Christianity QA

Question:

Mr. Steve wrote: > That what you are describing is, in fact, true – and are some of the sins that > the Christian Church has endured over the years.  Bear in mind that nobody is > perfect except God.  While the Church is devoted to God, it still is formed by > human beings, and as such, it isn’t free from sin.

Not ’sin’ but more a false and defective vision of ’self-righteousness’, fueled by a *god-concept*. You have offered absolutely nothing to support the actual basis of a god, other that your own ‘faith’ – which even you must concede doesn’t do anything for a skeptic. The fact is – the Inquisition and other perfidies, as I noted, were done by blind, ideological adherence to dogma and absolutism. The incapacity to live with ambiguity, and to therefore treat others with tolerance. That, my friend, is the core of the bloody history of Xtianity, it’s pretensions to absolute truth. And arrogance in actually believing it could grasp it. And then co-opting the brains of millions, to inhibit them from thinking for themselves, while having some misplaced faith in ‘absolute truth’. (What Richard Dawkins calls a ‘mind virus’) Many of us expended years – hell, *decades* to unearth all the research to expose Xtianity for the sham it is. Yet, you enter – with a brief exposure to some group most of us never heard of, and attempt to preach ‘absolutes’ to us. I suspect this is what brought the heat on. >  This isn’t an excuse, but > rather it’s the reality.

No Steve. The ‘reality’ is the single-minded imperative to grasp at an absolute – as T-R-U-T-H, and being able to destroy any humans that question this process. > I’m not impressed with the increasing negative messages, flames, and > especially with the recent Maas posts.  Ironically, there is a lot of > judgment and anger on this newsgroup – since it’s supposed to be a support > group.

But, you brought up the issue of religion, and the’Jesus-izing’. I agree that some of the posts might have gone overboard. But OTOH,there have been a lot of excellent and well-thought responses, like Eric Pepke’s – to take some time away from this(‘alpha’) group and consider, ponder what they’ve told you. In other words, Steve – and to paraphrase Cromwell’s plaintive plea: ‘Consider, just consider the possibility that you MAY be wrong.’ That’s all anyone’s asking you to do. > There’ve been a number of enlightening, inspiring, and uplifting posts here > over the years, and I’ve really benefited from them – but there’s just too > much negativity here for me to continue reading and posting.

Sorry, but given that you initiated the thread, and a lot of the preachy tone, many of us can’t offer much sympathy. I am proud of what you’ve achieved in terms of your reading, re: the System and all, and your desires to volunteer. But, this religious thing has left a bad taste in my mouth, as I’m sure many others. It simply was not necessary to introduce it here at all. If one must adhere to some religion, including Jesus-worship, then either practice it privately – without your own *judgment*, or – if you do enter a public forum – be prepared to be questioned. Including your motives. That’s just the way it is. — "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save  the few who are rich."  - John Fitzgerald Kennedy, from his Inaugural speech, January 20, 1961.

Response:

On 24 Feb 1999, JerryO wrote: > So (out of curiosity)what if she’s shaved?

heh.  Good question.  One more benefit to the Shinyhead O’Connor look. -Eric

Response:

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 cyn…@yahoo.com wrote: > ow does yanking the ‘raped’ person’s hairs help enforce the law? what > does this girl’s hairs prove?

It causes her mother to derive pleasure from watching her suffer.  You’re still trying to make it make sense in legalistic, moralistic terms. -Eric

Response:

In article <7b1qqq$as…@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,   Mr. Steve <sr…@vcn.bc.ca> wrote: > "fulfilled" in the short term.   It is nothing short of a plastic > substitution. Eventually though, they come back for more, as the fulfillment > doesn’t last forever.  There are a wealth of reasons why people buy sexual > services, anything from shyness to an unfaithful marriage partner. > Currently, I am dead-set against this industry.  My POV was swayed quite a > bit by my recent reading by Charles Reich, and my recent turning to Christ. > The sexual service industry is both morally wrong, and it caters to bring the > elite of this industry huge profits.  From both a moral and an economic > outlook, this is one armpit indsutry in our culture, that many would do > themselves a hell of a lot of good if they stayed away from it entirely.

So, what your saying is, that those people who resort to the sexual services, namely those who have unfaithful marriage partners, or who are too shy to get it any other way, should  be totally denied even this short-term fulfillment that they find? cav —————————————————- All about Me! http://www.geocities.com/soho/2601 ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———- http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Response:

cavala…@my-dejanews.com wrote:

: So, what your saying is, that those people who resort to the sexual services, : namely those who have unfaithful marriage partners, or who are too shy to get : it any other way, should  be totally denied even this short-term fulfillment : that they find? As I said in the original post, this is a complex issue and YMMV, but I’ll try to answer this question nonetheless — anything involving sex and people is bound to be complex, so please be forewarned that the best I can do is offer you my opinion. The problem with the sex industry, besides the immorality, is that it can breed addictions.  It reeks of secondary gain — that is the true need is substituted by something superficial.  At the most, the "fulfillment" obtained from this industry will be temporary, and provide a quick fix. In order to keep the "libidinal energies" (to quote Freud) satisfied, repeat vists will most likely be made.  And these suck up $$$ rapidly, as the prices for "fulfillment" are quite high. Secondly, shy people may form emotional attachments to those providing the sexual service.  I’ve read a few posts here over the years where I’ve seen this happen, as well as Fred, one of the guys we invited, was shy and he fell for somebody like you wouldn’t believe.  This is quite dangerous imho because it involves risky investments of self-esteem. It is also dangerous to believe that going to a prostitute can substitute for the intimacy of sex within a marriage. Besides, there are the financial costs.  The prices are incredibly steep.   Suppose one made frequent visits to an escort (say once a week) at $150 a visit.  That would run a bill of $7200 a year.  That would be the equivalent of half the price of a new car!!! Given these costs:  moral, emotional, psychological, and financial — is the "fulfillment" really worth it?  By all means go if you want to, or think of it as a "last resort" but realize the consequences of such a decision. The best sex, EVER, imho occurs within a marriage.  You don’t have to worry about paying $$$, STD’s, comparisons between sexual partners, and other complications.  Given that the husband and wife trust each other completely, they have nothing to lose and can please each other sexually both to their hearts’ content.  The hard part is waiting for marriage though ….. Steve.

