Sex, Sex, Sex

I have been thinking about sex a lot lately. I know many of you have too, but I have been thinking more specifically about sexuality. I have been struggling with how to determine what is right and wrong with sex, when and how people have sex, and the circumstances surrounding having sex. I know my view hasn’t been correct but do not want to change just for the sake of change. I want to find a reasonable way to determine the truth about healthy sexual behavior.

I know I have not been able to see clearly on the matter. My whole life I was taught a very Christian fundamentalist view toward sex. Sex was only for a married man and woman. It was for procreation and relationship building for such couples only. Anything outside of that was sin.

Within the married heterosexual model sex was sacred and anything too deviant was certainly wrong as well. Things here were never really defined for me. There was not a set of guideline to show me what sex acts were right or wrong and why they were right or wrong. But I was taught that any sex that was not beautiful and loving and happy was wrong. Any sexual act that did not fit into a God-approved model was wrong.

So, let me give some example of what I was taught.

Masturbation was definitely wrong. That cannot procreate and there is no one to build a relationship with other than yourself. If you are only gratifying your self then it must be a big sin.

Anal sex had to be wrong. No procreation and it was invented by perverse homosexuals. It was wrong on the same grounds as rock music, because it was the devil’s corruption and mockery of God’s beautiful gift.

Anything having to do with S&M was wrong. If you must associate pain with sex then you are unfulfilled as a person. You seek to fill your desires without God’s blessing and it has messed up your mind. Sex is a loving thing and is only perfect when it shared in a soft, loving manner.

No one ever told me oral sex is bad. You cannot procreate with it. Unless, I suppose, the female is very flexible and has other oral talents that would be quite unique. Even then it would be a long shot on getting pregnant. Anyways, I was not told oral sex was bad. I guess because it was too good to put on the naughty list.

There are more examples but I think you understand the mindset I have lived with my whole life.

Well, I want to understand my own thoughts and views on sex. I want to find the truth. I want reasonable definitions of what is right. I want to discuss it intelligently with others and I want to be able to distinguish between what is wrong from what I don’t like. To me that concept is a SUPER BIG DEAL. Just because I like something does not make it right and just because I don’t like something does not make it wrong. Most of the world I see gets that wrong to some degree.

So, I have come up with a way for me to understand sex and I am going to explain my thoughts here. I realize I may be wrong and am not convinced this is my long-term stance on sexuality. I am open to comments, rebuttals, and whatever else you have to say on the matter.

Sex is a natural, inborn desire. So is eating and so is sleeping. I have decided to look at them the same way and see what that is like.

Some people like many different foods. Some people are picky and do not like variation. Some folks even eat the same things everyday. Some people like a varietiy of sexual positions and acts. Some are picky and only like a few. There are even a few who only like it one way.

Some people sleep in the same position all the time. Some do not. Most have their favorite position. Some only find it comfortable sleeping in bed. Other can enjoy sleeping in a variety of places. Some even like to sleep anywhere they get a chance. I think if you replace “sleep/sleeping” with “having sex” and that statement makes just as much sense.

Some people eat very natural foods. They like different tastes but do not like processed food or do not like spicy hot foods. Habanero peppers for example would bring pain to many who consumed them. Other adventurous people, while they might like the traditional foods really prefer their food hot and spicy. Again, some are not satisfied unless their food is extreme. It must be hot. I have seen people who carry hot sauce with them in case they are offered food that isn’t hot enough. I liken this to S&M sexual acts. Some might find it painful but it is the preference for others.

Some people enjoy eating alone and cooking their own meals. I think most people would rather share their dining experience with someone else. Many people have shared a meal with someone they found absolutely fascinating and it made that meal so much better. Same with sex.

Some people cherish sleep. They often have good dreams and pleasant thoughts while sleeping. Others dread sleep and are haunted by bad thoughts, nightmares, or even night terrors. Often those sleep patterns are a part of life circumstances that shaped us as humans. Some people like sex, find it pleasant to think about, and have magnificent thoughts during sex. Other dread sex or even find it repulsing. They do not have enjoyable thoughts during sex.

Some people over eat, but some eat to little. Some people eat too much then purge themselves of their indulgence. Many who do feel guilty about that cycle. Some people are consumed with having sex. Others rarely have sex. Some people feel guilty because they have had too many sexual partners or feel they have experimented too much with sex.

Often times couples desire different types of food. Often one partner will desire to eat more than the other. Two people will find their eating habits and desires are just as diverse as their sexual habits.

There are many more examples, but I think you get my point. So let’s get to my, at least for now, definitions of good sex and bad sex. (Those don’t seem like the right terms, but I imagine that is just the tip of what is wrong in my thinking here.)

Sex, like food and sleep, is natural.

You should never force someone else to eat if they don’t desire to eat, sleep when they don’t desire to sleep, or have sex when they don’t desire to have sex. An exception might be if they would suffer or die from a lack of one of those activities. I cannot think of a time where someone might die if they did not have sex soon.

Your taste in food and taste in sexual expression is no better or worse than anyone else’s (Except in the case of mental unwellness). You should not try to make others eat only what you eat or only participate in sex in only the same ways you participate in sex. You should not make people sleep in the same pattern as you or have sex in the same pattern as you.

When you see others eating you have no right to judge what they eat, how they eat, or who they eat with. Same goes for sex.

If some people find watching the chefs prepare exotic foods and fanciful dishes for pleasure you should not look down on them. It is fine for someone enjoy the idea that they might be able to prepare or enjoy food that isn’t realistic in their day to day life. It is fine for someone to desire a sleeping schedule they cannot work into their life. The same principle for both ideas here apply to sex.

Children do not have the same appetite for food. Their bodies cannot properly digest certain foods at younger ages. (Newborns, for example, cannot eat table food.) They do not have an understanding of nutrition or healthy eating habits. Children should not consume foods that are too spicy or consume alcohol. Those items have effects on the human body and can effect growth and mental development. Children are incapable of making fully informed and proper decisions regarding their health. Likewise, children should not partake in sexual activities until their bodies and minds are developed and prepared for it. They cannot understand the effects on their bodies and minds at least until they pass into puberty.

It is important that we teach children about proper nutrition, eating habits, and about all that goes into preparing healthy and safe food. We should teach them that different cultures eat different types of food and have different ways of dealing with food preparation and consumption. The same is true for sex and sexuality.

Some people abuse food, some abuse sleep, and some abuse sex. We know that mental illness can cause someone to eat things that are very harmful to their body and mind. I have seen TV shows where people eat paint or Styrofoam or other toxic things. I also know that mental illness can cause someone to try to harm others with food. That is not uncommon if someone suffers from Munchausen By Proxy. Mental illness might also cause someone to be a petophile. We should not allow people to hurt one another with food or sex. We should help anyone who suffers from any unhealthy behavior caused my mental illness. That includes eating disorders, sleeping disorders, and sexual disorders. We do not have a cure for all mental disorders and some people will never be completely healthy in one or more of these areas.

If consenting adults, who understand the potential risks and consequences, decide to over indulge in food consumption together or eat potentially dangerous food they should be free to do so as long as it does not stand in the way of others consuming the food they wish to eat or effect their ability to eat it in the manner they wish to eat it. (* I understand that things like “If a person eats to obesity they cause insurance companies to charge everyone higher rates to cover their health” and other matters that might counter this point. I think those arguments are more for a discussion on libertinism and politics.) If consenting adults participate in potentially harmful sex and are aware of the consequences they should be allowed to do so in their own private life. We don’t blink twice when people eat in an equally unhealthy manner.

We should stop putting stigmas and negative labels on people or activities just because we don’t like them. If someone chooses to be a vegetarian they should not be chastised or considered weird for fulfilling their natural desire to eat in a specific way. Just like if a woman chooses to have safe, protected sex with many consenting adult (male or female or other) she should not be labeled a slut.

Homosexual desires are no less valid than heterosexual desires.

I see no reason why a man cannot have 5 wives if the six of them all agree it is what they wish.

I think society and religion have caused us to be biased against many things that may be quite natural. I think many aspects of nudity are good examples of this.

