It is currently Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:33 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 21487
Location: Koloburbia
asbestosman wrote:
moksha wrote:
Real porn addicts never bother with Google. They go right to the source with their credit cards. Just ask what's his face

Hugh Heffner?
Mark Foley?

The Mention of former Rep. Mark Foley (R), brings up an interesting point. It is one thing to look at naughty pictures, but apparently sexual preditors go beyond that and troll chat rooms looking for victims.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:20 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi A man... :-)

I want to be clear that I am NOT blaming women, nor am I condoning porn in any way. I'm saying "temptations" (primitive urges) to participate in animal mating (spread your seed) can be transcended. They can be eliminated and I know many men for whom this is the case. (Personally I think it is a highly evolved ability).

Those who feel the urge (to engage in sperm donation ;-) ) have yet to "evolve" to a place where the temptation is no longer a factor in one's life.

I'll use scripture here for a sec ... If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he has already commited adultry in his heart.

In other words, one can change their heart to a point that there is no temptation. This is my point. It is not that a man has to resist, it is that the urge disappears. Again, I know many men in this situation. For example, in Eastern tradition, there are very clear ways to release desire.. basically the desires are not repressed they are overcome. I know several celebate men for whom the sexual desire is absent. NOT repressed or denied. I know many married men who have absolutely no desire for female bodies to *&%$ so they can stimulate the pleasure center of their brains.

I think most wives (of men who are into porn) find the idea that their husbands are not satisfied with them to be quite disconcerting and degrading... whether their husbands engage or not.

Again, I am NOT even remotely suggesting women are to blame. I'm saying many married couples have less than fantastic, passionate, and satisfying sexual lives.

If a man is filled with an amazing Thanksgiving dinner, he is not wanting to go to McDonalds! ;-) The junk food is not so appealing anymore. It is how our brains work!

I do think there are several aspects of the LDS church that inhibit healthy intimate relationships. And certainly the idea that if one prays enough the porn issue will disappear is nonsense! I'm not saying you blame Satan but this is certainly the teaching that is promoted in the church.

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:44 pm 
truth dancer wrote:
In other words, one can change their heart to a point that there is no temptation. This is my point. It is not that a man has to resist, it is that the urge disappears. Again, I know many men in this situation. For example, in Eastern tradition, there are very clear ways to release desire.. basically the desires are not repressed they are overcome. I know several celebate men for whom the sexual desire is absent. NOT repressed or denied. I know many married men who have absolutely no desire for female bodies to *&%$ so they can stimulate the pleasure center of their brains.

TD, this sounds a bit like therapy to change homosexuals to heterosexuals. You mention a "change of heart", but aren't sexual urges located in the brain? How can you change brain biology? Men in the Eastern tradition, like Gandhi? Who admitted up to the end of his life that he was tempted, but you're saying that all desire goes. I think the people who attain this situation may control themselves, and would be the minority, but the brain evolved for a purpose, and sex is a strong part of that purpose, so isn't this in a sense trying to deny our biological evolution? I'm not saying humans should start acting like Bonobos, but what you're saying seems to me to be the other extreme. What about men in their teens and 20s, and single people, and as A pointed out, widowed people? Even among Mormons missionaries there's a pretty high masturbation rate, and I have that from two mission presidents. They're not doing anything abnormal, except by mission standards. There seems to me to be a gap here between the ideal, and the reality. What do you think is the purpose of all this "subjugation of the flesh"? I dunno TD, I'm kind of wondering if you're in the real world on this one. You can clarify and I'll certainly listen.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:44 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hey Ray,

No, I'm saying that the primitive animalistic urge to spread one's seed among as many females as possible is maladaptive. What was once essential to the continuation of various animals is no longer necessary and is, from an evolutionary perspective, maladaptive.

I'm not in any way saying repression or denial is the way to go here and of course it is not the norm by any stretch nor is it easy. I'm suggesting that what was once hardwired can be altered to some degree in some men.

In other words, the idea that men have to behave as animals or even have to fight the animalistic urges will most likely be a thing of the past in another few thousand years because it is not only no longer necessary but again, maladaptive.