Response:

On 25 Feb 1999, Steve Ruelle wrote: > Given these costs:  moral, emotional, psychological, and financial — is > the "fulfillment" really worth it?  By all means go if you want to, or > think of it as a "last resort" but realize the consequences of such a > decision.

I think that people do believe it to be worth it if they decide to go to such services. Why else would they be there? because it’s not worthy?? Every decision (and you should know this) is done with the best resources a person has at the time, so it shouldnt be a surprise, or judged down upon if they chose such course of action. > The best sex, EVER, imho occurs within a marriage.  You don’t have to > worry about paying $$$, STD’s, comparisons between sexual partners, and > other complications.  Given that the husband and wife trust each other > completely, they have nothing to lose and can please each other sexually > both to their hearts’ content.  The hard part is waiting for marriage > though …..

I’m sure a marriage will cost more than the $7200 you were making such a big deal of. Man, I’m starting to hate myself now. — For more information about this service, send e-mail to: h…@anon.twwells.com   — for an automatically returned help message ad…@anon.twwells.com  – for the service’s administrator ano…@anon.twwells.com — anonymous mail to the administrator

Response:

Steve Ruelle wrote: > cavala…@my-dejanews.com wrote: [] > Besides, there are the financial costs.  The prices are incredibly steep. > Suppose one made frequent visits to an escort (say once a week) at $150 > a visit.  That would run a bill of $7200 a year.  That would be the > equivalent of half the price of a new car!!!

yeah. cheaper to kill your mind listening to ‘deep down’ stuff, billie Holliday (?), Judas Priest (?) (choose your poison?) or reading some of those poets… (ask Kris about this) > The best sex, EVER, imho occurs within a marriage.  You don’t have to > worry about paying $$$, STD’s, comparisons between sexual partners, and > other complications.  Given that the husband and wife trust each other > completely, they have nothing to lose and can please each other sexually > both to their hearts’ content.  The hard part is waiting for marriage > though ….. > Steve.

actually the hard part is getting anywhere close to anything resembling the intial stirrings of the processes which hint at a marriage-like state of non-isolation. ———–== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==———-  http://www.newsfeeds.com/       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ———–== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus  a  Dedicated  Binaries Server ==———-

Response:

Eric Pepke wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 cyn…@yahoo.com wrote: > > ow does yanking the ‘raped’ person’s hairs help enforce the law? what > > does this girl’s hairs prove? > It causes her mother to derive pleasure from watching her suffer.  You’re > still trying to make it make sense in legalistic, moralistic terms. > -Eric

actually i was trying to find sense in the real physical and biological sense. i mean, funding research on why toddlers fall off tricycles has some basis in reality. didn’t the prepetrators of this law release some sort of PR reason for their law?  (… some semblance of token acknowledgement of a democratic government?) ———–== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==———-  http://www.newsfeeds.com/       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ———–== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus  a  Dedicated  Binaries Server ==———-

Response:

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 cyn…@yahoo.com wrote: > actually i was trying to find sense in the real physical and biological > sense.

And you call yourself cynnyc…. -Eric

Response:

On 25 Feb 1999 20:50:39 GMT, strue…@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Ruelle) wrote: >The best sex, EVER, imho occurs within a marriage.  You don’t have to >worry about paying $$$, STD’s, comparisons between sexual partners, and >other complications.  Given that the husband and wife trust each other >completely, they have nothing to lose and can please each other sexually >both to their hearts’ content.  The hard part is waiting for marriage >though …..

 There is at least one country in Europe where the ruling powers think along the same way as you are,namely Sweden. Prostitution is now illegal there,for the client,*not* the prostitute. Their reason is,so I heard in the news,that they want to "improve" on the quality of sex.To me,it sounds patronizing… R.M. rmylle(at)village(dot)uunet(dot)be http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Sands/3655/index.html ICQ:15580692

Response:

Steve Ruelle wrote: > Besides, there are the financial costs.  The prices are incredibly steep. > Suppose one made frequent visits to an escort (say once a week) at $150 > a visit.  That would run a bill of $7200 a year.  That would be the > equivalent of half the price of a new car!!! > Given these costs:  moral, emotional, psychological, and financial — is > the "fulfillment" really worth it?  By all means go if you want to, or > think of it as a "last resort" but realize the consequences of such a > decision.

