Topic: Do you think that.... | |
---|---|
It has been my experience that the dynamic of a sexual encounter is the expression of how one views another. I also find a critical distinction between giving oneself to an experience for the sake of having that experience, and giving oneself to another for the sake of the other.
It is for this reason alone, that I find great uncomfort in the idea of props and roleplay during intercourse. It repulses me. That's just me though. |
|
|
|
Call me boring.
|
|
|
|
Call me boring. lol, everybody got their something I find intimate relations to be extremely one on one, shutting out the rest of the world, and remaining open to all the possible scenarios that can fulfill ones partner physically and emotionally ..but thats just me,,,lol |
|
|
|
Hey hey all the sex talk, get a room! JK
I don't understand the role play either Creative. Just isn't needed as far as I go sexually. But I do understand the sexual experiences just for the sake of them . Sex in it's many forms is one of the greatest ways to celebrate life and being human. Now I don't go hog wild on that premise though |
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Thu 01/13/11 02:26 PM
|
|
It's just that I hold the encounter, the entire experience of the day, of the week, etc., with such deeply held importance. It is an encounter unmatched by any other. For the sake of the experience is one empty of emotion, for me at least. I can see where some would wish for just that kinda thing, though.
Not to say that I'm immune to such either. Hardy har har. It's just once you've had it in the way that I mean, nothing else compares... and need not at times. Knowing the difference never goes away. |
|
|
|
Understood and felt also.
|
|
|
|
To the OP... It does seem that following the religion is necessarily at adds with being friends with 'sinners' in the same regular manner as one would be with other church goers. I think that the black and white thinking inherent in a belief system based upon the primary concepts of good and evil definitely has the potential to severely limit the person's ability to apply critical thinking skills to complex notions. That is displayed in these forums all the time. Selective application of scientific data seems to be a troublesome concept for some to grasp hold of. Now, whether or not that causes a person to be disingenuous in their dialogue is an interesting idea. What kind of approach would yield any useful information regarding this? what is the 'regular' manner of being a friend? is it pretending to like what you dont like or pretending to agree with what you dont agree with or agreeing to do things that go against your own moral code(wherever that comes from? I am just curious about what is perceived to be so different between how a religious person carries on friendships compared to anyone else? I think the main problem here is "projection"... One person only sees another's label and looks down upon the other with contemp, or pity, or whatever other feeling you want to express. Then they extrapolate from their own feelings that everyone else must think and act simmilarly. Christians can't be friends with a homosexual is the premise of this thread. But the real premise is that the individual generalises the religious as if everyone has the same thought processes as well. Contrary to the strawman arguement claimed by others, my morals were formed before I could read. I knew early on what was right and wrong as well as being able to recognise a "good" person. Like I said earlier, the only wise response in this thread was from chocolina back on page 1. I suggest everyone re-read that statement and do some serious soul-searching. |
|
|
|
to change the subject...
Do you think that making underrage incestual marriage legal would increase the cases of sexual abuse? I mean isn't that like begging for it to happen, even paving the very way? There would be no law against it. Crazy, I tell ya. |
|
|
|
To the OP... It does seem that following the religion is necessarily at adds with being friends with 'sinners' in the same regular manner as one would be with other church goers. I think that the black and white thinking inherent in a belief system based upon the primary concepts of good and evil definitely has the potential to severely limit the person's ability to apply critical thinking skills to complex notions. That is displayed in these forums all the time. Selective application of scientific data seems to be a troublesome concept for some to grasp hold of. Now, whether or not that causes a person to be disingenuous in their dialogue is an interesting idea. What kind of approach would yield any useful information regarding this? what is the 'regular' manner of being a friend? is it pretending to like what you dont like or pretending to agree with what you dont agree with or agreeing to do things that go against your own moral code(wherever that comes from? I am just curious about what is perceived to be so different between how a religious person carries on friendships compared to anyone else? I think the main problem here is "projection"... One person only sees another's label and looks down upon the other with contemp, or pity, or whatever other feeling you want to express. Then they extrapolate from their own feelings that everyone else must think and act simmilarly. Christians can't be friends with a homosexual is the premise of this thread. But the real premise is that the individual generalises the religious as if everyone has the same thought processes as well. Contrary to the strawman arguement claimed by others, my morals were formed before I could read. I knew early on what was right and wrong as well as being able to recognise a "good" person. Like I said earlier, the only wise response in this thread was from chocolina back on page 1. I suggest everyone re-read that statement and do some serious soul-searching. I suggest you read it and enjoy it for yourself and quite telling others what to do. Since the wiseness of it is debatable. |
|
|
|
Nobody is talking about you Pan. We've already covered these things as well. Sit back and learn all about what a genuine dialogue looks like.
|
|
|
|
Truth hurts, it shows in your words...
|
|
|
|
Contrary to the strawman arguement claimed by others, my morals were formed before I could read. I knew early on what was right and wrong as well as being able to recognise a "good" person.