What purpose is an animalistic desire to spread seed make, when everyone is using birth control? And obviously spreading one's seed is harmful to offspring (or monogamy/male parental care would not have evolved as it has over the last few million years).

I would say this primitive urge is maladaptive similar to the need to store fat... at once it meant the difference between survival or death, (death of the species in the case of spreading seed in various animals), today this propensityt causes death.

Does that make sense?

I'm also suggesting that there are those for whom this animalistic tendency is no longer a motivator in one's life... not something that needs to be repressed or denied.

For example, I sat next to a man on a plane a few months ago and we got into a discussion on this topic. He truly, TRULY did not have any desire or wish to view porn and didn't find it even remotely tasteful or intriguing. He was not religious as all but VERY happily married. The thought of viewing porn not only didn't appeal to him it was distasteful. (I got the impression it was like watching someone brush their teeth or something... LOL!(, anyway, I know many men like this... it seems to me that there are those who have found something better to embrace than the cheap thrill of using a body for their purposes.

Again, I know this is rare and unusual... I just have a feeling (if our species is to continue), humankind will move to a new experience beyond the animalistic tendencies.

Also, as I have shared before, in another hundred years folks won't even have to view porn or have sex to have the pleasure center of the brain stimulated in much more powerful ways than currently exist. Who was it (Keene?) that this of course already exists! :-)

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:09 pm 
truth dancer wrote:
No, I'm saying that the primitive animalistic urge to spread one's seed among as many females as possible is maladaptive. What was once essential to the continuation of various animals is no longer necessary and is, from an evolutionary perspective, maladaptive.


Okay, so if I'm reading you right, you're saying, as an example, the urge to eat is always there, we have to eat to live, just like we have to have sex to keep the species going, but we don't have to eat junk. Is that a fair comparison?

Quote:
I'm not in any way saying repression or denial is the way to go here and of course it is not the norm by any stretch nor is it easy. I'm suggesting that what was once hardwired can be altered to some degree in some men.


This will be the biggest evolutionary leap in time.

Quote:
In other words, the idea that men have to behave as animals or even have to fight the animalistic urges will most likely be a thing of the past in another few thousand years because it is not only no longer necessary but again, maladaptive.


Well I'm obviously one of the maladaptive links, but even with my present "animalistic urges" I have hurt no one, and I think I'm a pretty good single father. I'm not sure I want to eat carrots and never look at women. Besides, single women have sexual urges too. And TD, we are animals, but we don't hump visitor's legs or behave like dogs. We don't fornicate under street lights. My question, I suppose, is how can we get rid of what we biologically are? I mean, there's something like a 1% genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. So this evolutionary leap will be something like chimps becoming human. I think religious ideals have tried to facilitate this leap, that's if you're not expecting 73 virgins in Paradise or eternal polygamy.

Quote:
What purpose is an animalistic desire to spread seed make, when everyone is using birth control?


Pleasure? (I do like Hungry Jacks too)


Quote:
And obviously spreading one's seed is harmful to offspring (or monogamy/male parental care would not have evolved as it has over the last few million years).


I'm wondering if monogamy ever evolved. I see a lot of serial monogamy. Ask Tom Cruise. Or better, Liz Taylor.

Quote:
I would say this primitive urge is maladaptive similar to the need to store fat... at once it meant the difference between survival or death, (death of the species in the case of spreading seed in various animals), today this propensity causes death.


I still don't think it's a primitive urge, and it's designed by nature for a purpose. It becomes maladaptive in rape, child sexual abuse, or child porn, and when used to control people. There are obviously cases where sex is abused, and that is primitive behaviour.

Quote:
Does that make sense?


In a Utopian perspective, yes. Nothing wrong with trying to envision something that may be better than a 50% divorce rate. We are clearly not doing very well, but success also depends on everyone finding their soulmate. You've heard of the "seven year itch", I'm sure. I'm just observing what I see in the real world, a lot of stupified people enduring relationships when romantic love died three weeks after the honeymoon. Okay, I exaggerate.

Quote:
I'm also suggesting that there are those for whom this animalistic tendency is no longer a motivator in one's life... not something that needs to be repressed or denied.