I think we should continue to learn more about healthy sleep, diet, and sexuality. I think we should teach our children more about healthy habits in all 3 areas. I think if we did not treat varieties of behavior as bad or evil when they are truly just different from our world view we would be better off.

I think if we did learn and teach more about sexuality we might find that many adverse effects of sex are actually just a false guilt that has been taught. Society has used sex and sexual desires as a tool to judge or control people.

I do not mean to say that all my analogies are perfect or even correct. I really am trying to make the point that sexual desires are just as natural as sleep and hunger. I know they aren’t the exact same, but they are similar and should be viewed similarly.

I cannot imagine what the world would be like if we tried to control everything people ate or thought about in regards to food. It seems silly to say everyone who frequents adult entertainment establishments are perverts and only seeking to indulge their fleshly desires, but people who frequent fast food establishments are not.

Your thoughts?

138 comments

  1. pcts4you · October 20, 2015

    What a mess. There goes the “yeah, but religion is helpful!” argument.
    “The Catholic Church has spent two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo.”
    -Sam Harris
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bringing-the-vatican-to-j_b_571088.html

    I don’t envy this part of your path.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. carmen · October 20, 2015

    I think you’ve developed a comprehensive position . . err. . I think that’s a frank discussion about sex, disillusionist! I like the way you think. I am grinning to myself, imagining what Arch is going to comment. . prepare yourself! 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  3. archaeopteryx1 · October 20, 2015

    Needless to say, your post title certainly got my attention!

    I see no reason why a man cannot have 5 wives if the six of them all agree it is what they wish.

    I can – five mothers-in-law.

    But serially, I don’t envy your position. The things that most of the rest of us have had years with which to come to terms, during those same years, you had your little black book telling you what you can and can’t do. Now you find yourself in the position of having to begin afresh, and determine what it took us a lifetime to conclude. But it does sound like you’ve developed some filters that should stand you in good stead.

    Liked by 2 people

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I can say is has been like untangling a ball of twine. This ball of twine had several different strands and I know only one of them is usable. They all look intertwined and I am trying to sort them out.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        I can say is has been like untangling a ball of twine.” – Might I suggest you recall Alexander and the Gordian Knot —

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        That solution reminds my of Mrs. Bobbit’s solution to sexual problems.

        Liked by 2 people

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        I can see the similarity, but for some reason, I inadvertently crossed my legs.

        Liked by 1 person

    • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

      We can’t tell you what to do – you’ve been told what to do all of your life. What we CAN do, is tell you of our own experiences, and give you some insight from which you can draw, and choose to emulate or discard, at your discretion.

      Two of my greatest influences, in determining my path to morality, have been Hippocrates and Jerry Springer

      Hippocrates, from his Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.

      And from Jerry Springer, the words he uses to close each show: “Be good to yourselves, and each other.

      I suspect you’ll find the “Golden Rule” in there somewhere.

      Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        Two of my greatest influences, in determining my path to morality, have been Hippocrates and Jerry Springer — Best stand alone statement of the day! Perfect for quoting out of context.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Brad D · October 20, 2015

    I think you’ve got it nailed down quite well. If anything, it’s possibly a bit overthought, though that’s natural when coming to a new realization. My basic rule of thumb is as long as everyone involved consents, and as long as they’re not shoving it in my or anyone else’s face, then go have fun.

    Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      Well, I can think of a few situations where the answers may or may not fit and I can not say for sure why. The first is: What if a brother and sister want to have sex? The brother gets a vasectomy and the sister gets her tubes tied. Or they just consent to oral sex?

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        The brother gets a vasectomy and the sister gets her tubes tied. Or they just consent to oral sex?

        Did you mean like Abraham and Sarah?

        I’ve raised horses. Many times, brothers and sisters are interbred, in order to preserve the genes of a famous sire, and just as often, a daughter is bred back to her father, and the result is an improvement in the line. In the whole, brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son thing, we have been fed a line – birth defects occur only if both parents share a malicious gene.

        I’ve never touched any of my daughters (or my mother or sister), because I’ve been as brainwashed as everyone else, but if asked if it was wrong, I’d have to say I don’t know.

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        Im with you. I find the idea gross, but I cannot say it is inherently wrong and justify why it is wrong.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        Actually, having raised four daughters, I’ve come to the conclusion that as they mature, a switch of some sort clicks off in the father, that controls whatever device that finds young females attractive. I never had any such inclination for any of my girls, and trust me, not only have I changed their diapers, over the years I’ve seen them in all stages of undress – nuthin’ —

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        That leads me to also question what is wrong with various aspects of nudity, but that is another can of worms for another day.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        HOWEVER, in the 1800’s, the culture of the Trobriand Islanders was thoroughly explored, and it was discovered that they had no concept that equated sex with pregnancy. They believed that their god implanted babies in their mother’s wombs. Consequently, no man on the islands ever realized that he was a father, and thus had sex with whomever attracted him. Further, they shared my opinion that the greatest joke must be two virgins in bed, and consequently, the “fathers” made sure that their daughters knew what to do on the day of their wedding, as did the mothers, their sons, giving a whole new meaning to ‘All In The Family.’ And a good time was had by all —

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Xtiannolonger · October 20, 2015

    Just a couple of observations… One is that you’ve touched on the issue of consent, but I think it rightly factors into your thoughts more than you notice. The other is that if a woman wants five husbands…. 😎

    Liked by 2 people

  6. KIA · October 20, 2015

    I’m beginning to wonder if it’s anyone else’s business how a person and his/her consenting adult ‘significant other’ views their sex life. Outside of physical and emotional violence and abuse, what right does society have to tell people what they need to protect them from?
    Although I would have argued you into the dirt the other way not so long ago. Bring on the sister wives? No thanks for me, but who am I or society to interfere?
    If that Mormon or Muslim man really wants multiple mothers in law, god help him.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Mason · October 21, 2015

    Some thoughts as I read your post: 1. Strip clubs are inherently risky even if a person thinks they’re street wise. 2, Unless you’re a natural born dictator or a masochist, having more than one wife is lunacy. “I see no reason why a man cannot have 5 wives if the six of them all agree it is what they wish.” Getting two to really agree would be a miracle. Plural wives are always a pecking order of power. 3. Anal sex has very inherent serious medical risks; ask any gastrointestinal or emergency room Dr. 4. Food is about as analogous to sex as a puppy is to a grizzly bear. 5. For most couples, swinging is the fast track to the end of the relationship. I think in your re-thinking human sexuality, as everyone who discards Christian fundamentalism must do, you’re romanticizing the subject. I’d recommend the many studied secular articles on the subject in Psychology Today Magazine. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201301/misguided-debates-about-human-sexuality

    Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      Finally a different view. Thank you

      Like

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      Why are strip clubs risky? I have never been.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

        I too wish he had elaborated on that. I used to stop by one after work each evening for a cold one before going home (my office was only a couple of blocks down the street, and like you, I had never been), to the extent that I became known there by the bartender and the girls.

        As fate would have it, the bartender had apparently saved his tips, because he bought the club from the owner, just as my job ended. He asked me to be his bartender. I had never tended bar in my life, but he said he’d teach me, and as I’m always up for new experiences, and so I agreed.

        I spent a year there, and saw nothing risky about it. In fact, my last wedding took place on that stripper stage, with all of the staff in attendance – the minister was a little hippy dude who had probably become a minister by virtue of something he found in a Crackerjack box. That relationship lasted ten years and produced four beautiful daughters – maybe that was the risk he meant.

        (This explains NeuroNuts’ reference to me and strip clubs —)

        Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I actually know some people who have poly relationships and they are happy with the situation. They have struggles as any marriage or other permanent relationship does.

      Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I agree that anal sex can be a heath risk, but I am not opposed to people participating in other risky behavior if they willing enter into an activity knowing the risks. A good example is free climbing. Every pro free climber eventually dies from it. That seems more risky to me, but I do not think I have a right to tell anyone else they cannot free climb.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

        Though I’m not opposed to anal sex, neither am I its biggest fan. One health risk that both male and female partner needs to realize, is that there are bacteria growing in a warm, dark, moist anus that are beneficial to our digestive processes. Those same bacteria, transplanted into a warm, dark, moist vagina serve no beneficial purpose – rather, they multiply, die, decompose, and become the source of infection. Anything inserted into an anus should never be reinserted into a vagina without a thorough cleansing – word to the wise.

