Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

So not having sex is weird?


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Kthulhu wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Apparently, Samnell, it is an excuse for atheists to point at her and laugh.

Which hasn't really happened because most of the atheists on here don't have sex, either.

Like I said before, we're a bunch of d20-rolling geeks. This girl isn't having sex because it's her choice. Some of the posters here aren't having sex because they can't find anyone that will say yes, and ran out of chloroform.

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

First time I hear about these Purity Rings/Balls thing. Perhaps a bit unorthodox, but they really don't seem sick or deviant as some are making them sound. Just an ellaborate form of "I promise I won't do this" thing. Not to say I would personally do it, as I prefer the more traditional "No sex for you! At least until you are 18. After that, I'd really appreciate if you waited until marriage, but if not, at least pick them right and be careful", which was what my parents told me when I was 12 or so.

I think you guys are being too judgemental about the whole thing. It seems to me just a manner, among many, to try and tell kids that sex is, indeed, not to be taken lightly. But I don't see too many implications beyond that.

I don't have any real objections to your version, as long as you back them up by teaching the kids about birth control and STD protection and don't just assume that since you've told them and they've agreed that everything will be fine. Along with a whole lot of nonjudgmental come to me with problems or questions and we'll love you anyway attitude.

There seems to be whole subtext to the Purity movement that goes beyond that though. The emphasis on virginity. The fact that it's all about daughters with any similar movement for sons being tiny in comparison. That it's about promising fathers with no place for mothers. That it's about waiting til marriage, not until they're adult.
It all resonates with the old traditions where women and their sexuality are transferred from their father's control to their husband's.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Shifty wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Google "purity ring" and "purity ball". I think that should produce enough about this sick practice. Plus, it apparently has no effect either, so whatever you think you gain from it, you don't.

Urgh, just did as you suggest.

Western Taliban stuff.

When your local Episcopalians and Baptists start burning the faces off their daughters, then you can call it the "Western Taliban."

EDIT: On purity balls or whatever- silly, but hardly deviant.


thejeff wrote:

There seems to be whole subtext to the Purity movement that goes beyond that though. The emphasis on virginity. The fact that it's all about daughters with any similar movement for sons being tiny in comparison. That it's about promising fathers with no place for mothers. That it's about waiting til marriage, not until they're adult.
It all resonates with the old traditions where women and their sexuality are transferred from their father's control to their husband's.

I don't get that sort of vibe; be mindful that we often read what we expect to read into things, so probably both of us have a skewed perception of the whole thing.

What I understand from the Purity matter is that it has gained force as a pendular response to the excessive trivialization of sex we see today, or at the very least the perception that said trivialization exists. And in a desire to keep their kids safe from what they feel a threat (and I believe they have concrete reasons to think it is a threat), they take these measures. They create a ritual out of the compromise to not take sex lightly, and rituals are often a necessary part of teaching, because they serve to cement their meaning and importance.

So, it seems to me these parents are really worried about their kids having sex before what they think they should; perhaps a bit alarmist, but I see no detrimental effects in the ritual or the compromise itself.

As for there being a bigger focus on female purity than male, since I have no factual knowledge of the practice, I cannot judge that statement as correct or erroneous. But if that were the case, I would be inclined to think it relates to the fact that females have much more risks involved when having sex than a male.


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
As for there being a bigger focus on female purity than male, since I have no factual knowledge of the practice, I cannot judge that statement as correct or erroneous. But if that were the case, I would be inclined to think it relates to the fact that females have much more risks involved when having sex than a male.

Given that the Purity Balls are explicitly Father/Daughter things, I don't think much else is required to think there's more of a bigger focus on female purity in the movement.

If you're talking about the larger context, the double standard (slut/stud) is certainly real, though less than it used to be. That's one of the things they hate.


Ah, I see. I thought the Purity stuff also involved males. My mistake.

thejeff wrote:


If you're talking about the larger context, the double standard (slut/stud) is certainly real, though less than it used to be. That's one of the things they hate.

What is that being hated, and who's hating it? I admit I'm lost by the last line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

Ah, I see. I thought the Purity stuff also involved males. My mistake.

thejeff wrote:


If you're talking about the larger context, the double standard (slut/stud) is certainly real, though less than it used to be. That's one of the things they hate.
What is that being hated, and who's hating it? I admit I'm lost by the last line.

Sorry, probably should have left that out, since it's more opinion than I'm really up for defending at the moment.