Still don't see how we can deny biology. I'm not "clicking" with this idea that we can be different to our biological nature, unless religious belief dominates, and that often results in repression, and to me the porn stats coming out of Utah are extraordinary. What that seems to indicate to me is that religion may only mask our real biological nature. I have plenty of confirmation from what I experienced in the church too. People are people, and even if Jesus says "don't get angry", people are going to get angry. How many truly live their religion? This is what Gandhi called the "schizophrenia of nations", the divide between creed and deed. Is it possible for humans to evolve beyond anger, another "animalistic" urge? Is it even realistic?

Quote:
For example, I sat next to a man on a plane a few months ago and we got into a discussion on this topic. He truly, TRULY did not have any desire or wish to view porn and didn't find it even remotely tasteful or intriguing. He was not religious as all but VERY happily married. The thought of viewing porn not only didn't appeal to him it was distasteful. (I got the impression it was like watching someone brush their teeth or something... LOL!(, anyway, I know many men like this... it seems to me that there are those who have found something better to embrace than the cheap thrill of using a body for their purposes.


I know men like that too. But I think this too may have a biological influence as well - they're usually sexual duds. Not everyone has the same level of hormones, and not everyone has the same sexual drive, and our genetics and biology influence this. Nymphs and satyrs don't happen by accident. It's biological.

Quote:
Again, I know this is rare and unusual... I just have a feeling (if our species is to continue), humankind will move to a new experience beyond the animalistic tendencies.


No, it's very rare.

Quote:
Also, as I have shared before, in another hundred years folks won't even have to view porn or have sex to have the pleasure center of the brain stimulated in much more powerful ways than currently exist. Who was it (Keene?) that this of course already exists! :-)


Then we won't need relationships either. We could just generate everything in the brain. We could evolve a "love gene", and we won't need sex or love from others. That will solve the divorce problem. LOL. But seriously, TD, I have read that anything is possible, and humans could eventually evolve to be asexual. Thankfully, I will have been in my grave for a million or two years. It's nice to speculate anyway.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
You are right, it doesn't constitute denial mode. I didn't deny that there was a problem. I didn't deny the statistics. I didn't even deny Rollo's assumptions. I simply and reasonably challenged some of his assumptions. But, I guess when Rollo raises concerns. you see it as him making a "common sense point"; whereas, when I raise concerns, it is "denial mode". Fascinating!


Here's Rollo's post:

Quote:
Quote:
Interesting article in the Deseret News (link below) about Internet searches in Utah -- the state leads or nearly leads the nation in searches of ... ahem ... 'less-than-TBM' words (but it also leads in 'very TBM' words!). I always thought the Brethren's apparent obsession in talks about the "evils" of porn was a bit of an overreaction, but maybe they're on to something.


Which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo simply states the obvious: Utah leads the nation in "TBM words" and "less-than-TBM words." So far, he's right on the money. He then says that the brethren's focus on porn might be justified. So, Wade, which assumptions are you challenging? Rollo raised no concerns, so yes, he made a commonsense point: pornography is a problem in Utah, and the brethren seem to agree. Your "concern" was to accuse him of smearing the church. So, yeah, it's denial mode. One of you was reasonable, and it wasn't you.


What am I supposedly denying? (See my comments regarding the assumptions below)

Quote:
You are arguing here againts a point that I wasn't making, and one that I had even conceded--which leaves me to wonder if you actually grasped the point that I was making.


You tell me, Wade. What was your point?


The Google statistics are an extremely poor indicator of proportional viewing of pornography on the interenet, and even poorer still in determining what proportion is being viewed by Church members--i.e the extent of the problem with pornography in the Church?

Quote:
Quote:
That is because my "accusations" were based on what Rollo had said (his "reasoning and assumptions}, and not on what the article had said. I didn't need to read the article to correctly determine that Rollo was fallacious in what he said. I didn't need to read the article to suspect Rollo of wanting to smear the Church.