        Feel free to send that tidbit to Hints From Heloise

        Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I do not think the hunger drive and sex drive are as different as you make it seem with the puppy and grizzly. Can you please explain?

      Like

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I do think swinging has caused many problems for couples. I do not disagree. But there are a couple things that helped me to see it this way (at least for now). The first is that not all couples have a problem with it in our society. There are many cultures where it is not a problem at all. There are even cultures where it is natural and totally fine. There is no stigma attached to it at all. That leads me to think that in our culture much of the negative stigma is learned. The psychological results most often stem from a concern how the individual is viewed by their friends for the sexual acts that the participate in and not a negative psychological view of the sex itself.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        My personal belief is that if a couple resorts to “swinging,” their marriage is in trouble and counseling would be of far more benefit than a key party.

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        I know of people who live in a perpetual poly relationship and do not have any more problems and monogamous couples. The big key to things working is they are very honest in their communication. They discuss boundaries and do not cross them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        If it ain’t broke —

        Liked by 1 person

    • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

      1. Strip clubs are inherently risky even if a person thinks they’re street wise.” – I was married on the stage of a strip club, the longest of my three marriages.

      3. Anal sex has very inherent serious medical risks; ask any gastrointestinal or emergency room” – Agree and disagree – common knowledge, vaginas get wet; uncommon knowledge, anuses do too, but it takes longer. The man who doesn’t know how women work, may – how do I say this delicately – rush the process, thus tearing delicate tissue, rather than being patient and gentle, and waiting for the self-lubrication process to begin. This is where, “do unto others” really comes into play. Just sayin’ —

      5. For most couples, swinging is the fast track to the end of the relationship.” – Absolutely, unless your wife (or you) is/are bisexual.

      I’d recommend the many studied secular articles on the subject in Psychology Today” – If you have to get your sexual tips from Psychology Today, rather than Penthouse Forum, I’d have to say you’re doing something wrong.

      Like

  8. fayinfide · October 21, 2015

    I have always told my step daughter that “just because something is different doesn’t mean it’s wrong”. Doesn’t imply that it’s automatically right either. I think that applies here too and you make many sound points. Your self-awareness about what you don’t like versus what is wrong is powerful. Seems like you are on the right path.

    Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      Absolutely! It does not make it automatically right. That is what makes the process so tricky to work out.

      Liked by 1 person

      • fayinfide · October 21, 2015

        I found myself nodding or shaking my head at some of the comments. But mostly, I agree with them and if they do not inherently harm, then who am I to judge?

        I find your posts and others in similar situations very helpful for me as I am just recently on the other side of a similar path. It helps validate many of the same thoughts and feelings I had along the way. Thank you for being so open about your journey (well, as much as you are able to be).

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        thanks

        Like

  9. oftenbetterthanfine · October 21, 2015

    I wonder how ‘power’ might play into all this.
    While it’s possible to have power plays in eating and sleeping, they’re not really that important to it. But in sex, relationship is far more intimately involved, and that probably makes it qualitatively different. A man with five wives would almost certainly be all about power relationships, and grossly unequal power relationships at that. It may come to bear on sibling relationships too, though more subtly.

    Basically, the analogy with food and sleep works at some levels, but not at every level. The fundamental difference is that with the exception of masturbation and solo-porn, it involves other people and relationships at a fundamental level. One bad meal experience is unlikely to permanently affect your relationship with someone (or with many people). One bad sleep experience shouldn’t either. One bad sexual experience will very probably impact your relationship(s) permanently. If feel like the stakes (as opposed to the steaks) are higher, and that’s not simply cultural conditioning. Or even if it is cultural conditioning, it’s in every culture in its own ways, but that remains a significant dimension nevertheless.

    Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I did preface my entire statement by saying that the three basic drives are not equal and I am not trying to imply they are.

      But if you withhold food or sleep from someone you hold a lot of power over them. So, I would say that there are similarities.

      I am not comfortable saying that a man with multiple wives is doing so to give himself more power. Do you have evidence to support that statement? Or do you simply see the male as more dominant? or Is he more dominant if there is more than one wife? (If so why do you believe that?)

      I do think that that very much of how sex impacts relationships is culturally conditioned. There are cultures where one bad sexual experience would not effect a relationship between two people. I think that we have a difficult time imagining it here because it is very, very foreign to our way of life. So it may be a problem for some people but not for others. I do not think that gives me the right to call any particular act as proper or improper.

      Like

  10. N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 21, 2015

    I’m not sure about the 5 wives to one husband, unless society also embraces polyandry. The sex ratio in humans is approximately 1:1. The natural sex ratio at birth is estimated to be close to 1.06 males to 100 female. However, males have higher death rates at birth as well as other natural causes such as heart attacks and strokes, which, according to sources, account for the majority of deaths, not to mention violent causes, such as homicide and warfare. That generally causes the ration to even out.

    Right now China has approximately 33 million more males than females, and it’s causing increased violence and other social ills. Quote:

    “Young men with poor prospects of ever starting a family spell danger to themselves and to their societies. Over millions of years of evolution, large numbers of women and even larger numbers of men left no offspring at all. Yet everyone alive today descends from ancestors who managed to avoid that fate. Our male ancestors were the ones who strove most frantically for status and the respect of their peers, and who won the chance to mate.

    As a result, young men are hair-trigger sensitive to their circumstances, and when the number of men who will never find a mate rises, so does the intensity of the striving. Young men discount their futures and take ridiculous risks in order to improve their prospects. They also become more violent, rising more readily to perceived slights and insults, and starting more fights — often over trivial issues. These are the triggers for most man-on-man assaults and homicides.

    Many factors contribute to the number of men who will never find a mate. Economic inequality, for one, leaves a great many poor young men unable to attract a wife. When a society allows powerful men to take several wives, too few women remain for many poor men to take even a single wife.

    The economist Lena Edlund estimates that every one percent increase in the sex ratio results in a six percent increase in the rates of violent and property crime. In addition, the parts of China with the most male-biased sex ratios are experiencing a variety of other maladies, all tied to the presence of too many young men. Gambling, alcohol and drug abuse, kidnapping and trafficking of women are rising steeply in China.”

    As far as masturbation goes, there’s plenty of studies showing that it is healthy and natural. People should educate themselves regarding the soup of neurochemicals involved in sexual relationships as well as the simultaneous activation and deactivation of discrete parts of the limbic system..
    Sex in the brain

    Liked by 4 people

    • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

      Like I said, the lady knows what she’s talking about, at least as far as neurology is concerned.

      Like

  11. adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

    So, we do not have a definitive answer on poly relationships. We know that they are not standard practice. We know they can be very difficult. We know that they aren’t good for most people in our present society. We don’t know if it is society and the pressure to conform to its standards that causes that in part or in whole. correct?

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

      Correct, but I’m beginning to suspect, given your pursuit of the topic, that it is of special interest to you – not judging, just sayin’ —

      Like

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        Actually it is not really in a personal sense, but it seemed to be an area that was tough for me to define in a more black and white manner. It seemed that many of the arguments I have seen between theist and non-theist have centered on morality. Well many Christians I know think of sexual sins as the center of the morality debate. So, I felt like I should get a better understanding of sexuality without the viewpoint I grew up with.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        Got it – “First, do no harm.” – “Be good to yourself, and each other.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Shane Fletcher · October 21, 2015

    To start with

    “Anyways, I was not told oral sex was bad. I guess because it was too good to put on the naughty list.”

    This made me actually “laugh out loud”.

    I was once told “‘Having sex’ is something you do for your own pleasure. ‘Making love’ is for the other persons.” This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. Anything you do for the enjoyment of another is probably okay. It’s an extrapolation of the golden rule. Instead of treating people they way you want to be treated, it’s treating people the way they want to be treated. Open and honest communication is the key, or you have no way of knowing how the other person wants to be treated. And the idea that anyone other than the consenting adults involved has the right to an opinion is ludicrous.