I was thinking about your trivialization of sex comment and that the various wings of the Purity/anti-sex education/anti-contraception movement seem far more concerned about the erosion of the double standard and not being able to slut-shame women who want control of their sexuality than they are about any of the actual consequences they claim to be concerned about.

If you claim to be worried about teen pregnancy and STDs but oppose contraception and sex education while your rhetoric is all about Purity and Virginity, I think you're lying about your motives. I think you actually want to control women and make sure the bad girls suffer for sinning.

(That's the generic you, not you in particular Klaus.)

Edit: More simply, it's all still a reaction to the increase in women's freedom allowed by birth control and the subsequent Sexual Revolution.


I think religion has a conflict of interest on pregnancy because the more children the faithful ahve the more likely their children will donate to the church and help out. How can we trust them.


thejeff wrote:

I was thinking about your trivialization of sex comment and that the various wings of the Purity/anti-sex education/anti-contraception movement seem far more concerned about the erosion of the double standard and not being able to slut-shame women who want control of their sexuality than they are about any of the actual consequences they claim to be concerned about.

If you claim to be worried about teen pregnancy and STDs but oppose contraception and sex education while your rhetoric is all about Purity and Virginity, I think you're lying about your motives. I think you actually want to control women and make sure the bad girls suffer for sinning.

I think that would be making a rather wild assumption. I don't think there is anything malicious behind it. Try to see it from their perspective: They oppose sexual education (I'm not sure if everyone doing those Purity things is, we'd have to check) because they see it as sexualizing and a factor that would contribute to the problem (from what I understand, they are more against certain forms of sexual education rather than sexual education itself, though); they oppose contraception both because they believe it only aggravates the problem by making sex more casual and also because it separates sex from reproduction.

So in that context, Purity oaths make a lot of sense, and are actually probably a net positive, since the idea is to keep kids from having sex until finding a stable partner (which I'm sure we both can agree is a much more safe sexual environment, both in reproductive and health terms).

I'm not saying it is an ideal situation. As a staunch Catholic myself, I firmly believe in the necessity for a thorough sexual education, and though I would take a bullet for His Holiness, I think in this moment the Double Effect rules in favour of allowing condoms and the like (so long as they are not abortifacient in nature). But I think they are being honest about their intention. Virginity is, after all, 99.99% effective against teen pregnancy.

doctor_wu wrote:
I think religion has a conflict of interest on pregnancy because the more children the faithful ahve the more likely their children will donate to the church and help out. How can we trust them.

That's a bit of a causality stretch. It's like saying cops have a conflict of interest when being put in charge of fighting crime, as without criminals there would be no need for cops.

I'm not asking you to believe or even like the Church or Christianity in general, but to at least make room for the option that, despite all its flaws and mistakes, it is honestly concerned about the sanctity of human life and the caring of our souls and exists for something more than "Give me monies".

Osirion

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Regarding maliciousness: Almost all ideologically or religiously used repression usually has official roots in benevolent thoughts of care and protection.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Which hasn't really happened because most of the atheists on here don't have sex, either.

I would have a lot more sex, except that Mrs Gersen isn't down with doing it in the street. Not even if I offer to dress up like a goblin. Or a giraffe.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.


Paul Watson wrote:
Drejk wrote:
If someone wants to decide to not have sex until marriage/death/sign of gods, its his or her or its choice, no problem, as long as it is informed and voluntary choice. However, choice cannot be really called informed and voluntary when is based on erroneous, false or incomplete information (and even more when based on malicious misinformation). Thus, sexual education should be provided to everyone. Its unfortunate that a large group of close-minded idiots is dumb enough to think that mere education about sexuality will immediately and irrevocably will turn their children into raging, shameless sluts and force them into prostitution.
Dagnabbit, someone discovered the Super Duper Top Secret Librul Plan to Bring Ruin to America, Destroy Christianity and Bring Forth the Atheist Muslim Communist Nazi Totalitarean Anarchist Nation Under the UN's Leadership (TM)! That's the fifth time this month. Who's in charge of security around here

I thought that was the gay agenda. I should really pay better attention in the weekly meetings.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Which hasn't really happened because most of the atheists on here don't have sex, either.
I would have a lot more sex, except that Mrs Gersen isn't down with doing it in the street. Not even if I offer to dress up like a goblin. Or a giraffe.

My husband just came back from a trip, so this Athiest's libido has been put in check recently. I'm just saying.

It wasn't in the street though, so I'll have to work on that.


Jiggy wrote:
It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.

I believe in unicorns too :)


Jiggy wrote:
It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.

