The War on Sex is Awful

Heres what I picture in my head:

45 year old mom, nearing menopause, yearning for the days of old when a young strapping male might actually sport a woody for them. Watching a 20 something vixen on a modern day reality show, green with envy, and pissed that romantic encounters rarely turn out like they do on daytime soaps or in trash novels. Rather than admitting they are emotional wrecks and sex can just be purely physical and purely fun, they begin to loose it. Next thing you know, theyre condemning even animals humping in the wild ("wheres the intimacy?", they whine [unfortunately too stupid/self centered enough to find intimacy in the beautiful act of penetration alone.)

It is these types of ##SNIP## above that force us all to subscribe to their brand of intimacy. They cannot just let others do what they will with sex, they must insert their agenda. Its mind control at its worst. "Sex must start with light kissing, then a pledge of love, then a prayer blessing our genitals, then a peom about how only mature woman on the verge of loosing the ability to reproduce are the most apt people to be discussing modern sex."

Gosh I cnt stand the people that Ive described above. Id love to fight them in public if I could. They, IMO of course, ruin the world, seriously.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


LOL I get it I am supporting your argument because I mock the gay marriage thing because they are seeking approval from others for their engagements? Do you not see how pathetic it is that one needs another organization/ entity to love one another?

It is just writing on paper, much like the bible that is used to thump the gays.

And show me one civilization that embraces child sexuality and is not a 3rd world nation?

I think it is just a fundamentally different outlook on life.

reply to post by MasterGemini


From your source: "But even in 2006, the most recent year for which figures are available,"

Try again.

reply to post by MasterGemini


I posted those links for a reason. You're using logical fallacies in your arguments.

IF x THEN y... wrong

Correlation does NOT imply causation

Originally posted by Salamandy
("wheres the intimacy?", they whine [unfortunately too stupid/self centered enough to find intimacy in the beautiful act of penetration alone.)

If that's true, then I assume you'd think there is nothing wrong with having sex with a Golden Retriever?

Originally posted by Salamandy
It is these types of SNIP above that force us all to subscribe to their brand of intimacy. They cannot just let others do what they will with sex, they must insert their agenda. Its mind control at its worst. "Sex must start with light kissing, then a pledge of love, then a prayer blessing our genitals, then a peom about how only mature woman on the verge of loosing the ability to reproduce are the most apt people to be discussing modern sex."

You say this as if this kind of talk is a hot topic. It isn't. Like I said, in the "war on sex" sex is winning. Turn on a TV, watch a movie, open a magazine... So what the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Salamandy
They, IMO of course, ruin the world, seriously.

You have bizarre priorities.

reply to post by MasterGemini


No not at all. I mock people who try to get others to beleive/make laws that sex has to be intimate and emotional.
It doesnt. However, since it doesnt affect my life one way or the other, I could care less if someone else wants to be the most cuddly wuddly intmate love birds they can be. Go for it. But dont try to convince the public thats the only type of sex because youd be far from correct.

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by MasterGemini

 

No not at all. I mock people who try to get others to beleive/make laws that sex has to be intimate and emotional.
It doesnt. However, since it doesnt affect my life one way or the other, I could care less if someone else wants to be the most cuddly wuddly intmate love birds they can be. Go for it. But dont try to convince the public thats the only type of sex because youd be far from correct.

So what is your opinion on the sexuality encouraged by lady gaga, or that jersey shore? The war on sex seems to be more a war against the destruction of the family unit (an evolutionarily vital adaption by humanity).

Also there seems to be a varying degree of emphasis on the material here and now versus the spiritual future.

reply to post by Adyta


Dogs cannot dictate a clear choice as humans can. Plus I don't think sex with a dog is illegal. Creepy as hell and I wouldn't hang out near a person who was a confirmed dog banger, but not illegal.