    The question of what is sexually right and wrong is really just a subset of what is morally right and wrong. Without an external arbitrar of right and wrong, like a god, then I don’t believe there can be an objectively right or wrong in any case. We only have our subjective opinions. And these are formed by the sum total of our experience and by our genetic make up which dictates how we process that experience. No-one has any control over what they like or dislike, so any sort of judgement on personal preferences is unjust. It also seems to me that in a causal universe we have no free will and our actions are predetermined, but that’s probably a discussion for another time.

    Cheers
    Shane

    Liked by 1 person

    • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

      Without an external arbitrar of right and wrong, like a god, then I don’t believe there can be an objectively right or wrong in any case. We only have our subjective opinions.

      But you could make the same statement, Shane, by substituting, “like a parent” for “like a god,” but at some point, we have to grow up, put aside childish things, and think for ourselves. One must also ask oneself if the anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Bronze and Iron Age men who wrote the rules found in the Bible, knew anything more about life than we do. In fact, they likely knew much less, so what justifies following their rules?

      No-one has any control over what they like or dislike” – That may be true, but I grew up believing I didn’t like spinach, but having tried it as an adult with an open mind, I discovered that with a splash of vinegar and a dash of salt and pepper, it’s delicious. I was depriving myself of a taste experience by my own prejudices. But broccoli? I’m still working on that.

      I’m not disagreeing with you, I know what you’re saying, I’m just trying to expand on it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        again, that conversation will be interesting

        Like

      • Shane · October 22, 2015

        “But you could make the same statement, Shane, by substituting, “like a parent” for “like a god,” but at some point, we have to grow up, put aside childish things, and think for ourselves.”

        That would not be the same statement though. A parent, being essentially the same as me, can have not have any bearing on objective right or wrong. They would only bring their subjective opinion. To make something objectively true, it must be true without, or despite of, our opinions.

        “One must also ask oneself if the anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Bronze and Iron Age men who wrote the rules found in the Bible, knew anything more about life than we do. In fact, they likely knew much less, so what justifies following their rules?”

        Exactly. Just more subjective moral opinions. I mean if you don’t think the Bible is the word of God spoken through them, of course.

        “That may be true, but I grew up believing I didn’t like spinach,”

        You most probably grew up actually not liking spinach, assuming you had a disagreeable experience with it in your childhood. Either way your beliefs are another thing you have not control over. You belief persisted until you gathered empirical evidence to alter it. I don’t know if I’d call it a prejudice, but our whole process of reasoning is based on remembering our past experiences and extrapolating future consequences from present choices. Part of the downside to that is that it makes it harder to change. The price we pay, I guess. Broccoli is great raw with lemon juice. 🙂

        “I’m not disagreeing with you, I know what you’re saying, I’m just trying to expand on it.”

        Same here. I love a good discussion, especially with people I don’t agree with. It is a good way to learn something.

        Cheers
        Shane

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 22, 2015

        Exactly. Just more subjective moral opinions. I mean if you don’t think the Bible is the word of God spoken through them, of course.” – Yes, but subjective moral opinions based on Bronze Age information, and no, I don’t think the Bible is the word of god, but even if I did, I would have a difficult time believing that the capricious god of the Bible is any more adept at deriving objective rights or wrongs than I.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Shane · October 23, 2015

        “and no, I don’t think the Bible is the word of god, but even if I did, I would have a difficult time believing that the capricious god of the Bible is any more adept at deriving objective rights or wrongs than I.”

        Rights and wrongs would come from God if He existed. He wouldn’t have to derive what they were as they would be apart of Him. They would only be objective to us, because they are separate from us.

        Now you might want to say that God’s actions don’t demonstrate a knowledge of right and wrong, but if rightness is part of being God, than wouldn’t that mean that the incorrect knowledge must be with us. If God is right/good and He says you should stone homosexuals to death then that must be the right and good thing to do. Anyone who believes that homosexuals should be given the same respect as everyone else must obviously be wrong and bad in their thinking? The fact that you disagree with God doesn’t make him wrong, because that is obviously impossible, therefore you must be wrong.

        This is of course assuming that the laws written down in the old testament are actually the word of God and not, you know, things made up by illiterate, ignorant, minsogynst bigots.

        Cheers
        Shane

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 23, 2015

        I choose not to make that assumption.

        On a different note, has anyone seen Pauli? Several of us are worried about him. Carmen has emailed him several times and gotten no response.

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 23, 2015

        It’ll be OK!

        Like

      • Shane · October 23, 2015

        “I choose not to make that assumption.”

        Me too. Which brings us back to my original statement that there can’t be an Objective right or wrong, just our subjective opinion.

        Shane

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 23, 2015

        Nothing ever is right nor wrong, but thinking makes it so.
        — Bill Shakespeare —

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 24, 2015

        I cannot agree entirely with that. I am sure there is some context we are missing. I don’t think old Bill would say “raping a child and then peeling their skin off and eating it”, for example, would only be wrong if it were thought to be wrong.

        And maybe I just misunderstand the quote.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 24, 2015

        Easy on the messenger —

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 24, 2015

        That was no shot at the messenger. You did not pen that, you just relayed the message.

        Like

      • Shane Fletcher · October 24, 2015

        Adissolutionist, are you then implying that child rape and canabalism is objectively wrong. where does this objective standard come from? The vast majority of people think it is wrong, but if “the thinking doesn’t make it so” then what is it that makes it wrong?

        Sincerely
        Shane

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 25, 2015

        Great question and I know I am probably not qualified to answer it. I suppose that if true objective morality means it must come from a source I may not have a source from which it comes exactly. I do not believe god created morality because I do not believe that any concept of any god I have ever heard of truly exists.

        I was looking at it almost from the opposite perspective. I find it difficult to say that if someone does not think it wrong that it is right.

        I think that, as we evolve, we have a better understanding that harming others is wrong. It serves no good purpose and certainly does harm. It does not further the species, it does not improve relationships, such acts to not make the world a better place. It cannot even be seen as neutral.

        If thinking it to be wrong is so how many people must think it to be true?

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 25, 2015

        I think that, as we evolve, we have a better understanding that harming others is wrong. It serves no good purpose and certainly does harm.

        I think you’ve nailed it right there – we evolved empathy in order to perpetuate the species, and once you can empathize with a raped child or snacking on your next-door neighbor, your evolved sense of empathy doesn’t allow for it. True, there are psychopathic and sociopathic personalities out there who have never evolved those empathetic qualities, but even then, not all pychopaths or sociopaths commit crimes, some go on to become quite successful attorneys and politicians.

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 25, 2015

        And mega-church ministers —

        Liked by 1 person

      • Shane · October 25, 2015

        “I was looking at it almost from the opposite perspective. I find it difficult to say that if someone does not think it wrong that it is right.”

        Well that is always the case. Not thinking one thing does not entail you must think the opposite. Not believing in God is not the same as believing there is no God. Not liking cats is not the same as hating cats. Not thinking xx is a good team is not the same as thinking xx is a bad team.

        “If thinking it to be wrong is so how many people must think it to be true?”

        You’re thinking again as though morality is some sort of Objective fact, which I think we agree is not the case. And nothing can become an objective fact by the weight of popular opinion. All we each have is our own opinion. If enough people believe something, and can explain why to others, than beliefs change and society “evolves”. Gay marriage came into existence in this way. But it’s not world wide, because some pockets of humanity have different beliefs. It cannot be demonstrated that Gay marriage is right or wrong in any objective way. Some parts of the world believe all people should have the right to marry the person they love independent of gender, and others do not. I have my opinion on the subject, and so does everyone else.

        To help with that, have a think about how beautiful you believe your wife to be? Does anyone else’s opinion impact on your belief in the slightest way? Your truth is yours alone.

        Cheers
        Shane

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 25, 2015

        Shane, I’m not sure to whom you’re responding – it would appear to be me, but I’ve never said these things, so —

        “I was looking at it almost from the opposite perspective. I find it difficult to say that if someone does not think it wrong that it is right.”
        “If thinking it to be wrong is so how many people must think it to be true?”

        One of us is confused, and it’s probably me, but please enlighten me. Do you believe you’re quoting me, or is that some kind of Plato-esque dialog with yourself?