What do you believe are the consequences of looking at free porn on the internet? There’s a ton of it wating to be downloaded from various USENET ngs.  I’ll do my own mini-list of consequences: 1.  If you do luck into a sexual reltionship you’ll be chronically unsatisfied because it’s unlikely your partner will do all the things you see on the porn NGs. 2.  The longer you look at porn, the pickier you become.  Soon you’ll be wasting a lot of time looking for the "perfect" picture. 3.  Porn accentuates your loneliness. Good points: 1. Normal women on the street won’t look quite so good to you anymore. > The best sex, EVER, imho occurs within a marriage.  You don’t have to > worry about paying $$$, STD’s, comparisons between sexual partners, and > other complications.  Given that the husband and wife trust each other > completely, they have nothing to lose and can please each other sexually > both to their hearts’ content.  The hard part is waiting for marriage > though …..

No the hard part is finding the opportunity to meet women. — Kris "An above-average intellect is bestowed upon men for their unhappiness and torment, since it serves only to keep them in a greater state of turmoil and anxiety than those men whose intellects are more limited."  -Francesco Guicciardini, "The Ricordi"

Response:

On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Nebulous Rex wrote: > That depends on how much you learn to like just from the newsgroup. > I, for instance, tend to choose what I download based on old criteria > I had way before I got on the ‘net, and my tastes have changed little > since I found ‘net porn.

Okay..I cant figure the fun in downloading stuff and then finding out that’s it’s a gross picture. Websites are a lot easier. > >2.  The longer you look at porn, the pickier you become.  Soon you’ll be wasting a > >lot of time looking for the "perfect" picture. > Well, this is probably just me, but I tend to hang out in the "real > women" newsgroups, like the girlfriends and amateurs ones.  The > "perfect sex object" look just doesn’t do it for me.

Heh, you da man — For more information about this service, send e-mail to: h…@anon.twwells.com   — for an automatically returned help message ad…@anon.twwells.com  – for the service’s administrator ano…@anon.twwells.com — anonymous mail to the administrator

Response:

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:18:09 -0600, Kris <manhattan_by_woody_al…@yahoo.com> wrote: >I partially agree with you .  For instance I found the whole concept of performing oral >sex on a woman to be disgusting just two years ago. But after looking at porn I began to >think "Hey, that looks kinda fun." Unless you luck into a relationship with an >open-minded girl, you’re unlikely to get the chance to try all those new things. That’s >why I list it as a negative.

I thought women wanted that.  :)  I guess I got lucky my first time. I wanted to do it, and she wanted me to do it. >However when I look at porn I feel like I should be doing something more worthwhile with >my time, like reading Doestoyevsky for instance.

I’m the opposite: I want to go look at porn when I’m in the middle of doing something important.  :) >Speaking from personal experience, porn makes me even lonelier.  Let’s compare the >typical Saturday night between a shy male and an extroverted male: >Extrovert:  He’s hanging out with his friends having a great time.  He even gets laid >before the evening is through. >Shy Man:   He’s stuck at home alone in the dark getting off on internet porn.

Either one sounds fine to me.  <shrug> >When you compare the two scenarios one can’t help but feel even lonelier than before.

I don’t feel lonelier.  They both have good points.  In the former, you get lots of human contact.  In the latter, you’re immediately free to pursue important projects when you’re finished.

Response:

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:36:40 -0600, Kris <manhattan_by_woody_al…@yahoo.com> wrote: >What do you believe are the consequences of looking at free porn on the internet?

You waste huge amounts of time.  :) >There’s a ton of it wating to be downloaded from various USENET ngs.  I’ll do my >own mini-list of consequences: >1.  If you do luck into a sexual reltionship you’ll be chronically unsatisfied >because it’s unlikely your partner will do all the things you see on the porn NGs.

That depends on how much you learn to like just from the newsgroup. I, for instance, tend to choose what I download based on old criteria I had way before I got on the ‘net, and my tastes have changed little since I found ‘net porn. >2.  The longer you look at porn, the pickier you become.  Soon you’ll be wasting a >lot of time looking for the "perfect" picture.

Well, this is probably just me, but I tend to hang out in the "real women" newsgroups, like the girlfriends and amateurs ones.  The "perfect sex object" look just doesn’t do it for me. >3.  Porn accentuates your loneliness.

I actually find it quite cathartic.  That’s a consequence of my frame of mind and an active imagination (that–AHEM–stays mostly in my head). >Good points: >1. Normal women on the street won’t look quite so good to you anymore.

This seems to conflict with point 3 above.  If you’re lonelier, won’t normal women look BETTER?  Or rather, won’t you be more likely to make them look better in your mind? >> The best sex, EVER, imho occurs within a marriage.  You don’t have to

I think a lot of married men would disagree.  :) >> worry about paying $$$,

I think your wife will expect you to keep a job. >>STD’s,

Considering both partners are faithful and didn’t pick up anything sewing their wild oats. >>comparisons between sexual partners,

Considering they’re both virgins. >>and >> other complications.  Given that the husband and wife trust each other >> completely, they have nothing to lose and can please each other sexually >> both to their hearts’ content.  The hard part is waiting for marriage >> though ….. >No the hard part is finding the opportunity to meet women.

"Hard."  Huh huh….

Response:

This Post contains adult material which may be objectionable to some readers. JerryO wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Kris wrote: > > What do you believe are the consequences of looking at free porn on the internet? > > There’s a ton of it wating to be downloaded from various USENET ngs.  I’ll do my > > own mini-list of consequences: > > 1.  If you do luck into a sexual reltionship you’ll be chronically unsatisfied > > because it’s unlikely your partner will do all the things you see on the porn NGs. > One could argue that it opens your mind to new things, but what do I know.