I despise these people because they are destined to cross all sorts of lines. What I mean is, when a person tries to persuade another group to think a certain way about sex, it tells me they are willing to go into other private areas that do not need to be regulated by adults.

reply to post by MasterGemini


How anyone could equate those people with anything sexy is beyond me. Total image.. fake tans, fake body parts. I despise lady Gaga - if youve got the talent just go for - why the image overload you fake loser? For the record, I live on the Jersey Shore and those people in that house are the tourists, not the locals, ha

But its free speech. If they wanna have orgies all night and day, I could care less. I have my kids to raise and I have the power over MTV, ha

Im more concerned with Gaga's "look at me and my material flashiness" than her openess towards free sex. Id rather see a young lady loose her "diamonds are a girls best friend BS" attitude than keep some sort of made up creepiness about sexual innocence.

reply to post by MasterGemini

And show me one civilization that embraces child sexuality and is not a 3rd world nation?

The war on sex seems to be more a war against the destruction of the family unit (an evolutionarily vital adaption by humanity).

Who are you, the ghost of Richard Nixon?

From the White House Tapes, 1971

You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France.
Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack

 

 

A different place in time and I'm right there with you!

But Im talking about the ones who think sex is evil - good luck wit them

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by MasterGemini

 

And show me one civilization that embraces child sexuality and is not a 3rd world nation?

The war on sex seems to be more a war against the destruction of the family unit (an evolutionarily vital adaption by humanity).

Who are you, the ghost of Richard Nixon?

From the White House Tapes, 1971

You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France.
Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.

Homosexuality is not child sexualization.

Please attack the correct statement.

LoL nice try there though you were real close. . . .

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack


That is the climate of discourse on ATS. The mods are doing their best to maintain decency and standards, but decency is always viewed through the lens of what is normal on ATS. It has probably always been a conservative emotional roller-coaster here, although I didn't notice that until fairly recently. Keeping that in mind, I think that there are more arbitrary moderation teams on the internet than there are here.

Isn't it fun that MasterGemini went for the fascist argument, "the family unit makes our society stronger/the purpose of moral laws is to strengthen our society"? I think that this is direct evidence of what I said before, that the opposition to sexual liberation cannot be reasoned with. They are acting in good faith, but they are deeply misled by generations of subtle discursive manipulation by deeply flawed and extremely powerful prudes.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


It's just the sort of subjective viewpoint the weak and powerless will always try to force onto others. It's the impression that if they cannot control their own urges, there must be a law to control everyone. It's a classical example of cognitive dissonance.

Others here are definitely projecting and assigning their own pedophile and bestiality fantasies onto others. Nothing of the sort was ever mentioned yet somehow it is brought forth and assigned. Maybe lithium in the water is a good idea after all...

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack

 

That is the climate of discourse on ATS. The mods are doing their best to maintain decency and standards, but decency is always viewed through the lens of what is normal on ATS. It has probably always been a conservative emotional roller-coaster here, although I didn't notice that until fairly recently. Keeping that in mind, I think that there are more arbitrary moderation teams on the internet than there are here.

Isn't it fun that MasterGemini went for the fascist argument, "the family unit makes our society stronger/the purpose of moral laws is to strengthen our society"? I think that this is direct evidence of what I said before, that the opposition to sexual liberation cannot be reasoned with. They are acting in good faith, but they are deeply misled by generations of subtle discursive manipulation by deeply flawed and extremely powerful prudes.

Do you know what fascism is? Musilini said he rather have called it corporatism where the government is in line with the business and vice versa ( no different that socialism ehem the NAZIs or communists really Stalin/ Pol Pot/ Mao Tse Tsung).

I say the family unit is important based on anthropology/ archeology/ and general history. Prove me wrong here, find a 1st world society that embodies your ideals. Just look to monkey behavior for proof of strong family ties being necessary. Get off your high and mighty horse and smell your horse's ##SNIP## please.

How does a strong family diverge from being free sexually. Unless your idea of freedom is poking everything that walks?

reply to post by MasterGemini


Again, you are using logical fallacies.

This one in particular is known as an "Appeal to Tradition"

I just read this today, nice timing,

Is pornography driving men crazy?

globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com...

Scientists Discover Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea 'Superbug'
healthland.time.com...

with 700,000 new cases in the U.S. each year, and an estimated 340 million new cases each year globally.

It's late, interesting topic, see you in the morning.