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 25, 2015

        He is quoting me

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 25, 2015

        I understand and pretty much agree. I wasn’t saying that not thinking one thing then it must be the opposite. We all know that “if do no think something is cold then it must be hot” is a ridiculous way to believe things work. I was really just trying to convey that there has to be more to what makes something right than just thinking it is right. I certainly could be wrong. Are you saying that if people think that raping children, skinning them and eating their remains is a good thing then it becomes a good thing? It would then be the right thing to do?

        To help with that, have a think about how beautiful you believe your wife to be? Does anyone else’s opinion impact on your belief in the slightest way? Your truth is yours alone. -Jeffrey Dahmer thought that young boys looked better chopped up. He thought that their death and his consumption of their parts was a beautiful thing. Did that make it right? The lady in Texas that drown her kids because she was convinced it was right. God told her so. Was that right?

        Like

      • Shane Fletcher · October 26, 2015

        Hi Arch,

        “Shane, I’m not sure to whom you’re responding – it would appear to be me”

        Sorry for the confusion. At another Christian blog I frequent I start my posts with the salutation like this one and then quote the post so people know who I am quoting. I then end my posts their like I’m signing off a letter. It seemed to piss them off. I mean the nerve of me trying to be polite. Anyway, I was trying to circumvent some of that here, which has lead to the confusion. I am going back to my usually way of posting. I hope no-one minds.

        Cheers
        Shane

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

        Nope.

        Like

      • Shane Fletcher · October 26, 2015

        Hi AD,

        “I understand and pretty much agree. I wasn’t saying that not thinking one thing then it must be the opposite. We all know that “if do no think something is cold then it must be hot” is a ridiculous way to believe things work. I was really just trying to convey that there has to be more to what makes something right than just thinking it is right. I certainly could be wrong. Are you saying that if people think that raping children, skinning them and eating their remains is a good thing then it becomes a good thing? It would then be the right thing to do?”

        I am saying that there is no such thing as “a good thing”. Nothing can become “a good thing”. Calling something “a good thing” implies that it is objectively “a good thing”. And we agree that this is not possible in a universe with no god. You are still thinking of some sort of external label that can be applied to things and our individual thinking either agrees with that external label (meaning we are right) or it disagrees with it (meaning we are wrong). It’s Natural to think this way, because we are an ape searching for answers/truth/facts. But if we agree there is no external standard of right and wrong, good and bad, then there is just our personal opinion on things. You think raping and eating children is wrong. That is enough. You don’t need validation from some sort of objective standard or god to say, “You are right, AD. Good job.” Or the flip side, you don’t need validation from an objective standard or god to tell you, “Yes, AD, that person who raped ate and raped children is bad.”

        Of course, that is an easy one, being an extreme example of an individual whose rights are violated. A much more interesting example is abortion, for example. Do women have the right to choose, yes or no? Are there some instances when abortion is okay, and others not? Is there a time limit into the pregnancy that means abortion is okay before and not after. Our society is full of people who will fall on the entire spectrum of beliefs with regards to the above. Can there be an objective right and wrong to those questions?

        “To help with that, have a think about how beautiful you believe your wife to be? Does anyone else’s opinion impact on your belief in the slightest way? Your truth is yours alone. -Jeffrey Dahmer thought that young boys looked better chopped up. He thought that their death and his consumption of their parts was a beautiful thing. Did that make it right? The lady in Texas that drown her kids because she was convinced it was right. God told her so. Was that right?”

        I don’t think so. And as above, I don’t need my opinion on that to be validated by an outside source. I don’t need anyone else to agree with me to make me feel better about that belief. I can say they were wrong to do what they did. I don’t need some sort of empirical data or formula to bolster my belief and I can not think of a way anyone could convince me otherwise. With regards to the abortion questions I asked above, and other less “life or death” questions I am certainly open to arguments being made that might change my mind about what I believed. But the arguments would be about the merit of a particular line of thinking and not trying to establish some objective truth.

        Also, as I don’t believe in free will, I cannot blame people for their actions, and thus don’t hate individuals for things they have done. Circumstances led to their genetic make-up, and their life experience. So whilst I think certain actions are wrong I cannot label an individual as evil for doing them. This might help with your notion of things being right and wrong, as it implies that people should choose to do right and not do wrong. But if our choices are predetermined, and ultimately out of our control, can their be an objective good? Or more importantly, if we cannot freely choose to do it, does it matter of there is an objective good?

        Cheers
        Shane
        P.S. Enjoying this conversation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

        I think, Shane, that this is what’s confusing me – the heading of your comment begins:

        Shane Fletcher commented on Sex, Sex, Sex.
        in response to archaeopteryx1:

        — followed by:
        Hi AD

        You’re clicking on my Reply button, then responding to A/D.

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 26, 2015

        I think we agree on much and still disagree on other things. I also am enjoying the conversation.

        I wonder if we cannot say some action, person, or thing is “good” or “bad” then do we even need those words? They certainly have meaning to us. Are we misunderstanding everything to some degree, according to your world view, if we use those words? If so, I am confused because you agree we can say someone who rapes and eats children “is bad”. If not when can we call something “good” or “bad”?

        In regards to Dahmer, you say you don’t need anyone to validate your opinion that he is wrong for doing such things. I understand that, or at least I think I do, but I was really talking about Jeffrey and how he thinks. If he thinks it is fine to do such things, is it fine for him to do them? Are you suggesting that he does not need validation from others and therefore it is right for him to kill and such?

        As far as abortion, I think I will decline from getting into that here. It is certainly related to the topic, but I feel it is another discussion because of the details, medical evidence, and people’s feelings on the matter. I think we can cover this topic without chasing what could be a bigger trail by discussing abortion.

        I find it interesting that you do not believe in free will. Is your belief that way tied to the Calvinist church view or independent of it? How did you come to that conclusion? (Maybe chasing rabbits again.)

        I do think we have free will. I do think it is important to understand “good”. I also think it is important for me to try to define why I think something is good.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

        Just to interject for a moment, AD, I think this may be the best treatise on abortion you’re likely to find:
        http://valerietarico.com/2015/09/11/if-the-anti-abortion-frenzy-were-actually-about-abortion-what-a-serious-anti-abortion-movement-would-actually-look-like/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Shane · October 26, 2015

        Hi ARch,

        “I think, Shane, that this is what’s confusing me – the heading of your comment begins:

        Shane Fletcher commented on Sex, Sex, Sex.
        in response to archaeopteryx1:
        — followed by:
        “Hi AD

        You’re clicking on my Reply button, then responding to A/D.”

        Well that’s just a result of the nested function of these replies. Yours is the innermost post with a Reply link. I cannot reply to AD directly, just your last post under which this conversation is taking place. Sorry about that, but I cannot think of a fix.

        Cheers
        Shane

        Liked by 1 person

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 27, 2015

        “I cannot reply to AD directly, just your last post under which this conversation is taking place. Sorry about that, but I cannot think of a fix.”

        Shane, since you don’t have a WP account, if you check the box “Notify me of new comments via email” when you initially leave a reply, you will get a notification via email. You can then click on “Reply” from that notification, and your reply will be nested in that thread. The person you’re replying to will be notified. Hope this helps. Btw, that’s how I replied to you.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Shane · October 27, 2015

        Hi AD,

        “I think we agree on much and still disagree on other things. I also am enjoying the conversation.”

        🙂

        “I wonder if we cannot say some action, person, or thing is “good” or “bad” then do we even need those words? They certainly have meaning to us. Are we misunderstanding everything to some degree, according to your world view, if we use those words? If so, I am confused because you agree we can say someone who rapes and eats children “is bad”. If not when can we call something “good” or “bad”?”

        It’s the implication of the word “we” and “us” that I think is leading to the confusion. I can say things are good and bad. And you can as well. But individuals can only have their individual opinion on it. There cannot be anyway for their opinion to be validated by an external source if there is no objective truth on morality. And the group consensus (which can never be unanimous because there will always be outliers) can not lead to an objective truth either. We live in a society where the vast majority of us do not condone rape and cannibalism, but that does not make them an objective wrong. “Good” and “Bad” are just words that we use to describe things, but we use them as individuals so they have different meanings for all of us, in the same way that beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.

        “In regards to Dahmer, you say you don’t need anyone to validate your opinion that he is wrong for doing such things. I understand that, or at least I think I do, but I was really talking about Jeffrey and how he thinks. If he thinks it is fine to do such things, is it fine for him to do them? Are you suggesting that he does not need validation from others and therefore it is right for him to kill and such?”