And yet Rollo's post contained no reasoning other than that the brethren's focus on pornography might be justified, and no assumptions that I could see. Again, which assumptions were you challenging, and what part of what Rollo said was fallacious? And what in the post led you to believe he wanted to smear the church? What I suspect is that you have a past history with Rollo, so you read into the post things that weren't there, kind of like the way I respond to you. I'll readily admit as much. Will you?


Well...it did contain some so-called "reasoning". He uncharitably and rashly claimed that the Brethren had "apparently been obsessing", but went on to admitted that his equally uncharitable and rash assumption that the Bretheren were "overreacting" may have been unjustified.

Granted, those weren't the assumptions I was addressing. The one's I was addressing were, admittedly, read inbetween the lines (whether Rollo intended them to be or not), and were later given voice by other participants here (Bond in particular). As such, I can't legitimately attribute them to Rollo, particularly given his denial that that is what he was saying (and I take him at his word).

My mistake. Sorry.

Quote:
For what it's worth, I've known Rollo a long time, and one thing that has always impressed me is that he genuinely does love the church and has a faith that I admire. It's really funny to me that he's so vilified by some of you because he won't sweep the difficult under the rug, and he's not afraid to speak up when the church is wrong. But in my conversations with him, he's always stood on the side of faith.


I have come away with an entirely different perception. I don't recall him ever saying a positive thing about the Church, and if he had, it pales in comparison to his frequent gripes and complaints. Also, his OP on this thread came across at best as a backhanded compliment, and when you consider the audience to whom he addressed his quip (i.e. relatively and predominantly hostile to the Church), Rollo's alleged genuine love doesn't quite come shining through to me. I know that were I one of his loved one's, I certainly wouldn't appreciate him gossiping and complaining behind my back like he has with the Church over the last year or so.

But, I addressed this point when I said:

Quote:
A WORKABLE solution would be for me to be less defensive and more charitable towards Rollo, and consider him to be acting in good faith. Do you agree? Thanks, -Wade Englund-


That would be a start. It would also help if you responded to what he actually wrote. :-)[/quote]

Are both of these things the kind of WORKABLE solutions you would recommend to yourself and others? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:06 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Ray...

You are always great to have a conversation with! :-)

I don't think I'm explaining my thoughts very well...

OK, first you are correct that serial monogamy is what has evolved. Absolutly. The idea of life-time mating is very recent, (around five thousand years) when women began being owned by men. "Marriage" was not about partnering it was an agreement between men using women as property. Partnerships was not even in the mindset of those folks! Once a woman was purchased by a man she had no escape.

So, yes, long term mating is very new hence the problems with figuring out how to do it well. :-)

As long as women had no rights and were owned by men divorce wasn't an issue. (Women having the rights to initiate divorce is a phenomenon only a couple centuries old in the west). Once women stopped being owned things changed. So yes, divorce is a result of our biology and the tendency for couples to separate when the youngest has eached "independence" (funny how in the human this is, world wide, 7.5 years of age).

Anyway, in terms of my analogy to food... let me clarify. For millions of years humans had to store energy and those who could store it best lived longer than those who couldn't. Today, we have no need to store energy as fat due to our ability to have a never ended supply of food source. TODAY, this ability is maladaptive in the sense that it is harming humans rather than helping.

Similarly, the urge to screw every female that walks by was at one time obviously beneficial (and still is in most animals). But over time, it became clear offspring benefitted by having a father hence male parental investment and the bonding of males with females. TODAY, if a man decides to ^%$# every woman who walks by, he is not acting in the best interest of offspring or community. Does that make sense?

I'm suggesting that today, there is no longer this need from a species prespective for a guy to &^%$ every female. It is no longer in the best interest for humankind (and the unfolding of the universe in my perspective... (smile).

I'm NOT in any way suggesting we have to change our biology. I'm saying nature will hold onto the things that work and those things that are no longer necessary will diminish and disappear. I'm saying what is hardwired in animals is less so in conscious humans. You agree with this?

I very much wonder about the future of relationships. On the other hand, there is no longer a need for them. Women do not need to have a relationship with a man to have children or provide for them. Men no longer need women to be sexually stimuated and release seed! (Trying to keep it PG)! :-) So, the NEED for relationship seems to me, will diminish over time.