True, but they're probably statistical outliers, or at the very least not nearly as loud as the abstinance + ignorance crowd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.

Certainly true and I have no problem with them. It's not a bad idea, though I don't think it's a big deal.

Or at least abstinence while you're a teenager.

I do think that those who talk about Virginity and Purity tend to be on the anti-contraception/education/etc end of things.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.
True, but they're probably statistical outliers, or at the very least not nearly as loud as the abstinance + ignorance crowd.

Most likely the latter. It's the nasty folks who make the news or get turned into internet memes or have stories told about meeting them, etc.

Sort of like how statistically, a child is more likely to be molested by his/her own family members than by any sort of clergy, yet in some circles the very phrase "Catholic priest" has become a euphemism for "child molestor", with no such correlations drawn about being a parent of a young child.


cranewings wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.
I believe in unicorns too :)

You too? Do you believe in big foot and the Loch Ness Monster too? Were was your last siting of the unicorn?

I want one for my mantle. I have a bigfoot and a Loch Ness Monster already.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
I do think that those who talk about Virginity and Purity tend to be on the anti-contraception/education/etc end of things.

Well, I'm not part of any religious system that's anti-contraception (nor do I know anyone who is, to my knowledge), but my understanding is that such a stance is unrelated to the "abstinence until marriage" stance - they just happen to both be stances held by some groups.

As for anti-sex-ed, I have no idea. I have personally never encountered any such group directly (only heard about them), and that's with growing up in the Bible Belt.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Jiggy wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.
True, but they're probably statistical outliers, or at the very least not nearly as loud as the abstinance + ignorance crowd.

Most likely the latter. It's the nasty folks who make the news or get turned into internet memes or have stories told about meeting them, etc.

Sort of like how statistically, a child is more likely to be molested by his/her own family members than by any sort of clergy, yet in some circles the very phrase "Catholic priest" has become a euphemism for "child molestor", with no such correlations drawn about being a parent of a young child.

Mrs. Bell frequently complains to me that "it's the stupid Christians who get all the press." The rest of us aren't sensational enough to bring in ad revenue.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Charlie Bell wrote:
Mrs. Bell frequently complains to me that "it's the stupid Christians who get all the press." The rest of us aren't sensational enough to bring in ad revenue.

There's a Christian church in Minneapolis which, being only a few hundred people (so not a big mega-church), each year throws a Back to School bash type of thing where any local kid who shows up can get free school supplies, haircuts, and I think even clothes and shoes (if memory serves). All from donations from the congregation, who also volunteer to staff the event and do face painting and sit in dunk tanks and so forth.

There are also multiple local food shelves/charities which are either religious in nature or largely staffed by church groups (on a volunteer basis). The only reason I know about them is because of my wife's volunteerism - they're never on the news (or getting talked about by gamers on the internet).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even in most public schools that I'm aware of, parents are able to "opt-out" of sex ed classes. I call shenanigans! Why can't my parents opt me out of long division or US History? What's that you say? It's necessary to create a well-rounded and informed citizen/voter?

Double check and mate.


Charlie Bell wrote:
Mrs. Bell frequently complains to me that "it's the stupid Christians who get all the press." The rest of us aren't sensational enough to bring in ad revenue.

Or numerous enough.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

meatrace wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Mrs. Bell frequently complains to me that "it's the stupid Christians who get all the press." The rest of us aren't sensational enough to bring in ad revenue.
Or numerous enough.

And how do you know that?

"Why, from what I hear in the news or what people talk about, of course!"

Double check and mate.


Jiggy wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Mrs. Bell frequently complains to me that "it's the stupid Christians who get all the press." The rest of us aren't sensational enough to bring in ad revenue.
Or numerous enough.

And how do you know that?

"Why, from what I hear in the news or what people talk about, of course!"

Double check and mate.

Can you show me a mainstream news program that has had a story about how stupid all christians are? No? Stop trying to blame the "liberal media" for everything.

No, I can only blame extensive personal experience, including about 8 hours a day listening to retarded people babble, all of whom self-identify as christian. It's anecdotal, I admit, but it's a rather large sample set.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

meatrace wrote:
Can you show me a mainstream news program that has had a story about how stupid all christians are? No? Stop trying to blame the "liberal media" for everything.

1. I never said anything about "liberal" anything.

2. I never said a news program made generalizations about "all christians". I just said that negative stories get aired more than positive ones (which applies to more topics than just religion).
3. Mentioning one trend in the media does not constitute "blaming them for everything".