        If he thinks it is fine to do things then he will do them, the same as you and I. Your question “is it fine for him to do them?” is calling to some objective standard, I think. What makes something fine for someone to do them or not? Is there something outside of us that makes certain actions okay or not? Or is their just our collective minds as outsiders that have an opinion on the actions of others? I think you are asking, “He thinks it’s okay to do something, and I don’t. Which of us is right?” And there can only be a right and wrong if there is an objective truth of the matter, which we agree does not exist. What we have is a society composed of individual opinions, the majority of which think that his actions are wrong.

        Another question to help clarify. Murder is illegal. Now did we as a society make it illegal because there is something objectively wrong with murder, or did we gather our individual opinions and decide via majority opinion, through our empathy and what we would think if we or a loved one was killed, that the taking of another life is wrong and those that do that should be punished?

        And, just to add some more wrinkles, people can think things are wrong but have the necessary biological make up and upbringing to impel him to do these things. So actions are not necessarily motivated by wants and desires. This is another part of the Free Will argument which we can get into another time.

        “As far as abortion, I think I will decline from getting into that here. It is certainly related to the topic, but I feel it is another discussion because of the details, medical evidence, and people’s feelings on the matter. I think we can cover this topic without chasing what could be a bigger trail by discussing abortion.”

        Oh yes, I didn’t want to get into it. I just wanted to point out the problem with having objective truths outside of us. Christians believe all actions are right and wrong because of the opinion of God. Absolutely everything they do is righteous or a sin. The discussion of extremes is fine to a point, but if a Christian wants to tell me there is an objective morality that comes from God, then I want to know what these rules are for all of my behaviours. I was just using abortion as a grey area that is far more troubling than rape and cannibalism. It is a hot topic, of course, and I probably should have used pork/shellfish, wearing two different types of cloth, etc. These are the areas where objective goodness and badness really need to be defined, because the vast majority of people are going to break these rules on a daily basis when compared to the bigger sins. And all sins are equal in God’s eye, of course.

        “I find it interesting that you do not believe in free will. Is your belief that way tied to the Calvinist church view or independent of it? How did you come to that conclusion? (Maybe chasing rabbits again.)”

        If there is nothing beyond the physical/material world, and if everything that happens to the matter in the universe is the result of the physical laws (4 known at the moment; weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity) then the physical state of all atoms in the universe at a given instant are dependent on the physical state of all the atoms in the universe in the previous instant plus how they react together because of those 4 forces. And the same for the instant before that. etc, etc, back to the Big Bang. Everything is playing out in a deterministic way, a movie essentially, that our conscious is in the middle of and watching it unfold. We make choices, of course, but the choices we make are the result of the history of the universe up to this point and could not be any different. This is called Causal Will, because our choices are the result of something. Free Will means that our choices can be made entirely independent of any outside influence.

        We understand that we do not have total Free Will. You cannot jump from the ground to the top of your house. The laws of the universe prevent that. You also cannot become President of the U.S.A. tomorrow morning when you wake up. The history of the universe prevents that. So it seems to me that the laws of the universe and the history of the universe narrow your choices down to just one. They cause you to choose what you choose. Causal Will, not Free Will.

        Any evidence that we have free will would be good evidence for God, I think. In the same way that any evidence for Objective Morality would be good evidence for God. Or a god at any rate.

        “I do think we have free will.”

        Why? Can you give me an example.

        “I do think it is important to understand “good”. I also think it is important for me to try to define why I think something is “good”.”

        I think you do understand good, and you understand why you think something is good, even if you haven’t thought about it to define it. Spending time with your family is good. You wouldn’t have to think about the possible benefits to you and them to explain it. And more than that you wouldn’t have to explain why things that benefit you and your family are good.

        Another example. I have daughters. When is it okay to allow them to get their ears pierced? Can there be an objectively good age? I certainly have an opinion on it, but the ages were different for Daughter #2 and Daughter #3. Does that mean I was objectively wrong at least one of those times? Or can I have been objectively right both times if there are different rules in play in society when my daughters were at their respective ages and because one of them had 2 older sisters instead of just 1?

        Or am I thinking about what is “good” too much?

        Cheers
        Shane

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · October 27, 2015

        Wow! I love your answer here. You have given me things to ponder and sort out. That is what I am hoping for. I like outside views. I think the more of that I can absorb the better my thinking will be.

        I am not ready to say I agree with you on all of that, But I will say I have to rethink why I wouldn’t.

        Like

      • adisillusionist · October 27, 2015

        I would also like others to chime in if they have a different opinion on my thoughts or on shane’s thoughts. It would be great to have a third opinion.

        Like

      • tsentientpuddle · October 27, 2015

        Hi Victoria,

        ““I cannot reply to AD directly, just your last post under which this conversation is taking place. Sorry about that, but I cannot think of a fix.”

        Shane, since you don’t have a WP account, if you check the box “Notify me of new comments via email” when you initially leave a reply, you will get a notification via email. You can then click on “Reply” from that notification, and your reply will be nested in that thread. The person you’re replying to will be notified. Hope this helps. Btw, that’s how I replied to you.”

        So … I do have a WordPress account. I just wan’t using it, because it seemed rude to post from it in another blog without asking permission first. I guess it’s actually designed for this sort of thing, yeah?

        So will this help with replying to specific posts?

        Cheers
        Shane

        Like

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 27, 2015

        Hi Shane,
        I didn’t get notification in my WP notification window because you replied to Arch again, but I did get it in my email notification because I checked the “notify me of new comment via email” box. Had you replied directly to me (under your WP account) I would have been able to reply back to you via my notification window. Having a WP account simply gives you another option to reply directly to another blogger, if the author has his nesting set to default, which I think AD does. Some authors keeps the nesting limited to 3 or 4 because their template causes the reply box to narrow significantly with each reply. Not all templates do that.

        Not sure if you’re familiar with WP, but if not, sign into your WP account and see if you got a notification from me. It will show to the top, right. If you see the notification box, you can click on it, then click on the comment, and an option to reply will show up.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 27, 2015

        Welcome to the Wonderful World of WordPress –!
        (sarcasm)

        Like

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 27, 2015

        Sorry Bro, but I thought your website sucked, and I wasn’t the only one. Not the content. The template, which explains why so few engaged in discourse on your site.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 27, 2015

        Sorry Bro, but I thought your website sucked” – Then I must have been doing something right!

        Like

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 27, 2015

        “Then I must have been doing something right!”

        I guess so [sarcasm], with evidence of little interaction from others. The lack of interaction/discourse was such that you came to WP blogger’s comment sections to share your information. *giggles*

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 27, 2015

        Actually, Giggles, all of the important people were there – somehow you even managed to sneak past the velvet rope —

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 27, 2015

        Going outside to work now (you may recall what that’s like), so feel free to rant while I’m gone, I’ll skim through at least part of it when I’m back —

        Like

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 27, 2015

        I should mention, your Non-WordPress website.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 27, 2015

        You probably should, as I have no other.

        Like

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 27, 2015

        Nope, not anymore. Poof.

        Like

      • tsentientpuddle · October 28, 2015

        Hi Victoria,

        So I was accessing his site from my browser, using my WP login, but it still wasn’t allowing me to reply to your post. I guess I need to read this site through my WP admin? That is what I am doing now, through my phone, and as you can see I can reply to your post directly now.

        Cheers for the help
        Shane

        Liked by 1 person

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 28, 2015

        Yay. I got your notification via my WP notification window. 🙂 Happy to help out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 28, 2015

        If you REALLY wanted to help out, you’d warn him about the diabolical evils of WordPress —

        Like

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 28, 2015

        Why would I want to do that? I’ve met some of the most awesome people on the planet right here on WP. Life is not perfect, in case you haven’t figured that out yet. What few, very few, glitches there are on WP pale in comparison to the benefits, and it’s free.

        I, for one, really appreciate WordPress and all they do to help improve our blogging experience and in building community.

        Hope you’re enjoying your zip file.