On the other hand, IMO, it is an amazing ability for humans to partner long term and through intimacy new emotions can emerge and a emotional bond can develop unlike anything in our known universe. The intense sharing and compassion that 'potentially' come through long term partnering is certainly an advancement in the human. IMO, this relationship comes NOT from necessity but from a depth of desire which is certainly transformational.

So, in terms of today, again, I'm suggesting that men who have moved beyond the primitive urges are rare but more and more I am aware of those who have done just this. It is not a moral thing, in is a deepening. It is not repression but release. Not a fight against Satan, but a moving beyond something less rewarding, to something much more meaningful, fulfilling, pleasurable and enjoyable.

Also, I'm not suggesting there is something wrong with men who love porn or who want to screw every women who walks by. This tendency has a long history (what, several million years at least)? Not something that will disappear overnight! :-)

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:59 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
wenglund wrote:
I have come away with an entirely different perception. I don't recall him ever saying a positive thing about the Church, and if he had, it pales in comparison to his frequent gripes and complaints. Also, his OP on this thread came across at best as a backhanded compliment, and when you consider the audience to whom he addressed his quip (i.e. relatively and predominantly hostile to the Church), Rollo's alleged genuine love doesn't quite come shining through to me. I know that were I one of his loved one's, I certainly wouldn't appreciate him gossiping and complaining behind my back like he has with the Church over the last year or so.


Likewise, I don't recall you ever A) saying a positive thing about the Church, nor B) doing anything positive on the Church's behalf, nor C) representing the Church in a positive way. I know that if I were your bishop, I certainly wouldn't appreciate the sort of armchair psychiatrist crap that you dole out on a regular basis, since your judgmentalism, hubris, and arrogance reflect badly on the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:13 pm 
Mister Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:
I have come away with an entirely different perception. I don't recall him ever saying a positive thing about the Church, and if he had, it pales in comparison to his frequent gripes and complaints. Also, his OP on this thread came across at best as a backhanded compliment, and when you consider the audience to whom he addressed his quip (i.e. relatively and predominantly hostile to the Church), Rollo's alleged genuine love doesn't quite come shining through to me. I know that were I one of his loved one's, I certainly wouldn't appreciate him gossiping and complaining behind my back like he has with the Church over the last year or so.


Likewise, I don't recall you ever A) saying a positive thing about the Church, nor B) doing anything positive on the Church's behalf, nor C) representing the Church in a positive way. I know that if I were your bishop, I certainly wouldn't appreciate the sort of armchair psychiatrist crap that you dole out on a regular basis, since your judgmentalism, hubris, and arrogance reflect badly on the Church.


You really scored with that one, Scratch! Scratch one Wade Englund!

Oh the moronity of it all.

Scratch: Pick a topic in church history and lets the two of us go at it. You are the real enemy of the Church here, not poor Wade.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:16 pm 
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm
Posts: 4627
Location: MI6-Private Quarters
Plutarch wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:
I have come away with an entirely different perception. I don't recall him ever saying a positive thing about the Church, and if he had, it pales in comparison to his frequent gripes and complaints. Also, his OP on this thread came across at best as a backhanded compliment, and when you consider the audience to whom he addressed his quip (i.e. relatively and predominantly hostile to the Church), Rollo's alleged genuine love doesn't quite come shining through to me. I know that were I one of his loved one's, I certainly wouldn't appreciate him gossiping and complaining behind my back like he has with the Church over the last year or so.


Likewise, I don't recall you ever A) saying a positive thing about the Church, nor B) doing anything positive on the Church's behalf, nor C) representing the Church in a positive way. I know that if I were your bishop, I certainly wouldn't appreciate the sort of armchair psychiatrist crap that you dole out on a regular basis, since your judgmentalism, hubris, and arrogance reflect badly on the Church.


You really scored with that one, Scratch! Scratch one Wade Englund!

Oh the moronity of it all.

Scratch: Pick a topic in church history and lets the two of us go at it. You are the real enemy of the Church here, not poor Wade.


I second that (the debate part, not the enemy of the church part).