I don't know what other people have tried to say to you about Christians and liberal media and who's at fault for what, but please separate your past arguments from what I've actually said. I have no interest in defending other people's positions, or being asked to by you.

If you have a response to something I actually said, I'd love to hear it. But keep your dirty laundry away from me.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

meatrace wrote:
No, I can only blame extensive personal experience, including about 8 hours a day listening to retarded people babble, all of whom self-identify as christian. It's anecdotal, I admit, but it's a rather large sample set.

I see. You're stereotyping. Got it.


Charlie Bell wrote:
meatrace wrote:
No, I can only blame extensive personal experience, including about 8 hours a day listening to retarded people babble, all of whom self-identify as christian. It's anecdotal, I admit, but it's a rather large sample set.
I see. You're stereotyping. Got it.

I see you don't know what stereotyping is. Got it.

Allow me to educate you. A stereotype is applying a prototype (the most X of X, based on perception) to all of that type. I'm clearly not doing this. You said that those christians who were anti science? They're just a very tiny very vocal minority. I'm not saying all christians are anti-science, just that, from my experience, they seem to be the majority.

So, just as an example, here's some of the gems I got from phone calls with people just yesterday. Paraphrasing, of course, since I'm not allowed to keep recordings as souvenirs.

A woman explaining in detail about how Obama's death panels are being set up, and making plans to hide in the bomb shelter underneath their church. Punctuated with cries of amen and sprinkled with glossolalia.

A man, practically in tears, about how on this memorial day, America is deciding between a Muslim and Jew for president. (Romney? A Jew? WTF?) Which is wrong because this is a christian nation.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I'm curious, meatrace: what's your job exactly? Some kind of call center, it sounds like?


Jiggy wrote:
I have no interest in defending other people's positions, or being asked to by you.

If you weren't interested, then why did you jump in by responding to something I said to someone else?


meatrace wrote:
A man, practically in tears, about how on this memorial day, America is deciding between a Muslim and Jew for president. (Romney? A Jew? WTF?) Which is wrong because this is a christian nation.

He's a banker. Or at least a financial guy, which is close enough. That means he's a Jew.

It scares me that I can think like this.


Jiggy wrote:
I'm curious, meatrace: what's your job exactly? Some kind of call center, it sounds like?

I caption calls for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. Despite laws to the contrary, the majority of time the people who I am captioning are not warned that they are being captioned (we call this a "hybrid" call). Most of the contracts my company has are southern states. In the end, though, it means I sit there and listen (and caption) people when they are being absolutely honest and candid. And what I hear sickens me more often than not.

I've had to caption a conference call between Klan members before. And the speaking in tongues thing is WAAAAAY more common than you might expect.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

meatrace wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I have no interest in defending other people's positions, or being asked to by you.
If you weren't interested, then why did you jump in by responding to something I said to someone else?

I said I wasn't interested in defending other people's positions (in context, I meant "defend them as though they were mine", because you were in the middle of ascribing those beliefs to me). Doesn't mean I can't poke holes in your statements.

Why do you assume that if I say something contrary to you, then I must hold X, Y and Z other beliefs as well?

All I actually did was point out that your idea of what must be the minority was probably not based on sufficient empirical fact (something you even admitted to thereafter - so we actually agree on that point).

And from my stated conjecture with which you actually agreed, you then concluded:
• That I blame everything on the media
• That I consider the media "liberal"
• By extension, that I would consider that a bad thing
• That I thought the news tried to paint Christians in general negatively

I said none of that. That was all you. And you got it all from something I said that you agreed with.

What. The F***.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

meatrace wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'm curious, meatrace: what's your job exactly? Some kind of call center, it sounds like?

I caption calls for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. Despite laws to the contrary, the majority of time the people who I am captioning are not warned that they are being captioned (we call this a "hybrid" call). Most of the contracts my company has are southern states. In the end, though, it means I sit there and listen (and caption) people when they are being absolutely honest and candid. And what I hear sickens me more often than not.

I've had to caption a conference call between Klan members before. And the speaking in tongues thing is WAAAAAY more common than you might expect.

Okay, so you listen to phone calls mostly from southern Americans who are hard of hearing. That means the majority of them are probably old.

So your major personal experience with Christianity is old, southern American Christians (or those they talk to on the phone).

And you can't see why old southerners might not be representative of that religion as a whole? How they might be different from urban, young, Northern American Christians (like the church I mentioned earlier with the free school supplies)? How they might be different from Chinese Christians (not Chinese Americans, mind you - Chinese)? Or Roman Catholics (in Rome)? Or Eastern Orthodox (in West Asia)?