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 28, 2015

        Actually, my zipper seems to be stuck – you wouldn’t want to run over here and – never mind —

        Like

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I’ll be interested in the discussion about no free will at some point down the road.

      Like

  13. nowamfoundatlast · October 21, 2015

    maybe it’s just me but christians think an awful lot about sex, ESPECIALLY gay sex! perhaps it’s all the taboos you attach. I always thought that churches got so involved as a matter of control. it’s just another way that humans cannot measure up to dumbass rules and the church needs their followers to feel bad about themselves to control them and get more guilt money. sex should be as natural as breathing between 2 consenting adults. plus since they make sex so naughty it becomes more titillating.

    Liked by 1 person

    • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

      Frankly, I find the word titillating,” titillating —

      maybe it’s just me but christians think an awful lot about sex

      Alexander Scott Neill once wrote, “The prude is in fact the libertine, without the courage to face his naked soul.

      Liked by 3 people

      • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

        You guys (non-gender specific for the ladies keeping score at home) are finding ways to sneak in “Naked” and other titillating words into your posts.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        There’s that word again —

        Like

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      That sounds like a vote for the problem stemming from false guilty attached to sexual behavior by society.

      Like

  14. archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

    Disillusionist (couldn’t you have chosen a shorter name?), you’ve been picking our brains, it’s time for me to pick yours. I was planning to research this (and still will), but you’ve obviously had formal training, so I’ll start with you. What is the history of baptism? When, and among whom did it originate? To the best of my knowledge, it’s not a Jewish custom, but I was wrong a few years ago, so I suppose it could happen again.

    Like

    • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 21, 2015

      Arch, you’re changing the subject of sex to baptism? Of all posts, why go OT on this one?

      Liked by 3 people

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        My heart goes where the wild goose goes —

        Liked by 1 person

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 21, 2015

        I just think this is a very important and necessary discussion and worth staying on topic for. It has definitely not been exhausted.

        Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I picked the name because the dictionary definition fit my journey perfectly.

      Define: One who destroys ideals, illusions, or false ideas.
      Also one who is free from illusion, belief, or idealism. Disenchanted.

      Liked by 2 people

    • adisillusionist · October 21, 2015

      I’ll get back to you on Baptism. I just got a phone call.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 21, 2015

        No rush.

        Like

  15. nowamfoundatlast · October 21, 2015

    focus people. no pun intended

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Swarn Gill · October 23, 2015

    Hello AI. Victoria over at Victorianeuronotes recommended your blog to me and once I saw Sex, Sex, Sex, I was sold. 🙂

    First let me say that I really like the introspection in regards to recognizing the sort of programming regarding sex that you have went through followed by the sincere effort to try and break away from that programming by being somewhat academic. This read almost like an essay or something you might write in school to talk about sex and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Of course all the books, essays, writings in the world never can do sex justice in comparison to just having it. 🙂

    I am a professor and one of my colleagues taught a course called Love, Lust, and Attachment and I sat in on it as I am very interested in the subject. Sex is a separate biological drive and I think that this is an important thing to note is that sex and love activate to separate areas of the brain and need not be connected. If you think about this it makes sense. Sometimes you just gotta survive and propagate. Not to mention that love and attachment can sometimes have adverse impacts on the sexual drive. There is a reason why many couples lose that “flavor” after they have been together awhile. I have nothing against that deep bond and friendship and actually prefer it over an exciting sex life, but there is something about sex that makes it a little more exciting when there is more of a mystery or flavor to it. Once you’ve been around someone long enough and no everything about them, times they’ve had diarrhea, seen their dirty underwear, seen them sneeze all over themselves, etc…well you get the picture. So I think that it is natural for there to always be an element of fantasy to it and I think this is also good intuitive evidence about why love and sex are separate. Although of course we know now from fMRI scans that they are.

    I think your analogies here are good ones and I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. One thing that I think is important to remember is that each human has a finite amount of energy and a finite amount of time. A society has also limitations on it’s energy and as a group must also make decisions based on how it best can survive. Humans can perhaps regulate sex better than any other animal and what we find acceptable and unacceptable is often determined by societal pressures, and our own limited time and energy. While the love you can feel seems limitless, think about having two wives. How much time can you spend with each of them to keep them happy, and have time for yourself, and have a job, and…welll it goes on and on. Throw a third or fourth. Now that’s not to say that some women really don’t want a lot of your time and might be happy with that arrangement. It should be noted that we also have to make sure that we are equally socially acceptable about a woman having multiple husbands. This attitude is not often found acceptable and that should not be the case. In a biological sense polygamous relationships would be difficult. While humans are not a truly monogamous species by nature, in the wild decisions to court additional females or males would largely be for, essentially, backup. The wild is a dangerous place so having others in your life with amorous feelings for you can help in raising children and survival should your partner die unexpectedly. Studies into adultery find humans commit adultery on average about 15-30%. When compared to other primates we are probably the second most monogamous of primates. From an energy standpoint again, a woman with many husbands would tend to be pregnant a lot which implies a high energy consumption for the woman (being pregnant all the time would be quite taxing), and males tend to not show a lot of interest in raising children they are not sure are their own (cuckolding). While there is less cost when a man has multiple wives, such things would only be permissible as Victoria pointed out if there was for some reason an excess of women. Which could happen in more warlike societies. It also would be more permissible in societies that need more people. Since one man can create more children with 5 wives than he could with one. It seems to me that polygamous relationships, while they can be quite healthy, cannot be the societal norm unless resources are very good and population pressures are not great. Thus the most practical relationship for dedicated child rearing and energy consumption is monogamy. Polygamous relationships can exist healthily on the fringes and if you are lucky enough to live in such a society I think that’s great because I don’t think there is a moral reason as to why loving relationships need to be defined so narrowly. And with things like birth control it is much easier to breed in excess. lol

    In your journey I would echo a lot of the sentiment here. Providing you have consent from your partner there is no immoral sex act, although if whipping your partner seems to be the ONLY thing that turns you on, that may be the sign of some unhealthy attitudes towards sex, women, power, etc. Not that it makes you a bad person, but you may want to look a little deeper as to why you feel that way (just using an example and not implying anything about you from what you said!). If there is someone you’d like to have sex with. Talk. Have an open discussion. Explore. Some sexual things you find exciting in your mind, may turn out to be less so in practice and vice versa. That’s why in the end, doing is the real way to learn about sex and what you like about it.

    Now my personal opinion is that the topic you should explore first is that of love. Investigate the ways in which your views of love may have been influences by your Christian cultural indoctrination. That’s the most important thing to get healthy. While you can have sex with someone you don’t like, for me life is too short for that. In terms of energy cost sex without feelings of attachment is even greater. Disease, unwanted pregnancies, the lack of overall fulfillment, will deplete your energy faster than any other loving relationship, whether it is with just one partner or more. When it is someone you trust, care about, even if you just really like them and are not sure you are in love with them, but at least feel like you can discuss sex openly with them, the sex is just better, regardless of the position or what fetishes turn you on. Here is a blog post that I wrote about love, maybe you’ll be interested in reading it. 🙂
    http://cloakunfurled.com/2015/06/11/what-makes-a-good-human-love/

    Liked by 3 people

    • adisillusionist · October 23, 2015

      Outstanding post. Thanks much! Also, glad you are here and chiming it.! (I think I will now go back and read your post again. There is a lot to take in.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Swarn Gill · October 23, 2015

        I was never good at being succinct! lol

        Like

    • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 23, 2015

      Swarn, thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to comment. Your comment really complements the link I shared with AI regarding the brain on sex and how it directly and indirectly impacts societies and relationships. Also, it discusses the Coolidge Effect, which I think everyone should be educated in because religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, have done their utmost to shamed people for having thoughts towards another or others of a sexual nature. Without the Coolidge Effect, we would have gone extinct as a species. We are overpopulated now so the Coolidge Effect is no longer advantageous for us as a species. Porn has somewhat tamed that CE instinct.

      This was one of the biggies that made me realize that the god of the Bible didn’t know anything about his human creation, otherwise, he would have actually educated his people rather than come up with extremely archaic rules or shaming tactics that sometimes ended in death. “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9). Jesus purportedly wrote that if a man so much as looks upon a woman with lust he’s already committed adultery. That’s just messed up.

