interpreted as marrying and being married without sex or kissing. So no, I am not confusing the two, thank you. I made that statement based upon what I believed Kibate was trying to say. If I'm wrong, then Kibate can clarify that for me, as you'll forgive me if I don't agree with you clarifying another's statement sans authorization.

2. You're right, I probably can't adequately demonstrate that restraint from sex is ignoring evolution. I guess any argument that evolution involves procreation and procreation involves sex would be somehow fatally flawed in your eyes?
Although your statement of "Consider the many examples of animals that mate for life, which is certainly restraint from promiscuity." is easily "suspect" as you put it. Animals generally don't have the ability to reason, in the terms that a human can. Animals that mate for life do it because they evolved that way, because it allows for greater survival of the species in that they can protect their young. That has nothing to do with restraint from promiscuity, so I'll thank you for not responding to supposedly flawed arguments with flawed statements of your own.

3. What I am trying to say is that physical touch and intimacy leads to a closer and more compassionate relationship than one lacking the intimacy. You may disagree, but that's how I feel. I think you get a deeper connection with someone by the combination of all forms of communication (verbal, nonverbal, touching) than by one alone (be it verbal, nonverbal, or touching, by itself). Also, the "complete absence of physical touch" is again in regards to the original statement by Kibate, and serves to demonstrate the extreme end of the intimacy spectrum.

4. And again, that statement was aimed towards Kibate, the whole marry without kissing thing.


I am thinking you're bending Kibate's statements to your will, and thus disfiguring them to your own desires. I think you should make a position your own instead of trying to paraphrase and distort someone's original.

In terms of my own position, I agree with Lasair
_________________
Sinistre (Middle English), from Latin sinistr-, on the left side, unlucky, inauspicious
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Secret



Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 5429

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Consider the many examples of animals that mate for life, which is certainly restraint from promiscuity.


Zoology says that animals which mate for life may often engage in extra-marital couplings.

Digression!
_________________
rm wrote:
the grail is patient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sinistre wrote:
1. Kibate's original statement can easily be interpreted as marrying and being married without sex or kissing. So no, I am not confusing the two, thank you. I made that statement based upon what I believed Kibate was trying to say. If I'm wrong, then Kibate can clarify that for me, as you'll forgive me if I don't agree with you clarifying another's statement sans authorization.

You are wrong, and actually I won't "forgive you," because it is obvious what he meant, and you are being false to hide behind his unfortunate phrasing.

Sinistre wrote:
2. You're right, I probably can't adequately demonstrate that restraint from sex is ignoring evolution. I guess any argument that evolution involves procreation and procreation involves sex would be somehow fatally flawed in your eyes?

No, no, no. Saying "evolution involves sex" isn't a problem, but it isn't an argument, either. You were suggesting that a loving relationship requires sex because people have hormones which they got through evolution which makes it best. There are a number of linkage problems to that. I started with the "evolution is best" because it's the easiest and clearest flaw to point out.

Sinistre wrote:
Although your statement of "Consider the many examples of animals that mate for life, which is certainly restraint from promiscuity." is easily "suspect" as you put it. Animals generally don't have the ability to reason, in the terms that a human can. Animals that mate for life do it because they evolved that way, because it allows for greater survival of the species in that they can protect their young. That has nothing to do with restraint from promiscuity, so I'll thank you for not responding to supposedly flawed arguments with flawed statements of your own.

An assumption of the argument I was answering was that sex early in a relationship is "how humans evolved," but you didn't bother to actually support that claim in any way. The example of animals mating for life was to point out an example of a natural behaviour pattern which waiting until later in a relationship to have sex could support. Do you see? I am simply pointing out why you need to have real information backing your "ignoring evolution" arguments.

So... "[Those animals] evolved that way" isn't really a response to what I'm saying, and animals mating for life does indeed have something to do with restraint from promiscuity. (Also, what the hell does the animal "having the ability to reason, in the terms that a human can" have to do with anything?)

Sinistre wrote:
3. What I am trying to say is that physical touch and intimacy leads to a closer and more compassionate relationship than one lacking the intimacy. You may disagree, but that's how I feel. I think you get a deeper connection with someone by the combination of all forms of communication (verbal, nonverbal, touching) than by one alone (be it verbal, nonverbal, or touching, by itself).

You are being very imprecise, here, which makes it hard to answer. Instead of listing several causes that lead to several things, it would be much clearer if you said, "A causes X, B causes Y." We are talking about sex and kissing, and a phrase like "physical touch and intimacy" can refer to far too many things we are not talking about. That's why I'm saying I can't agree or disagree. Your statements are vague enough to mean several things with which I agree and several with which I disagree simultaneously.

Sinistre wrote:
Also, the "complete absence of physical touch" is again in regards to the original statement by Kibate, and serves to demonstrate the extreme end of the intimacy spectrum.

In what original statement did Kibate refer to a complete absence of physical touch?

Sinistre wrote:
I am thinking you're bending Kibate's statements to your will, and thus disfiguring them to your own desires. I think you should make a position your own instead of trying to paraphrase and distort someone's original.

I am not bending Kibate's statements. I am only barely touching on his statements. The vast majority of what I'm saying is an attempt to prompt you into using logic, into forming reasoned arguments, instead of just declaring that Kibate is wrong and leaving it at that.

And because all I'm doing so far is asking you to actually make arguments, I'm not arguing either "side" myself, and I really don't actually need a position of my own to defend. But I suspect you would have a problem with that, so I'll let you know that my position is a a very soft version of Kibate's.

I think it is silly to have a rule, even just a personal rule, about sex before marriage, and the farther you push such a rule, such as into also disallowing kissing, the sillier it gets. But what makes a terrible rule can make an excellent guideline.

I think that sex creates a very strong feel of "this is an intimate and loving relationship." Later on in a relationship, this is perfectly fine, and enhances and prettifies the real relationship underneath, and is fun besides. Early in a relationship, it creates a false positive. Because the couple feels like the relationship is close, they never feel prompted to make sure the real relationship actually exists underneath.

Again, I disclaim, this is a guideline. I'm certainly not saying that a relationship that gets sexual early cannot work, only that the sex will make it more difficult, because you'll need to be more consciously attentive to building the deeper relationship than you would otherwise.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yorick



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 12101
Location: In the undersnow

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't read all this spooging back and forth.

It is entirely possible to have a loving relationship without having sexual intimacy.

You might look at your grandparents. Assuming, of course, that they do have a loving relationship, and not a combative one, it is highly likely that their time of sexual intimacy is past. Probably they still have physical intimacy - touching, kissing, etc -- but both of my sets of grandsparents had separate bedrooms by the time I was born.

Most people that have them love their pets. I sincerely doubt very many are conducting sexual intimacy with them.

You might love your father, your mother, your brother or sister. Sexual intimacy? Not in most states.

I love this band I'm listening to. I'm not looking to screw 'em tho.
_________________
Currently experiencing: not summer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ktern



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 950

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yorick wrote:
I love this band I'm listening to. I'm not looking to screw 'em tho.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TB



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 291
Location: I don't care, I'm still free.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yorick wrote:
It is entirely possible to have a loving relationship without having sexual intimacy.

Yes.

Yorick wrote:
You might look at your grandparents. [...] both of my sets of grandsparents had separate bedrooms by the time I was born.

And my grandparents recently celebrated their 50th anniversary, and still share a bedroom. I wonder which case is the more unusual...
_________________
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
Not sharing is wrong, so we'll not share with you unless you agree to share back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group