I partially agree with you .  For instance I found the whole concept of performing oral sex on a woman to be disgusting just two years ago. But after looking at porn I began to think "Hey, that looks kinda fun." Unless you luck into a relationship with an open-minded girl, you’re unlikely to get the chance to try all those new things. That’s why I list it as a negative. > > 2.  The longer you look at porn, the pickier you become.  Soon you’ll be wasting a > > lot of time looking for the "perfect" picture. > And how is this any different than spending hours cleaning your car (or,in > my case, my motorcycle)?

True.  Plus it improves your endurance for when/if you do have a sexual relationship. However when I look at porn I feel like I should be doing something more worthwhile with my time, like reading Doestoyevsky for instance. > > 3.  Porn accentuates your loneliness. > Does it? Bear in mind that at the level where people have absolutely no > chance of having relationship with a woman, porn does nothing more than > fill in for a non existent relationship. That does not mean people will > prefer porn over real life people.

Speaking from personal experience, porn makes me even lonelier.  Let’s compare the typical Saturday night between a shy male and an extroverted male: Extrovert:  He’s hanging out with his friends having a great time.  He even gets laid before the evening is through. Shy Man:   He’s stuck at home alone in the dark getting off on internet porn. When you compare the two scenarios one can’t help but feel even lonelier than before. > > Good points: > > 1. Normal women on the street won’t look quite so good to you anymore. > And this is a good thing ? > Porn is like any other entertainment media: do you compare ‘regular’ women > against movie stars?

I think it’s a very good thing.  For instance back in high school I’d walk around with an 8 hour erection.  Now I’m dulled to normal beauty so I rarely get involuntary erections.  The fewer erections I get, the less I think about sex. — Kris "An above-average intellect is bestowed upon men for their unhappiness and torment, since it serves only to keep them in a greater state of turmoil and anxiety than those men whose intellects are more limited."  -Francesco Guicciardini, "The Ricordi"

Response:

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Kris wrote: > What do you believe are the consequences of looking at free porn on the internet? > There’s a ton of it wating to be downloaded from various USENET ngs.  I’ll do my > own mini-list of consequences: > 1.  If you do luck into a sexual reltionship you’ll be chronically unsatisfied > because it’s unlikely your partner will do all the things you see on the porn NGs.

One could argue that it opens your mind to new things, but what do I know. > 2.  The longer you look at porn, the pickier you become.  Soon you’ll be wasting a > lot of time looking for the "perfect" picture.

And how is this any different than spending hours cleaning your car (or,in my case, my motorcycle)? > 3.  Porn accentuates your loneliness.

Does it? Bear in mind that at the level where people have absolutely no chance of having relationship with a woman, porn does nothing more than fill in for a non existent relationship. That does not mean people will prefer porn over real life people. > Good points: > 1. Normal women on the street won’t look quite so good to you anymore.

And this is a good thing ? Porn is like any other entertainment media: do you compare ‘regular’ women against movie stars? > No the hard part is finding the opportunity to meet women.

Yes. — For more information about this service, send e-mail to: h…@anon.twwells.com   — for an automatically returned help message ad…@anon.twwells.com  – for the service’s administrator ano…@anon.twwells.com — anonymous mail to the administrator

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Kris wrote: > This post contains innuendo which may be objectionable to some readers. > Marian wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:58:58 GMT, fakea…@detoxotedetox.com (Nebulous > > Rex) wrote: > > >Maybe.  I’m averse to it simply because I’m stingy, and can get much > > >the same sexual relief alone and for free.  ;) > >    I kind of agree with what Norm McDonald the comedian said when he > > was on Howard Stern show one time. Howard asks him why he didnt like > > to go to Score’s -the strip club and he says something about how he > > didnt like being around women who had to pretend to like you. I kind > > of find that part depressing myself. > In my opinion going to a strip club is like going to a restaurant where > the waiter dangles a filet mignon in front of your face but then jerks it > away before you can bite into it.  I mean, what’s the point in going to a > restaurant if you can’t eat?  The same concept applies to a strip club. > Why would you want to have a nekkid woman dance in front of you if you > can’t ea . . . ummm . . .  I better not finish that thought.  :)

Some could argue that a strip club is like going to an art galery you just go there and watch.:) — For more information about this service, send e-mail to: h…@anon.twwells.com   — for an automatically returned help message ad…@anon.twwells.com  – for the service’s administrator ano…@anon.twwells.com — anonymous mail to the administrator

Response:

This post contains innuendo which may be objectionable to some readers. Marian wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:58:58 GMT, fakea…@detoxotedetox.com (Nebulous > Rex) wrote: > >Maybe.  I’m averse to it simply because I’m stingy, and can get much > >the same sexual relief alone and for free.  ;) >    I kind of agree with what Norm McDonald the comedian said when he > was on Howard Stern show one time. Howard asks him why he didnt like > to go to Score’s -the strip club and he says something about how he > didnt like being around women who had to pretend to like you. I kind > of find that part depressing myself.

In my opinion going to a strip club is like going to a restaurant where the waiter dangles a filet mignon in front of your face but then jerks it away before you can bite into it.  I mean, what’s the point in going to a restaurant if you can’t eat?  The same concept applies to a strip club. Why would you want to have a nekkid woman dance in front of you if you can’t ea . . . ummm . . .  I better not finish that thought.  :) — Kris "An above-average intellect is bestowed upon men for their unhappiness and torment, since it serves only to keep them in a greater state of turmoil and anxiety than those men whose intellects are more limited."  -Francesco Guicciardini, "The Ricordi"

Response:

On 24 Feb 1999, Marian wrote: >    I kind of agree with what Norm McDonald the comedian said when he > was on Howard Stern show one time. Howard asks him why he didnt like > to go to Score’s -the strip club and he says something about how he > didnt like being around women who had to pretend to like you. I kind > of find that part depressing myself. Especially when guys start > believing the whole crap and start thinking they are swingers or have > a life – because they go to strip clubs. However, if they grasp the > reality of the stituation and just go for fun , what the heck.