You really think that the majority of Christians are represented by old American southerners?


Jiggy wrote:


• That I blame everything on the media
• That I consider the media "liberal"
• By extension, that I would consider that a bad thing
• That I thought the news tried to paint Christians in general negatively

Why don't you go back and read your own comment and see if you can't figure out how I got those things from what you said.

You said the only reason I believe what I believe is because "the news" said so. Since I think negatively of christianity, this can only mean that you believe the news paints christianity negatively. News and media are used interchangeably, or sometimes as a compound "news media".

Do you believe it's not even possible that you're outnumbered by idiots, even within your own religion?


Jiggy wrote:


Okay, so you listen to phone calls mostly from southern Americans who are hard of hearing. That means the majority of them are probably old.

Fail.

Hardcore fail.
No, I caption FOR them. I don't caption them, why would they need captioning? They're deaf not mute. No, I caption their children, grandchildren, neices, nephews, young neighbors, nurses, bankers, etc. Also, deaf AND hard of hearing. So that means anyone over about 45 can and does use the service. Also, since I already suggested if not flat out said that the captioned people don't know it's on, it shouldn't come as a surprise to know that often the clients don't either. I get a pretty wide array of calls, but most interpersonal conversational calls are punctuated by amens and allelujahs.

And no statement I make can reasonably considered to be of people I've never interacted with. I thought it was a given that you understood I was talking about christianity in America. Let me be more specific, in case you get further confused, talking about christianity in MODERN America, i.e. present day. Not the future, not the past, now.

Again, I'm not ascribing ANYTHING to ALL of christianity. I'm merely challenging the assertion that the stupid ones are vastly outnumbered by nice, good, clean, enlightened ones.

But this is way off topic now and this isn't the place for a religious battle. All I meant to do with my snippy comment was challenge that assumption.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

meatrace wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


• That I blame everything on the media
• That I consider the media "liberal"
• By extension, that I would consider that a bad thing
• That I thought the news tried to paint Christians in general negatively
Why don't you go back and read your own comment

Only if you do, too:

Earlier, Jiggy wrote:

And how do you know that?

"Why, from what I hear in the news or what people talk about, of course!"

Double check and mate.

There it is for reference. Now:

Quote:
You said the only reason I believe what I believe is because "the news" said so.

I listed two things: news, and what people talk about.

You then claim that the "only" reason is the news.

As you can see, at no point was I singling out media as any kind of culprit.

Quote:
Since I think negatively of christianity, this can only mean that you believe the news paints christianity negatively.

Actually, if you go back to the post you pulled your quote from, you'll see I actually stated my position about the media and Christianity:

In a post you replied to, I wrote:
It's the nasty folks who make the news or get turned into internet memes or have stories told about meeting them, etc.

As you can see (though I understand if you didn't read the quote tunnel; I'm only bringing this part up for clarification going forward, not to say you did anything wrong), I have no beef with media in particular; I'm just observing that bad news is what gets spread around (whether through media or just word of mouth) and can therefore skew outside observers' ideas of what the norm or majority is.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
Dagnabbit, someone discovered the Super Duper Top Secret (...) Nation Under the UN's Leadership (TM)! That's the fifth time this month. Who's in charge of security around here
I thought that was the gay agenda. I should really pay better attention in the weekly meetings.

UN Leadership are secretly transsexual gay slut feminists.

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I would have a lot more sex, except that Mrs Gersen isn't down with doing it in the street. Not even if I offer to dress up like a goblin. Or a giraffe.

My husband just came back from a trip, so this Athiest's libido has been put in check recently. I'm just saying.

It wasn't in the street though, so I'll have to work on that.

Waaay too much infomation... From both of you.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

meatrace wrote:

I'm merely challenging the assertion that the stupid ones are vastly outnumbered by nice, good, clean, enlightened ones.

But this is way off topic now and this isn't the place for a religious battle. All I meant to do with my snippy comment was challenge that assumption.

An assumption never made, actually. I'm not interested in a religious battle, either; I'm interested in you not putting words in people's mouths.

No one ever claimed any "vast outnumbering" (merely suggesting the possibility that negative attention can skew perceptions of the ratio), yet you claim to be challenging that assumption.

Just like I never "blamed the liberal media" for anything, yet you challenged that, too.