Bond

_________________
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:09 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Plutarch wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
wenglund wrote:
I have come away with an entirely different perception. I don't recall him ever saying a positive thing about the Church, and if he had, it pales in comparison to his frequent gripes and complaints. Also, his OP on this thread came across at best as a backhanded compliment, and when you consider the audience to whom he addressed his quip (i.e. relatively and predominantly hostile to the Church), Rollo's alleged genuine love doesn't quite come shining through to me. I know that were I one of his loved one's, I certainly wouldn't appreciate him gossiping and complaining behind my back like he has with the Church over the last year or so.


Likewise, I don't recall you ever A) saying a positive thing about the Church, nor B) doing anything positive on the Church's behalf, nor C) representing the Church in a positive way. I know that if I were your bishop, I certainly wouldn't appreciate the sort of armchair psychiatrist crap that you dole out on a regular basis, since your judgmentalism, hubris, and arrogance reflect badly on the Church.


You really scored with that one, Scratch! Scratch one Wade Englund!

Oh the moronity of it all.

Scratch: Pick a topic in church history and lets the two of us go at it. You are the real enemy of the Church here, not poor Wade.


First I'd like you to live up to your promise about delivering that Mountain Meadows Massacre letter. What do you say, P.?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:48 pm 
TD, thanks for your clarifications and a little lesson in pre-history. I had read those things but your post was a reminder. Doesn't quite fit the Garden of Eden story, but that's mythology anyway.

truth dancer wrote:
Similarly, the urge to screw every female that walks by was at one time obviously beneficial (and still is in most animals). But over time, it became clear offspring benefitted by having a father hence male parental investment and the bonding of males with females. TODAY, if a man decides to ^%$# every woman who walks by, he is not acting in the best interest of offspring or community. Does that make sense?


No, he certainly isn't. Especially if she's someone else's wife.


Quote:
I'm NOT in any way suggesting we have to change our biology. I'm saying nature will hold onto the things that work and those things that are no longer necessary will diminish and disappear. I'm saying what is hardwired in animals is less so in conscious humans. You agree with this?


It appears so, since humans are also the only species which is aware of forthcoming death, so we obviously have some cranial advantage, if you can call foreseeing your own eventual death "advantage". We've evolved beyond animals significantly, yes, and I guess there will be more evolution, which some people seem to think the Indigo children are already doing. I'm not sure how they feel about marriage/relationships.

Quote:
I very much wonder about the future of relationships. On the other hand, there is no longer a need for them. Women do not need to have a relationship with a man to have children or provide for them. Men no longer need women to be sexually stimuated and release seed! (Trying to keep it PG)! :-) So, the NEED for relationship seems to me, will diminish over time.

On the other hand, IMO, it is an amazing ability for humans to partner long term and through intimacy new emotions can emerge and a emotional bond can develop unlike anything in our known universe. The intense sharing and compassion that 'potentially' come through long term partnering is certainly an advancement in the human. IMO, this relationship comes NOT from necessity but from a depth of desire which is certainly transformational.

So, in terms of today, again, I'm suggesting that men who have moved beyond the primitive urges are rare but more and more I am aware of those who have done just this. It is not a moral thing, in is a deepening. It is not repression but release. Not a fight against Satan, but a moving beyond something less rewarding, to something much more meaningful, fulfilling, pleasurable and enjoyable.


For those who find the right partner, perhaps. I look at my youngest daughter now, she has had several boyfriends but no desire for long term relationships. I think this is the trend with many young people. Relationships can be rewarding, but I see so many difficulties in them, arguments, disagreements, and when they've butted heads for too long, they split. People are complex with varying needs and desires, and to find that rewarding long term relationship seems one hell of a challenge. I know a lot about my daughter's friends as well, all teenagers, and they're not by and large interested in long term relationships. I kind of wonder if we're going in the direction you hope. I do have many Mormon friends though who have had long term marriages, one was on the verge of divorce before they joined the church, and 30 years later they're still together, so I think religion does have a stabilising factor in some marriages, but what I see in society mainly is a trend to individualism rather than commitment.
However, last time I checked I saw the LDS US divorce rate is actually slightly higher than the rest of the US, and Evangelicals have an even higher rate of divorce. So I would say that even common religious beliefs isn't keeping this ship afloat.