Yeah, right. Contrary to nearly every piece of neuroscientific data on the subject matter. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Contrary to the strawman arguement claimed by others, my morals were formed before I could read. I knew early on what was right and wrong as well as being able to recognise a "good" person.
Yeah, right. Contrary to nearly every piece of neuroscientific data on the subject matter. Whatever. Let it go... |
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Thu 01/13/11 02:52 PM
|
|
to change the subject... Do you think that making underrage incestual marriage legal would increase the cases of sexual abuse? I mean isn't that like begging for it to happen, even paving the very way? There would be no law against it. Crazy, I tell ya. Hell, the children don't even know what sex is. I didn't when I was molested. I couldn't figure out why he kept licking my butt, ya know? Not trying to be disgusting here. If it offends someone I will take it out but it is for explanation. My uncle would have loved marrying me at five. |
|
|
|
Anyone arguing for underrage incestual legality has serious issues.
|
|
|
|
My uncle has been in and out of mental institutions all his life.
But last time I saw him, he still relishes his time with me, it gets him excited to this day. He is not mentally well. |
|
|
|
Dragoness,
Did you know that we cannot really know which of our memories are actual, and which ones may be contrived through repeatedly telling a lie, or even possibly being honestly mistaken but incorrect, none-the-less? There are some amazing studies in which false memories were intentionally 'implanted' in a child's mind through direct conversation, like "hey when you were such and such an age, you did this or that, do you remember?", and then repeated throughout the following years. It is the case that that person, after a few years or sometimes less, of hearing and discussing this 'memory', come to actually believe that the event had happened. It was contrived all along. Strange huh? Memory is not necessarily dependable. Of course, this - in no way - means to suggestive or apply to the situation with your uncle. |
|
|
|
My advice would be to avoid him.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Thu 01/13/11 03:27 PM
|
|
Dragoness, Did you know that we cannot really know which of our memories are actual, and which ones may be contrived through repeatedly telling a lie, or even possibly being honestly mistaken but incorrect, none-the-less? There are some amazing studies in which false memories were intentionally 'implanted' in a child's mind through direct conversation, like "hey when you were such and such an age, you did this or that, do you remember?", and then repeated throughout the following years. It is the case that that person, after a few years or sometimes less, of hearing and discussing this 'memory', come to actually believe that the event had happened. It was contrived all along. Strange huh? Memory is not necessarily dependable. Of course, this - in no way - means to suggestive or apply to the situation with your uncle. Understood. Mine is the opposite the family is in denial that it happened because I had the delayed memories or whatever they are called. I had buried it until I was in my twenties. Then I suddenly remembered my uncle putting this big purple thing to my face telling me to lick it, which at that time I had no clue what it was, but at twenty I knew. Then I started remembering more and more. The reason I never told is he told me he would kill my family if I did. At five I believed him. Memories are weird I agree. I talked with my mom about it and found out that I was probably being molested by a friend of the family also at the same time. Both him and my uncle wore glasses but my uncle wasn't at the place that some of the molestations happened and the other guy wasn't at my grandma's house were my uncle used to babysit me. Mom is convinced the other guy is fully responsible if it even happened. She is so supportive But my confirmation of the uncle if I needed it which I don't was the last time I saw the uncle he wanted me to remember when he babysat me fanatically and then he talked of his lack of sex the whole rest of the time. My mom and gran couldn't figure out what was wrong with him but I knew. I don't see him at all. Mom orchestrated this meet. I watched over my children really really well in this department, ya know? |
|
|
|
My advice would be to avoid him. Why avoid him? Is because he's a little ill make him less of a person? Make him a danger? Why not love this person and treat them with the utmost love and respect? Try to work with this person out of love to try to help him heal from his illness? Why lock him in a closet and forget about him? Is it his fault he's mentally ill? No. Did he choose to be mentally ill? No. So if it's not his intentional fault or fault at all, why treat him as such and treat him any differently then another? |
|
|