And only in the missionary position with the lights off. And only within the bonds of marriage. And only for the purpose of reproduction. Heaven forfend sex should ever be wild and crazy and risk-taking. Why, thet thar's just sinful!
If you truly believe that sex should only be "respectful" and "loving," I pity your partners.
I find it very revealing. Revealing of the continued prevalence of the Madonna/***** complex among North American males.
Wow, you jumped to 1000 foot high conclusions all with a simple statement!
My "partners"?? consist of my husband of 37 years - and I have some experience - is a sufficient claim for the integrity of this conversation - without getting into my private life. Which is not the topic and not to be shared on a public forum.
I believe sexual relations encompasses more than just a physical act and when enacted upon in a loving manner, with RESPECT for the other person, the most beautiful things happen.*And a sexual position is not the point, but the position of the heart and mind is the point. The most gratifying sexual or intimate experiences happen when the TWO involved are PRESENT With each other, in a loving, giving, reciprocal manner. And did I say only one position for an "intimate embrace is acceptable"?*And where did I remotely say that sex is sinful? No where. You jumped to that conclusion because I use language that is foreign to many these days.
By the way, it is a proven science that having sex with another alters the brain chemistry. And people get "imprinted" in ways on others. That is why some people seem to go temporarily "crazy" when first in love with another and why many men stay with the mother of their children and visa versa. It is part of our human nature. We dishonour our human nature to jump around too much in the playing fields. IMHO.
In addition that imprinting is also working on setting our points of self worth and esteem.
And one of the MOST important factors between heterosexual sexual encounters - is that it DOES produce babies. And so many unwanted babies (otherwise millions of abortions would not happen) exist due to this laisse faire attitude about sex. That is NOT bad, it is a disgrace to our what the origin of feminism meant. No one takes responsibility for a pregnancy in the same manner.
Yes, options are necessary, we do not want to go back to the dark ages. But prevention and respecting self is a much better vehicle with which to impart to our youth and people today.
I went through that "70's sexual revolution". I can say a lot about pendulums swinging from overly rigid societies to overly permissive societies because I went through it myself. Many people, male and female went through it too and have opinions or experiences they share.
Too rigid/restrictive is not good and too permissive, liberal is not good either. Balance is the key in all things, and especially with respect to our bodies, minds and souls.
We came a long way, and not that long that we will throw our youth under the bus with more confusion about RESPECTING and HONOURING their rights to their own bodies and its function and beauty. Our bodies are NOT a book, or hug to be lent or to share the most intimate physical and emotional part of our self. That is NOT to be taken lightly. We find society imparts ownership of a vehicle far above giving our self to others. People don't just lend their car to anyone, so why would be encourage a lesser attitude to the value of our bodies?
Yet, today, we see sex as something that others believe they have a "right" to sex even gentle to overt coercion. Otherwise someone might be labelled a prude. As far as your huge negative conclusions about my statement - claiming that the sexual act is meant for loving couples, I stand by that claim.* I do not claim that Marriage is the only form of a committed relationship, but certainly some form of commitment is necessary. If that is not present we teach our youth that their bodies are a commodity and can be "used" by others. Low self esteem, and many unwanted pregnancies, in addition many experience more confusion or get roped into doing things that they don't like or want due to someone forcing a prude concept on them or making them feel abnormal.
For as many casual o.k. sex encounters there - will be as many (if not more) who will experience the ugly side of permissive sex attitudes gone wrong - sex abuse, rape, and the list goes onto what the small temptations of lust ….carry over into all sorts of one more depth of that cycle of not HONOURING our bodies.
What committed couples do behind closed doors in agreement and without coercion is their business.
...But we see young girls by 10 dressing super sexy(some toddlers are dressing/dancing sexy to Beyonce) and moms think this is o.kk? Then they wonder why pedophiles are drooling over their kids?
No, it should not matter the way we dress, others should control themselves, but it is not a good sign for a toddler to be dressing like Beyonce or Brittney Spears. Dressing "sexy" lewd lyrics to songs these days is way overboard, then youth of both genders flaunting or obsessing about looks or sex appeal. And more so than ever being willing to compromise themselves to meet needs (that at times could be abusive or perverse) of another. Don't try to put people in a box if they wish to be seen as respecting their right to have consensual, respectful relations.*
If people want to attract the opposite sex - dressing elegant, or simple sensual does not have to be flaunting body parts in untasteful ways. Most times, True sex appeal needs to have more to the imagination.