Yeah, stripping can be kind of fun, but it’s hard to find the good ones.   I have a friend who used to be a stripper.  She went to see this woman who comes to Tampa to strip once a year.  I wasn’t in town, so I didn’t get to go, but from what she says, it sounds like fun.  This particular woman is older than water and weighs about 300 pounds.  At the show, she was letting men drink out of glasses that she held between her boobs.   From what my friend said, it wasn’t some stupid politically correct "fat acceptance" or "age acceptance" thing; it was just "Here I am, look what I’ve got.  Watch me shake it."  I just love that attitude in people.   Your everyday grim stripper, though, can be a real downer. -Eric

Response:

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:27:00 GMT, Mr. Steve <sr…@vcn.bc.ca> wrote: >The sexual service industry is, of course, a very complex social issue and one >could write entire books about it.  Why does it exist?  

Sex sells. >Who creates the demand for these kind of service?  

Horny people. >What are the moral implications?  

Some think it’s bad, some think it’s good. >Who profits from it?  

Probably the prostitute and her pimp. >Finally, another one of my co-workers, whom I was training on the cash >register, raved about spending $25 on the cheapest prostitute he could find. >He said the whole thing lasted five minutes.  It turns out, this guy also had >a wife.

Ah, let me guess, he wanted a hummer and his wife wouldn’t do it? >– and finally, this ties in with my post, substitute the need for genuine >human intimacy with sexual services that can be paid for with a credit card.

The fallacy here is that sex and human intimacy are not intrinsically linked.  I can go out with a girlfriend, and we see to it that our "intimacy needs" are satiated, but not have sex, and go home horny. Likewise, I can go beat the sweet meat and satiate my libido, but still want intimacy.  I can do both.  I can do neither.  I could have sex, intimacy, and a nice meal all at the same time, but that doesn’t mean eating is intrinsically linked with sex or intimacy.  :) >With the substitution phenomenon, customers pay money for sex, and thus are >"fulfilled" in the short term.    

Umm…, sex is always a short-term fulfillment, isn’t it?  You get sex, you’re happy, then you want some more tomorrow.  There may be some rare exceptions, such as Eric’s hook-up story, but by and large, libido is something that resets and builds again after sex, much like hunger and eating, thirst and drinking, drowsiness and sleep. I’m not trying to take away from your arguments, which I assume is pro-quality.  That’s fine.  But a can be "fulfilled" just as well from McDonald’s as I can from Mom’s.  I’m hungry, I eat, and I’m not hungry again for a few hours.  It happens. >Currently, I am dead-set against this industry.  My POV was swayed quite a >bit by my recent reading by Charles Reich, and my recent turning to Christ. >The sexual service industry is both morally wrong, and it caters to bring the >elite of this industry huge profits.  From both a moral and an economic >outlook, this is one armpit indsutry in our culture, that many would do >themselves a hell of a lot of good if they stayed away from it entirely.

Maybe.  I’m averse to it simply because I’m stingy, and can get much the same sexual relief alone and for free.  ;)

Response:

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Mr. Steve wrote: > The sexual service industry thrives on what is known as the ’substitution > phenomenon’  See Charles Reich’s "The Greening of America" especially the > chapter entitled ‘The Reality of the American Corporate State’ for an > explanation.  The substitution phenomenon works as follows:  substitute a > genuine human need with a plastic replacement, which offers short-term > rewards.

Absolutely. The flip side of the coin is that, in order to keep up a demand, it is necessary to keep the supply low.  The word for keeping the supply of sexual gratification low is "moralism." Moralism drives the sex industry.  It makes it essential.  It creates the demand.  Why on earth would a man pay $5 per minute to talk dirty to a woman over the phone?  Well, if you tell him that, in the name of morality, it is wrong for him to admit to lustful, sinful thought, then all of a sudden a couple of $20 dollar bills doesn’t seem like such a big deal by comparison. There always has been a sex industry, but it’s bigger now, because morality is so much more effective.  A few hundred years ago in what we may laughingly call "Western civilization," morality was way less effective, for a very simple reason.  People hit puberty around 15 or 16, by which time they had a good chance of already being married.  Nowadays people hit puberty sometimes as early as single digits.  They have to wait almost a decade before sex is even legal for them.  Then they’re expected to wait at least another half decade to have advanced education. The only way to have the old sex rules and not result in a big sex industry would be to let people get married or at least have sex around the time they hit puberty.  But morality prevents that, too. There’s a great example of morality in the state of Florida, which I know about because of my wife, who is an ER nurse.  There’s a thing called a "rape examination."  My wife became certified in how to do this, did one, and then refused to do any more on account of how brutal it was.  It involves, amongst other things, plucking out 20 pubic hairs and 20 head hairs.  If you don’t get a hair right, with the root intact, it doesn’t count and you have to do another one.  But she did peripherally experience many of these during her six years in the ER.  Almost all of them followed this pattern: A mother has discovered that her teenage daughter is having sex with her boyfriend.  Under Florida law, sex with anyone under the age of 18 is automatically considered a form of rape, whether or not the other person engaged in sex is also under 18.  A highly moral law, don’t you think?   We must protect our children from sexual predators!  Then this mother forcibly drags her daughter into the emergency room.  Under Florida law, someone under the age of 18 cannot refuse medical treatment.  Then they get the cops there, who are required to investigate (by moral laws) and the hospital is required (by some more moral laws) to strip her, restrain her on a table, and perform this highly moral rape examination. Of course, to an immoralist such as myself, it seems to me torture, pure and simple.  The mother, for whatever pathological (but moral!) sexual reasons wants her daughter to stop, wishes to cause her pain, and is done so. The simple form of this, child abuse, of course happens all the time.   But, entirely due to high morality (because it’s supposed to stop that bad, immoral sex, you see), this form of torture becomes magically transformed into a Medical and Legal Procedure. Such a mother, if she were an immoralist such as myself, would have to ask herself some simple questions: Does my anger toward my daughter justify torturing her?  Does the pleasure I would derive from seeing her suffer outweight the lack of pleasure that she recieves?  A moralist need not consider such questions.  She simply needs to do The Right Thing, which is torture. -Eric