I think you have a noble ideal, TD, and long term emotional bonding and commitment is a good thing, and good for society, but looking at the realities, it looks like Paradise Lost, and to me it seems society is going in the opposite direction to what you're hoping for. But that's just my take.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:19 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hey Ray... thanks for the always insightful discussion!

Yes, my hope seems to be a long shot. Do you want to know why I am hopeful?

I'll assume you said yes! :-)

Because, the universe seems to continually bring forth more; more creations, more species, more emotions, more feelings, more insights, more knowledge, more awareness. There seems to be a continual deepening of compassion. What once started as a very selfish concern for oneself expanded to care for children, tribes, communities, city-states, nations and it is certianly moving toward a planetary concern. Sex, begun nearly four billion years ago as nothing more than a new way to bring forth creatures, has moved to a place where, in the human it has the potential to bring form amazing emotions, feelings, care and a bond unlike anything in the known universe.

I can't think of too many times when we permanently went backwards... (none actually). The primitive urges we inherited from our animal ancestors have changed. While we currently are in a state of chaos, what will come forth will be something new I feel certian

In other words, there seems to be something within the universe that continues to expand the reality of what is possible. And, it seems that intimacy is what brings forth the deepening of the human.

So... while it may not happen, I think it is a possibility. You are totally correct that there is a trend away from relationship, children, families. Absolutly there is no question about this. On the other hand, there is also a sense of some humans wanting something more in relationship. People aren't content with mediocrity. Perhaps the search for something better will bring it forth?

I wonder if young people don't want relationships because relationships don't seem all that great! I don't blame them. I think they want something different. They have choices unlike any time in history. With those choices they are in effect saying, I would rather be single then have a bad relationship. Women would rather go it alone that be in a unhealthy marriage. Men also have no need to stay in a bad marriage. Other women are readily available. So, what will come forth?

What a mystery is the future.

:-)

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:59 pm 
truth dancer wrote:
Because, the universe seems to continually bring forth more; more creations, more species, more emotions, more feelings, more insights, more knowledge, more awareness. There seems to be a continual deepening of compassion. What once started as a very selfish concern for oneself expanded to care for children, tribes, communities, city-states, nations and it is certianly moving toward a planetary concern. Sex, begun nearly four billion years ago as nothing more than a new way to bring forth creatures, has moved to a place where, in the human it has the potential to bring form amazing emotions, feelings, care and a bond unlike anything in the known universe.


I agree with this, TD. Though I do think our tribal instincts are still very strong, and this is particularly manifest in religion, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Catholics. Perhaps this is what inspires writers like Dawkins and Sam Harris (whose book The End of Faith sold over 400,000 copies). I have always perceived religion as good at the basic levels, and one way to help people to inculcate good values. Now I'm really not sure about this. Dawkins makes some excellent points in his book, and it is "middle of the road" people like me he's trying to stir. I don't know, I may have a different view after I finish his book. But I see more and more division because of religion, where the tribal instincts really come out. I see no "deepening compassion" from religion at all, just exclusiveness. Of course there are individual exceptions, probably all "liberals".

Quote:
I can't think of too many times when we permanently went backwards... (none actually). The primitive urges we inherited from our animal ancestors have changed. While we currently are in a state of chaos, what will come forth will be something new I feel certian


Yes I have seen this in my own lifetime, particularly in regard to racism.

Quote:
In other words, there seems to be something within the universe that continues to expand the reality of what is possible. And, it seems that intimacy is what brings forth the deepening of the human.


And communication. I think people want to communicate thoughts more, we are getting more opinionated, it seems to try to resolve differences, even if we argue more than agree. The internet has facilitated this. We might reach universal agreement sometime in the 25th century.

Quote:
So... while it may not happen, I think it is a possibility. You are totally correct that there is a trend away from relationship, children, families. Absolutly there is no question about this. On the other hand, there is also a sense of some humans wanting something more in relationship. People aren't content with mediocrity. Perhaps the search for something better will bring it forth?


