Birth Control.

Fafnir:
Unfortunately, I can't delete posts in Ethics. That's Asguard.

Pronatalist, you pay, you get that extra perk

Okinrus:

So....anal is okay, facials are okay, titfucking is okay, presumably oral and handjobs are okay....just as no-one is being possessed by Satan at the time.

Okay.

Seek psychiatric help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i didn't bother to read all the replies to this topic. from scanning them, i sense that most of them consist of bickering anyway. the best way to control population would be to take away any socialistic programs that create incentives to have children. take away tax breaks, take away welfare, take away social security, take away (i don't remember the name but there's programs for single mothers), and then when people have to work hard to survive and ensure the survival of their young, they'll stop over-producing. this sounds callous of me, but it's the most logical way to do it. the original intent of the programs was good, but people now see it as a crutch they could lean on, so they don't mind breaking their legs once in a while. make sense?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. This is clutter in a thread with a predefined topic. I have nothing against "newbies". You have to pay for signatures. Theres a sticky in free thoughts about it. Do you really think it's only you? Next time maybe look around before complaining about somthing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, thought this was philosophy

 

Anal is not OK. It is medically unhealthy. I'm not sure what you mean by facials but I won't ask. I suppose that a husband and wife feel each other. Oral and hand jobs are not ok because they defeat the purpose of marriage, which is procreation.

Interesting how those demons also refer to me as "boy". I will have to think about this more.

 

Okinrus:

Oh. The man comes on his partner's face. Jesus, it's a staple of porn, I'm suprised you don't know the term?

So, it's okay to have nonreproductive sex with someone you're not married to?
What about foreplay? That's not going to result in pregnency. What if my husband and I start fooling around, the phone rings, he has to rush off, and we don't fuck?
Have we committed a sin?
What about making out, even if we don't fuck?
Can I kiss him without fucking him?

Is any position okay, just as long as he comes in a way that has a fair chance of getting me pregnent? Or is it strict missionary?

What if we watch "Girls With Goats" while having missionary sex? Is that okay?

If I have him sodomize me with a crucifix while we fuck, is that okay? I mean, it could result in a child.

What if he recites the seventh enochian key while strangling me with a rosary, as we fuck? This could also result in pregnency.

Even sticking to variations that could result in a child, there are ooodles of fun things to do in bed. Where do you draw the line?

 

Yes, I think I've probably seen it. One of my friends is basically a porno addict.

No

I think it's ok. The general rule is that you should be able to judge for yourself.

None of the activities here is sinful.

Yes.

Thomas Aquinas only supports the missionary position. Obviously your going to have to use your best judgement here.

No. Images like that can screw up your mind for a lifetime.

No.

This is distasteful. The rosary is a sacred object given to us by the blessed virgin.

You have to judge whether your doing something out lust or love. The line here is blurred because it will depend on the individual. Certainly anything outside of marriage is sinful.

 

Yes, sinful according to people who have the nerve to speak on behalf of God. I can't imagine that God is so preoccupied with sex that he actually sets the rules as to which positions are allowed and which ones are not.

 

When I speak for God here? The objective the morality is to find what is sinful.

 

I'm nauseated with claims like this. I'm so sick with the deliberate preservation of innocence. If one has to consciously protect one's purity of mind then one was never pure to begin with. The truly innocent couldn't even conceive of, much less ward off, such practices. It's illogical to be protective of feigned virtue.

 

If a young child is exposed to this kind of stuft constantly he or she is going to grow up screwed up. Many serial rapist, killers, etc. were exposed to this kind of stuft or were abused. Sexual addiction is very real in American society. People can become addicted to pornography and unable to enjoy their wife or even get married.

 

I know, I know, I definitely know . . . but permanent perversion can only occur when the individual is truly innocent, during childhood! Children don't consider their own innocence. They aren't even accustomed to the idea yet.

Concordantly, they have no reason to protect their pristine, undefiled minds. However, once they become aware of the wanton dangers of the world, they're no longer innocent, since, in a way that very knowledge besmirches them.

One who is truly innocent does not defend him or herself from vice, for vice is unknown to a virgin mind.

If one has to worry over the welfare of one's innocence, one is not innocent.


Besides, Okinrus, do you really think there is any form of pornography extant that could pervert Xev's mind further?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have too many bills to keep track of now. Why would I pay? I already pay elsewhere.

Huh? Do you mean if I pay, I can delete all your posts? Why would any paying member be able to delete anything at all? Are all paying members trustworthy? I thought only the poster himself, and the Mods, or forum owner, who decides the focus of a forum, should be able to delete. And then mainly just for reasons such as spam or rudeness that doesn't contribute to the purpose of a forum or discussion.

Or were you merely suggesting that paying members can become moderators?

Or do you mean the extra perk of signatures?

Well I did finally find the forum feedback section, and raised my question there.

 

Don't pervert sex by denying the best part -- Procreation!

I agree with much of that. Besides, isn't the missionary position the most comfortable, the most natural, and the most likely to acheive pregnancy? Isn't much of that other stuff, the perverted stuff of porno fantasies, that dwell on lust rather than love?

I would think most any penis-vagina position among married people would be permissible? Perhaps even "doggy style?" That's still procreation isn't it?

 

The only non-sinful positions would be those capable of producing a child. Some obviously have to be ruled out as medically dangerous. However if a couple is infertile, I think they are allowed to have sex, because of the posibility of God working a miracle. Thomas Aquinas was probably wrong in restricting the sexual position only to the missionary. His interpretation may have come from hebrew stories of <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4240/alphabet.html">Lilith</a>. No one really believes in this story though. However we can be certain that monks were famaliar with it as we have stories of succubi etc. Therefore from lack bibical evidence, he chose to be on the safe side.

I think I'm going remain celibrate just to avoid all these issues. Anyways, like all things the best way is to do just whatever is natural and not to think about it. If someone has to tell his lover that he is going to kiss her a certain way then there is no love in it. It is boring and dry. However if someone does what love tells them, then they do it within love.

 

"I think I'm going remain celibrate just to avoid all these issues. Anyways, like all things the best way is to do just whatever is natural and not to think about it. If someone has to tell his lover that he is going to kiss her a certain way then there is no love in it. It is boring and dry. However if someone does what love tells them, then they do it within love."

Woo hoo, your making sense here. Shame i disagree with you on everything else.

 

Maybe because I have never done any of things mentioned.

 

What do you mean?

 

Pronatalist:

Hmm yes, lust rather than love. That explains my relationship.

Lust rather than love is only an issue if one sees women (as you obviously do) simply as sexual objects.

okinrus:

So it's okay to kiss a man's mouth but not his cock?
Where's the logic in that?

Friedrich Nietzsche was rather a fan of the whip. Michel Foucault fucked other men. Hegel liked it doggy style.
See what happens when you rely on dead philosophers to judge your sex life?

Why not? I could get pregnent.

I wasn't aware that women were insensate objects "to be enjoyed". Thanks for clearing that one up.

 

I was using it in the sense of enjoy their company. What is the point of a relationship if it is not enjoyed?

Thomas Aquinas wrote about theology not philosophy. The two are different and Thomas Aquinas perspective is on what the Church teaches. I accept Thomas Aquina's premises, but not Nietzsche's so I'm more likely to agree on wha the <a href="http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html">says</a>. I don't have a sex life and probably never will, so I'm only refering literature so that you might make a well informed decision.