Response:

JerryO wrote: > So (out of curiosity)what if she’s shaved?

heh. wait 24 hours then yank her whiskers? >>Well, if you tell him that, in the name of > > morality, it is wrong for him to admit to lustful, sinful thought, then > > all of a sudden a couple of $20 dollar bills doesn’t seem like such a big > > deal by comparison.

admit to thoughts? so what if Robert M began to talk to ppl he meets the way he has written, but without mentioning anyone’s names, in some of his more recent posts? [] > >There’s a thing called a > > "rape examination."  My wife became certified in how to do this, did one, > > and then refused to do any more on account of how brutal it was.  It > > involves, amongst other things, plucking out 20 pubic hairs and 20 head > > hairs.  If you don’t get a hair right, with the root intact, it doesn’t > > count and you have to do another one.

[] > > A mother has discovered that her teenage daughter is having sex with her > > boyfriend.  Under Florida law, sex with anyone under the age of 18 is > > automatically considered a form of rape, whether or not the other person > > engaged in sex is also under 18.  A highly moral law, don’t you think? > > We must protect our children from sexual predators!  Then this mother > > forcibly drags her daughter into the emergency room.  Under Florida law, > > someone under the age of 18 cannot refuse medical treatment.  Then they > > get the cops there, who are required to investigate (by moral laws) and > > the hospital is required (by some more moral laws) to strip her, restrain > > her on a table, and perform this highly moral rape examination.

ow does yanking the ‘raped’ person’s hairs help enforce the law? what does this girl’s hairs prove? does her hair chemistry change after her hymen has been broken?? !! c > > -Eric

———–== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==———-  http://www.newsfeeds.com/       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ———–== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus  a  Dedicated  Binaries Server ==———-

Response:

So (out of curiosity)what if she’s shaved? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Eric Pepke wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Mr. Steve wrote: > > The sexual service industry thrives on what is known as the ’substitution > > phenomenon’  See Charles Reich’s "The Greening of America" especially the > > chapter entitled ‘The Reality of the American Corporate State’ for an > > explanation.  The substitution phenomenon works as follows:  substitute a > > genuine human need with a plastic replacement, which offers short-term > > rewards. > Absolutely. > The flip side of the coin is that, in order to keep up a demand, it is > necessary to keep the supply low.  The word for keeping the supply of > sexual gratification low is "moralism." > Moralism drives the sex industry.  It makes it essential.  It creates the > demand.  Why on earth would a man pay $5 per minute to talk dirty to a > woman over the phone?  Well, if you tell him that, in the name of > morality, it is wrong for him to admit to lustful, sinful thought, then > all of a sudden a couple of $20 dollar bills doesn’t seem like such a big > deal by comparison. > There always has been a sex industry, but it’s bigger now, because > morality is so much more effective.  A few hundred years ago in what we > may laughingly call "Western civilization," morality was way less effective, > for a very simple reason.  People hit puberty around 15 or 16, by which > time they had a good chance of already being married.  Nowadays people > hit puberty sometimes as early as single digits.  They have to wait > almost a decade before sex is even legal for them.  Then they’re expected > to wait at least another half decade to have advanced education. > The only way to have the old sex rules and not result in a big sex industry > would be to let people get married or at least have sex around the time they > hit puberty.  But morality prevents that, too. > There’s a great example of morality in the state of Florida, which I know > about because of my wife, who is an ER nurse.  There’s a thing called a > "rape examination."  My wife became certified in how to do this, did one, > and then refused to do any more on account of how brutal it was.  It > involves, amongst other things, plucking out 20 pubic hairs and 20 head > hairs.  If you don’t get a hair right, with the root intact, it doesn’t > count and you have to do another one.  But she did peripherally > experience many of these during her six years in the ER.  Almost all of > them followed this pattern: > A mother has discovered that her teenage daughter is having sex with her > boyfriend.  Under Florida law, sex with anyone under the age of 18 is > automatically considered a form of rape, whether or not the other person > engaged in sex is also under 18.  A highly moral law, don’t you think?   > We must protect our children from sexual predators!  Then this mother > forcibly drags her daughter into the emergency room.  Under Florida law, > someone under the age of 18 cannot refuse medical treatment.  Then they > get the cops there, who are required to investigate (by moral laws) and > the hospital is required (by some more moral laws) to strip her, restrain > her on a table, and perform this highly moral rape examination. > Of course, to an immoralist such as myself, it seems to me torture, pure > and simple.  The mother, for whatever pathological (but moral!) sexual > reasons wants her daughter to stop, wishes to cause her pain, and is done so. > The simple form of this, child abuse, of course happens all the time.   > But, entirely due to high morality (because it’s supposed to stop that > bad, immoral sex, you see), this form of torture becomes magically > transformed into a Medical and Legal Procedure. > Such a mother, if she were an immoralist such as myself, would have to ask > herself some simple questions: Does my anger toward my daughter justify > torturing her?  Does the pleasure I would derive from seeing her suffer > outweight the lack of pleasure that she recieves?  A moralist need not > consider such questions.  She simply needs to do The Right Thing, which is > torture. > -Eric