Sex itself is NOT degrading. But reducing sex to swear words, or degrading a woman or man to their body parts (many times lyrics imply using and throwing away) and lustful imagery is not a respectful form to show another human. And extremely confusing to youth and what their rights to their own bodies are at that age.
Sensuality is a wonderful thing, but it should not be a free for all lust fest- because way too many people do NOT know their boundaries with another.
Our youth are already super confused, and this is how boys treated girls in the past, "if you love me you will have sex with me attitude".
Placing SEX as an important act that may have life altering consequences surely is a truthful and healthy attitude to instill in our children or society. But society, parents, government and church or cultural ideals at one time stood on the side of protecting a young girl from unwanted lust of testosterone heavily laden boys. Yes, there were "shot gun weddings" but many learned to be accountable and take care of what they started. Did not work for all, but worked for many. And yes, we do have options in this day and age, and that first one is to care for self and be cautious and preventative cautions include no sex or sex with a trusted person in some form of relationship.
Today we see many youth (both genders) - have become over sex driven and way less accountable for their actions. Another topic in itself. But many who don't abide by that or feel uncomfortable with sex too soon in a relationship have nothing to back them up - other than a conscience of honouring self - if they want to stay chaste or wait for a loving relationship. Those people are teased or ridiculed into thinking there is something wrong with them.
It is instinctual to protect and preserve self for those we love. Our society (parents) are inundated with scare of unhealthy sexual advances on our children and youth - then we are told it is a free for all once they turn a certain age to throw those values or "instincts" out the window? What a dichotomy.
I trust myself and husband (as I know others have) to have taught our children the VALUE of their bodies, minds and souls and to NOT give their bodies (minds, emotions) away lightly. But they were also taught a healthy attitude about sex, the two go together, respect for self and respect for for our sexual selves. There is not perfect way to parent or instill such things, but it is better than say go out and have tons of sex indiscriminately and do not value self.
I stand by my earlier impression - The lyrics in Beyoncé's song are sad and a denigration of sex. It does not portray that act of sex as something BEAUTIFUL and bringing one another closer to value each other at all.
The manner by which you jumped to such erroneously conclusions of my statement required a lengthy treatise.
All the best.
Wow, you jumped to 1000 foot high conclusions all with a simple statement!
My "partners"?? consist of my husband of 37 years - and I have some experience - is a sufficient claim for the integrity of this conversation - without getting into my private life. Which is not the topic and not to be shared on a public forum.
I believe sexual relations encompasses more than just a physical act and when enacted upon in a loving manner, with RESPECT for the other person, the most beautiful things happen.*And a sexual position is not the point, but the position of the heart and mind is the point. The most gratifying sexual or intimate experiences happen when the TWO involved are PRESENT With each other, in a loving, giving, reciprocal manner. And did I say only one position for an "intimate embrace is acceptable"?*And where did I remotely say that sex is sinful? No where. You jumped to that conclusion because I use language that is foreign to many these days.
By the way, it is a proven science that having sex with another alters the brain chemistry. And people get "imprinted" in ways on others. That is why some people seem to go temporarily "crazy" when first in love with another and why many men stay with the mother of their children and visa versa. It is part of our human nature. We dishonour our human nature to jump around too much in the playing fields. IMHO.
In addition that imprinting is also working on setting our points of self worth and esteem.
And one of the MOST important factors between heterosexual sexual encounters - is that it DOES produce babies. And so many unwanted babies (otherwise millions of abortions would not happen) exist due to this laisse faire attitude about sex. That is NOT bad, it is a disgrace to our what the origin of feminism meant. No one takes responsibility for a pregnancy in the same manner.
Yes, options are necessary, we do not want to go back to the dark ages. But prevention and respecting self is a much better vehicle with which to impart to our youth and people today.
I went through that "70's sexual revolution". I can say a lot about pendulums swinging from overly rigid societies to overly permissive societies because I went through it myself. Many people, male and female went through it too and have opinions or experiences they share.
Too rigid/restrictive is not good and too permissive, liberal is not good either. Balance is the key in all things, and especially with respect to our bodies, minds and souls.