Civilisations go in cycles, so the current trend may not last at all. From my own perspective I don't want a relationship, so I'm one of the flies in the ointment at the moment. I think I need to go on a Recovery From Marriage board.

Quote:
I wonder if young people don't want relationships because relationships don't seem all that great! I don't blame them. I think they want something different. They have choices unlike any time in history. With those choices they are in effect saying, I would rather be single then have a bad relationship. Women would rather go it alone that be in a unhealthy marriage. Men also have no need to stay in a bad marriage. Other women are readily available. So, what will come forth?


I think they do want relationships, but long term commitment scares the hell out of them. The idea of being with one person for 30-50 years seems like a prison sentence. My parents were married for 56 years, and that was not uncommon for people born in the early 20th century. Today people married for 20 years get comments as if they've won the Olympic marathon.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:32 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Ray...

Civilisations go in cycles, so the current trend may not last at all. From my own perspective I don't want a relationship, so I'm one of the flies in the ointment at the moment. I think I need to go on a Recovery From Marriage board.

Well, OK, here is the thing. I wouldn't want one either if it was anything less than stellar, amazing, fantastic, rewarding, fulfilling, exciting, completely, totally fabulous!

I am not one who would go for a marriage where people just survive or endure to the end. AAHHH!!!

I think the reality of how many relationships are, is sending a clear message to young people that it is so NOT what they want in life. I don't blame them at all. And those who have been burned a few times are pretty much done with it all as well!

One thing... I think those who do not want a relationship (and all that that entails) should not be married. It sounds trite but IMO, men who cannot be satisfied with one lifetime partner should not pretend that they will be. Ya know? If a guy knows it is not for him, he should be upfront about it. (Like you)! :-)

I know quite a few women who have no desire whatsoever to be married. It doesn't even remotely appeal to them. I totally understand their position, as I do men who do not want to be with one woman. The important thing is to be upfront about it all!

Hopefully there will be less pressure to be married in the future. :-)

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:19 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
wenglund wrote:
I have come away with an entirely different perception. I don't recall him ever saying a positive thing about the Church, and if he had, it pales in comparison to his frequent gripes and complaints.

I recall going to bat on many occasions for the Brethren's traditional preaching of the location of Cumorah in New York and hemispheric model for the BofM, and pointing out the many fallacies of the LGT. I also remember going at it for pages supporting the 12 witnesses to the gold plates. I recently stated my belief that the Brethren are honest in their beliefs of the Church, and not running some scam. Perhaps I don't go around gushing about the Brethren or LDS-related issues, but simply try to express my own opinion, pro or con.

Quote:
... and when you consider the audience to whom he addressed his quip (i.e. relatively and predominantly hostile to the Church), Rollo's alleged genuine love doesn't quite come shining through to me. I know that were I one of his loved one's, I certainly wouldn't appreciate him gossiping and complaining behind my back like he has with the Church over the last year or so.

The only "genuine love" I have is for my family. The Church is an organization -- it is not a form of golden calf that I worship. If mistakes are made, or policies instituted that I think are wrong, then I will speak up.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Utah Mormons have serious porn problems ...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:24 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:25 pm
Posts: 1253
Quote:
I wonder if young people don't want relationships because relationships don't seem all that great! I don't blame them. I think they want something different. They have choices unlike any time in history. With those choices they are in effect saying, I would rather be single then have a bad relationship.


This generation has choices? Really? Not in reference to economics. People still want marriage, the class that marriage has dropped is the lower middle/working class. They want security like their parents had before they commit, but sadly that security will not be there for them. If they cannot adapt then they will cease to matter in a biological context.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Utah Mormons have serious porn problems ...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:53 am
Posts: 4412
Location: Oregon
WTF? This is a resurrection of a 14 year old thread? wenglund? That guy...was a real douche bag.

_________________
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Utah Mormons have serious porn problems ...
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:18 pm 
the very elect
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 8083
cwald wrote:
WTF? This is a resurrection of a 14 year old thread? wenglund? That guy...was a real douche bag.

Nooo, a douche, like Summers Breeze, is refreshing and makes thing better.

Wenglund is more like a tampon when there should have been a Maxipad too.

_________________
New name: Boaz
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group