– For more information about this service, send e-mail to: h…@anon.twwells.com   — for an automatically returned help message ad…@anon.twwells.com  – for the service’s administrator ano…@anon.twwells.com — anonymous mail to the administrator

Response:

Mr. Steve wrote: > See Charles Reich’s "The Greening of America" especially the > chapter entitled ‘The Reality of the American Corporate State’ for an > explanation.  The substitution phenomenon works as follows:  substitute a > genuine human need with a plastic replacement, which offers short-term > rewards.

Or no real rewards, only ‘promises’ of such > Some examples of the substitution phenonomen are as follows:

<snip> These are good examples, now here some others – that highlight the baseness of the Corporatocracy and how it preys on people: – Insurance company scams, as the recent Prudential case (still being litigated)in which they offered existing customers new policies that ‘allegedly’ wouldn’t cost them any extra. In fact, many have been tabbed with ‘overdue’ payments on the order of $10,000 or more. And the ‘policy’ they’re left with is a poor substitute for the original quality one they had. – Mutual fund company scams, now a dime a dozen. Promising ‘big returns’ but in fact, over the past 2 yrs. MFs have consistently underperformed the S&P 500. Also, with costs and expense ratios reckoned in, 92% of MF’s (after taxes) cannot even compete with certificates of deposit. Most people are ‘hooked’ and ’suckered’ b/c they never actually compute what they’ve got in terms of returns. (They also forget that what’s on paper doesn’t count). – Health insurance-HMO scams, oversells like the one that recently occurred in the DC area (with Kaiser-Permanente) and many seniors then found – after the fact, raises in insurance that they could no longer afford. They’re now doing without. Other seniors nationwide, nearly 600,000 dropped from HMO rolls, after being encouraged to transfer from their standard Medicare. Also – people signing up with HMOs, only to find out later, to their great dismay, that they cannot get the treatments they need (or have to pay much more and go outside the service) – Banks ‘bait and switch’ tactics. You have your money in a good, sound money market account earning decent interest – then your bank merges. The new entity doesn’t tell you until you getyour statement that interest rates have been dropped, and bank (e.g. ATM) fees have gone up. – Pharmaceutical companies raking in huge profits at the expense of senior, indigent retired folk, because Medicare does not enable seniors to obtain their prescriptions FREE – as does every other civilized western country. -Large, beautiful green (tree) areas, ground under for a new parking lot, or mall, because local politicians allow a ‘zoning exception’ for a developer to move in, and pave over the greenspace. – > The sexual service industry is both morally wrong, and it caters to bring the > elite of this industry huge profits.  From both a moral and an economic > outlook, this is one armpit indsutry in our culture,

While this is true, and your moral indignation is understandable (particularly in view of your recent conversion) the sex industry is not forced upon anyone. For ex. when you went into ‘Shakers’ or the massage parlor, no one was twisting your arm behind your back. Even before you got Jesus into your life, you still had a choice, and could have refused to go along to the flesh brokers. It’s totally different with health care services(including prescriptions from large pharmaceutical companies), life insurance, HMOs, banks etc. which are things *none* of us can do without. And for which the prudent person has no option as to whether to participate or not. (I.e. if you get clobbered in an accident – badly injured, and have no health insurance, you can get wiped out. If you keep your life savings under your bed and it gets stolen, no one will extend much sympathy to you) Consequently, imho, it is far more important to regulate and oversee these key industries, which everyone depends on–rather than squander scarce regulatory resources to police the sex industry (for which, as I said, people can exercise control over participation). If the Corporatocracy were 90% the sex industry, I could more easily see and agree with your point. But it isn’t. The total contribution to the GNP by *all* sex industries together is barely 1%, if that. Banks, HMOs, Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies – and LARGE corporations, are vastly more important to police and hold accountable. (Especially since corporations geton average $1,186 from each American family via taxes, per year). Moral indignation is all very well, but I suspect it is more profitably directed at the real pirates of the Corporatocracy, rather than the low-level (albeit ‘armpit’) players. Given the size of the Corporatocracy, it is very important to know how to pick our battles. I’d prefer to go after the HMOs, insurance cos., banks etc. and hold them accountable (especially after banks started gambling with people’s money in ‘hedge funds’, and new mergers, i.e. between banks, insurance companies and brokerages threaten depression-era protections) than to go after the more pennyante players. Besides, if we can demonstrate proportion and realistic perceptions in our targets, then people are more likely to take our campaigns seriously. As opposed to being a latter-day set of ‘Carry Nations’. — "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save  the few who are rich."  - John Fitzgerald Kennedy, from his Inaugural speech, January 20, 1961.