We came a long way, and not that long that we will throw our youth under the bus with more confusion about RESPECTING and HONOURING their rights to their own bodies and its function and beauty. Our bodies are NOT a book, or hug to be lent or to share the most intimate physical and emotional part of our self. That is NOT to be taken lightly. We find society imparts ownership of a vehicle far above giving our self to others. People don't just lend their car to anyone, so why would be encourage a lesser attitude to the value of our bodies?
Yet, today, we see sex as something that others believe they have a "right" to sex even gentle to overt coercion. Otherwise someone might be labelled a prude. As far as your huge negative conclusions about my statement - claiming that the sexual act is meant for loving couples, I stand by that claim.* I do not claim that Marriage is the only form of a committed relationship, but certainly some form of commitment is necessary. If that is not present we teach our youth that their bodies are a commodity and can be "used" by others. Low self esteem, and many unwanted pregnancies, in addition many experience more confusion or get roped into doing things that they don't like or want due to someone forcing a prude concept on them or making them feel abnormal.
For as many casual o.k. sex encounters there - will be as many (if not more) who will experience the ugly side of permissive sex attitudes gone wrong - sex abuse, rape, and the list goes onto what the small temptations of lust ….carry over into all sorts of one more depth of that cycle of not HONOURING our bodies.
What committed couples do behind closed doors in agreement and without coercion is their business.
...But we see young girls by 10 dressing super sexy(some toddlers are dressing/dancing sexy to Beyonce) and moms think this is o.kk? Then they wonder why pedophiles are drooling over their kids?
No, it should not matter the way we dress, others should control themselves, but it is not a good sign for a toddler to be dressing like Beyonce or Brittney Spears. Dressing "sexy" lewd lyrics to songs these days is way overboard, then youth of both genders flaunting or obsessing about looks or sex appeal. And more so than ever being willing to compromise themselves to meet needs (that at times could be abusive or perverse) of another. Don't try to put people in a box if they wish to be seen as respecting their right to have consensual, respectful relations.*
If people want to attract the opposite sex - dressing elegant, or simple sensual does not have to be flaunting body parts in untasteful ways. Most times, True sex appeal needs to have more to the imagination.
Sex itself is NOT degrading. But reducing sex to swear words, or degrading a woman or man to their body parts (many times lyrics imply using and throwing away) and lustful imagery is not a respectful form to show another human. And extremely confusing to youth and what their rights to their own bodies are at that age.
Sensuality is a wonderful thing, but it should not be a free for all lust fest- because way too many people do NOT know their boundaries with another.
Our youth are already super confused, and this is how boys treated girls in the past, "if you love me you will have sex with me attitude".
Placing SEX as an important act that may have life altering consequences surely is a truthful and healthy attitude to instill in our children or society. But society, parents, government and church or cultural ideals at one time stood on the side of protecting a young girl from unwanted lust of testosterone heavily laden boys. Yes, there were "shot gun weddings" but many learned to be accountable and take care of what they started. Did not work for all, but worked for many. And yes, we do have options in this day and age, and that first one is to care for self and be cautious and preventative cautions include no sex or sex with a trusted person in some form of relationship.
Today we see many youth (both genders) - have become over sex driven and way less accountable for their actions. Another topic in itself. But many who don't abide by that or feel uncomfortable with sex too soon in a relationship have nothing to back them up - other than a conscience of honouring self - if they want to stay chaste or wait for a loving relationship. Those people are teased or ridiculed into thinking there is something wrong with them.
It is instinctual to protect and preserve self for those we love. Our society (parents) are inundated with scare of unhealthy sexual advances on our children and youth - then we are told it is a free for all once they turn a certain age to throw those values or "instincts" out the window? What a dichotomy.
I trust myself and husband (as I know others have) to have taught our children the VALUE of their bodies, minds and souls and to NOT give their bodies (minds, emotions) away lightly. But they were also taught a healthy attitude about sex, the two go together, respect for self and respect for for our sexual selves. There is not perfect way to parent or instill such things, but it is better than say go out and have tons of sex indiscriminately and do not value self.
I stand by my earlier impression - The lyrics in Beyoncé's song are sad and a denigration of sex. It does not portray that act of sex as something BEAUTIFUL and bringing one another closer to value each other at all.
The manner by which you jumped to such erroneously conclusions of my statement required a lengthy treatise.
All the best.
Sorry for typos.