And so on, and so forth. If you want to challenge assumptions, go for it, with my proverbial blessing. I love challenging assumptions (check out my activity in the Rules boards, heh). Just challenge them where they are, not in random other people's posts where such assumptions may or may not even exist.

Andoran

*whistles*

Hey guys. Anyone wanna talk about using oils of foo offensively or something?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Howie23 wrote:

*whistles*

Hey guys. Anyone wanna talk about using oils of foo offensively or something?

Is this you vouching for my interest in challenging assumptions? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:
Actually, there is scientific evidence to indicate that about 10% of the human population or so is sexuality-wise asexual. They aren't abstaining, they just really aren't interested. The popular term among among those of that orientation is 'ace'.
She's not it. She's saying its hard and she's saving herself for marriage.
That's fair, but I still don't see why it's a bad thing.

I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't know anybody who really would. I can see Fox News acting like this is a big deal and she is a big hero, the same way they idolize people who swear they are fighting against the wicked in a "War Against Christmas."

It's a big to-do about nothing. The same people Fox and the other rabid Right claim are ostracizing this woman for abstaining, are the very same people who don't believe any sexual activity is truly deviant: the educated, liberals, and psychologists.

Turning around after years of claiming those people are "too open minded" to try to accuse them of suddenly, conveniently not understanding this woman's sexual choices, is disingenuous at best, hypocritical in any case, and a fat lie told with a grinning, manipulative face, at worst.

And anybody who thinks they can trust Fox News to speak with authority on how the Left or any other liberal feels about this issue, and trusts them for fair information upon which to base their own opinions, is drinking black Kool-Aid laced with stupid pills.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bruunwald wrote:
people who don't believe any sexual activity is truly deviant: the educated, liberals, and psychologists.

Psychologists and educated people don't think any sexual activity is truly deviant?

Funny you should mention the field of study in which I have my degree, and in which the word "deviant", in reference to behavior, mostly just means "not the norm". So for a psychologist to believe that no sexual activity is truly deviant, he/she would have to believe that all sexual activities were practiced by approximately equal portions of the population.

Either that, or having a psychology degree leaves me less aware of the true stance of educated psychologists than you are. ;)

Andoran

Jiggy wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

*whistles*

Hey guys. Anyone wanna talk about using oils of foo offensively or something?

Is this you vouching for my interest in challenging assumptions? ;)

Oh, I can certainly attest to that... :D

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Howie23 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

*whistles*

Hey guys. Anyone wanna talk about using oils of foo offensively or something?

Is this you vouching for my interest in challenging assumptions? ;)
Oh, I can certainly attest to that... :D

I had actually been thinking to myself how funny it would be if someone came in and referenced that thread. You made my day, dear goat.


In my personal and completely casuistic experience, as a Catholic from Chile, the best people I've met have been religious folks, and the most intolerant and virulent have been atheist.

Yet both samples are probably skewed and really serve no purpose for the argument.

So my point is, Jiggy is right.


I’ve been thinking about it and I’ve realized that the way the Purity ceremony issue was introduced into the thread prolly made it sound like just another “F@!@ you Christians.” statement but for those who have rushed to defend the practice without really knowing much about it I humbly suggest that in this one very, very particular instance you might be better served not handwaving it away as completely innocuous for certain simply because it is an activity some Christians are doing and they are being criticized for it. It’s almost one of those things you have to see with your own eyes to really get a good feel for so if you are ever invited to one I suggest you check your preconceptions of it (good or ill) at the door and go and really both listen to what is actually being said and also watch how the people are interacting with each other and just see what you think. Perhaps you will find it nothing but a heartwarming family event, but I think there is a possibility you will leave with a couple of question marks floating around in your head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I said it before, so once more: Those who try to control their children's sexual development or strangle it while the children are too young to resist, suck. And not in a good way. It doesn't matter if you push your daughter to accept swearing her faith to you in a purity ball, or if you force your homosexual son to pray to stop being gay. EVERY person has the right to have a sexuality. Every person. Simple as that. Some may be in a situation where they can't act it out, but that's their cross to bear, and doesn't apply to consensual sex so don't claim gay sex is some kind of abomination in the eyes of God or whatever. It still doesn't give anyone any sort of right to change anyone else's sexuality, or stunt their sexual development.

I think an old Groo comic said it best: Too many people believe only in belief.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sissyl wrote:
It still doesn't give anyone any sort of right to change anyone else's sexuality

Agreed.

Including when someone else's sexuality is "I want to wait" - none of us has the right to change/condemn it.

201 to 250 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / So not having sex is weird? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.