Response:

They’re in the classifieds. You can find them in all kinds of newspapers — both alternative and conventional.  Some of the ads run on late-night TV, and that is way after Mr. Conan O’Brien has signed off for the night  Others are featured in more "discrete" ways. I’m talking about advertisements for the sexual service industry — anything that runs the gamut between strip bars, prostitutes, and escort services. There is a high demand for these kinds of services in our society. The sexual service industry is, of course, a very complex social issue and one could write entire books about it.  Why does it exist?  Who creates the demand for these kind of service?  What are the moral implications?  Who profits from it?  These are just some of the many questions one could ask about this industry.  I can’t write a book about this issue on Usenet, but I’ll try and touch base on some of the points in this post. I’ve had a few experiences with this industry in the past – I’ll be honest – and although I feel some shame for what I did, I am grateful for having the experience to enlighten my perspective. For starters, my co-workers and I decided to hang out at "Shakers", which was a suburban strip bar located in the lobby of a hotel.  One fine evening we decided to drive down after the shift, have a few drinks, some fast-food at McSick’s, and then spend the rest of the evening watching topless women. At first, I’ll have to admit, it was kind of exciting to see women getting up on stage and taking off their clothes.  It was soon discovered that you got more attention by hooting and hollering, after observing the behavior of the other customers – a real life psychological example of vicarious reinforcement.  Also, for $25-35 extra, you could have a "private dance" during which the stripper would dance on your lap.  They’d undoubtedly perform sexual acts if you paid more money ~ $100-200 as my co-workers told me. I liked the first strip-bar experience so much that I invited more of my friends to show up on subsequent weekends. Turns out one of my friends took the moral stance (ironically, the one I’m presenting right now) and stated how it was wrong to be paying money for these kinds of services.  He stated that he would spend the $25-35 on a private dance, and ask the women how they felt about themselves — in short, he’d have an intimate conversation with them. To this I replied, "Are you nuts, dude??!!  You’re paying your money to have them dance on your lap so enjoy it!" We argued about this issue for a while longer, and then it slip under the rug. I still went occasionally with co-workers, but eventually it got boring.  After seeing the same dance act countless times, it didn’t leave much to the imagination Then we resorted to massage parlors.  For these, you pay a fee up front for a massage, then it is optional that you "tip" the person giving you a massage for "extra services" — and these include hand-jobs, blow-jobs, and the full-monty. Prices range from $80 – 200 as I was told. Fortunately I only went to a few such parlors and I believe I may have posted something about one of them on this newsgroup, if I’m not mistaken.  I thank my lucky stars I never went for the full deal, and spent no more than $100. I’ll never be going to any of these places again.  Never in a million years. The problem was that one of the people we invited to go down with us – Fred – was extremely lonely and he developed an attachment to one of the women giving him the massage.  He had saved up over $200 for the full deal, and then he was raving about it all the way back in the car.  For days afterwards, he’d be going on about how she had treated him right, listened to him, called him a nice guy, etc. etc.  I tried to tell him that she was just being nice to the customer, but for the longest time he’d believed there was something there.  Eventually he did get over the experience. On another note, my co-workers were interested in trying out escort services — to which I declined their offer, even at the time.  Turns out the prices would range from $140-170 for a half-hour or hourly "date" respectively.  You could have your pick and choose from all sorts of women, as advertised by competing agencies. Finally, another one of my co-workers, whom I was training on the cash register, raved about spending $25 on the cheapest prostitute he could find. He said the whole thing lasted five minutes.  It turns out, this guy also had a wife. Prostitutes, escorts, massage parlors, bodycare agencies, strip bars, and phone sex lines all encompass the sexual service industry, of which paying customers exchange money for sexual services.  The prices are very steep — and there have been several interesting stories in the news about customers who will steal credit cards, and rack up bills in excess of $4000 to pay for this. The sexual service industry thrives on what is known as the ’substitution phenomenon’  See Charles Reich’s "The Greening of America" especially the chapter entitled ‘The Reality of the American Corporate State’ for an explanation.  The substitution phenomenon works as follows:  substitute a genuine human need with a plastic replacement, which offers short-term rewards. Some examples of the substitution phenonomen are as follows: — substitute the need for oneness with nature, with a picture of a man or woman lying on a chair away from it all, and place an advertisement for cigarettes next to it. — substitute the need for freedom with an advertisment for a new car scooting down a highway.  And make it so there’s minimum down payments — substitute the need for family ties with a commerical depicting Grandfather talking to his son giving him a Werthers Original.  Seen this one? — substitute the need for nourishment with "fast food" i.e. McDonald’s. — and finally, this ties in with my post, substitute the need for genuine human intimacy with sexual services that can be paid for with a credit card. With the substitution phenomenon, customers pay money for sex, and thus are "fulfilled" in the short term.        It is nothing short of a plastic substitution. Eventually though, they come back for more, as the fulfillment doesn’t last forever.  There are a wealth of reasons why people buy sexual services, anything from shyness to an unfaithful marriage partner. As can be already noted, there is a huge gender bias in this industry.  The vast majority of customers who pay for sex are male.  This leads to all sorts of additional questions — what about the women who work for these industries?  Are they being victimized?  Are they choosing to work there b/c they can’t find work anywhere else?  How are they treated by their employers? Currently, I am dead-set against this industry.  My POV was swayed quite a bit by my recent reading by Charles Reich, and my recent turning to Christ. The sexual service industry is both morally wrong, and it caters to bring the elite of this industry huge profits.  From both a moral and an economic outlook, this is one armpit indsutry in our culture, that many would do themselves a hell of a lot of good if they stayed away from it entirely. Steve. ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———- http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Response:

Related Posts