      I also appreciate what you wrote about the fantasy and mystery (novelty) which is very dopaminergic, as well as what’s in the best interest of children, due to the domestication of our cultures. In hunter/gatherer, egalitarian times, everyone looked after the children, motherhood wasn’t cursed and women weren’t “ruled over” by their husbands, Genesis 3:16.

      I think we have to pretty much decide what our priorities are and go from there. My mother and step-dad haven’t had sex in 20 years. They used to have a vibrant sex life, but they didn’t stop having sex because of a lack of novelty. They stopped because my step-dad became ill and could no longer get an erection. Not even meds helped. He completely lost his interest in sex. She has been by his side ever since. They built a strong foundation together (friendship) in the first 20 years, which has sustained them, and she will be by his side when he passes away, which could be any time.

      I know someone who has a swinger lifestyle, and that’s fine if that’s his cup of joe. But the dopamine highs are temporary. When he gets older or gets sick, those he swung with will most likely swing to another jungle, and that could spell loneliness later in life. I agree that In a biological sense polygamous relationships would be difficult, but for some it can and has worked, though I’ve never where it worked long-term. I read polygamous sites where they discussed problems due to hierarchy within the relationships. This is a complex subject for which we’ve only scratched the surface, but you brought great insight, my friend. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

      Liked by 3 people

  17. adisillusionist · October 24, 2015

    great response to a great post

    Like

  18. anaivethinker · October 25, 2015

    Dear Adillusionist,
    It sounds nice on paper, to say that sex should be liberated with the exception of mutual consent, as if humans are inclined to make good decisions. Supposing we are all wise judges, does our ideology overpower our knowledge that incest is wrong? Then, by its power, we ought to suppress our conscience and kill the cultural taboo. And, where is the line between promiscuous and substantive? We may not agree on the delineation, but surely it should be drawn somewhere between an Eros-worshipping orgy every night of the week and a steady monogamous relationship. Wherever it is drawn, it is a clunky addition to mutual consent-only doctrine and a splinter to any high-minded idealist who can’t see the difference between abstraction and reality.

    Once sex was for procreation, economic necessity, and was sacred. Now liberated from these roles, only guided by mutual consent, it can be difficult to distinguish sex from heroin use. Take masturbation for example. What is different about masturbating for pleasure and injecting heroin? The only difference seems to be the potential for heroin overdose. Therefore, barring death by autoerotic asphyxiation, we can count masturbation as the safest form of heroin. You can’t even get HIV from masturbation. Again, where the narrative succeeds in the abstract, it fails in real life. Why is there a subreddit dedicated to “no fapping” whereby its participants claim liberation and improved quality of life? Surely their improved quality of life is anecdotal. If not, we can blame society for guilt tripping or shaming them. On the other hand, should we trivialize other’s personal experience to promote our ideology? And, what if the human conscience tends to be against safe heroin? At the very least real life very often attests to the negative effects of masturbation and pornography and we have no justification to ignore real life for sake of promoting our ideology.

    There are secular humanists in full agreement with me up to this point. The most substantive controversy between them and Christian sexual ethics is homosexuality. If we step back and just look at the arguments, none of them are much convincing. Pro-homosexuality arguments tug on the emotional heart strings. They insist if we only knew gay people, we would accept them. Accepting them as humans is completely irrelevant to the morality of homosexual sex. From anarchist ethics: homosexual sex is OK because it does no harm. From Catholic theologians: homosexual sex breaks the Natural Law. Evangelicals: homosexuality is idolatry and fails to promote human flourishing. Maybe none of these sound convincing.

    I seriously wonder what the conscience attests. I wonder if the homosexual engaging in sex for the first time has to suppress their guilt, whether this guilt is a social construction, and whether not feeling any guilt makes them more like a clairvoyant of moral truth or a psychopath. If they have to suppress guilt, then conscience itself might attest to the immorality of homosexual sex. If guilt is a social construction, this raises the problem that maybe not feeling guilt is also a social construction. How else could the Nazi’s carry out the Holocaust? Could it be the same way a society is deluded into thinking homosexuality is not immoral? From here we are lost in postmodern confusion where ideology rules and is disconnected from real life. The most concerning option would be not feeling guilt in a psychopathic way.

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 · October 25, 2015

      At the very least real life very often attests to the negative effects of masturbation and pornography” – Now this is one field in which the man is a self-confessed expert! But I’ll back out and let A/D handle this, it will be his test by fire (or sludge).

      Liked by 1 person

      • anaivethinker · October 25, 2015

        Did you invite me here for the sake of trolling? For a minute I thought you might have grown up, but almost all of your replies to me have been trolling thus far. You are the reason people think the internet is toxic.

        Like

      • Peter · October 25, 2015

        Brandon, I will avoid commenting on the substance of your post, but I do have some sympathy for your exasperation with Arch’s response to your comment and the responses of some others elsewhere on this blog.I had similarly noted and been disappointed at the tone of the response to your comments. I am not sure what you have done to annoy so many folk, but I have noted how they really don’t seem to like you. My only detailed interaction with you was on Professors Taboo’s site a while back, and whilst we did not always agree I had no objection to the manner in which you presented your views.

        I sense that the concern of others relates to encounters in the more distant past and I am not aware of all the history here, but it does puzzle me.

        I do suspect that Arch was being deliberately mischievous in inviting you here.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

        All this time, Brandon, and you’ve yet to comprehend the meaning of trolling. (heavy sigh)

        I said what I did about masturbation, because you have stated publicly that porn and masturbation was a serious problem with you until you ‘accepted Jesus.’ If you call repeating that which you’ve gone on record as ascertaining, trolling so be it.

        (And yes, I’m sure, despite your claims, that you’re still lurking.)

        Like

    • adisillusionist · October 25, 2015

      I am new at this and it may be tough to follow this post. I will try to respond to your post in the order I read it.

      YOU: It sounds nice on paper, to say that sex should be liberated with the exception of mutual consent, as if humans are inclined to make good decisions

      REPLY: I did not give the only exemption as mutual consent. I mentioned if an act was harmful. But one of the problems we run into here is determining “harmful” just like in your next statement when you speak of men making “good” decisions. I think some people make proper decisions and other are not adept at making proper decisions.

      You say we have knowledge that incest is wrong. Do we? Or is it culturally unacceptable? (I am not speaking of all incest. I am referring to adults.)

      YOU: Supposing we are all wise judges, does our ideology overpower our knowledge that incest is wrong? Then, by its power, we ought to suppress our conscience and kill the cultural taboo. And, where is the line between promiscuous and substantive?

      REPLY: I think we need to use our knowledge and experience to shape our ideology. I don’t think it is that one must win out over the other and we then toss it aside. I am not opposed to killing cultural taboos.

      YOU: And, where is the line between promiscuous and substantive?

      REPLY: I don’t think that we draw a line between promiscuous and substantive necessarily. If something is not promiscuous does not mean it is substantive. A married couple can have a monogamous sex life that is not substantive. Likewise people can have a strong sex life with many partners and find it fulfilling.

      YOU: surely (the line) should be drawn somewhere between an Eros-worshipping orgy every night of the week and a steady monogamous relationship

      REPLY: Why? Where do you get those parameters?

      YOU: Once sex was for procreation, economic necessity, and was sacred.

      REPLY: Where do you get that from? I cannot think of any where that was the case. People have always enjoyed sex. Never have all people considered it sacred.
      You speak of real world instead of ideals. I think you are dreaming in ideals here.

      YOU: Now liberated from these roles, only guided by mutual consent, it can be difficult to distinguish sex from heroin use.

      REPLY: First off, again, I never said things were guided by mutual consent only. Much of the problem with the discussion is your assumption that in my post consent is the only guideline for sex.

      I find the comparison to heroin ridiculous.

      People have a natural desire, a need for sex. There is no such natural instinct or need for heroin.

      Heroin has no healing properties. Heroin’s only use redeeming quality is for relief from severe pain. Sex can be a part of positive relationships. It is healthy for the body and the mind.

      YOU: Take masturbation for example. What is different about masturbating for pleasure and injecting heroin? The only difference seems to be the potential for heroin overdose. Therefore, barring death by autoerotic asphyxiation, we can count masturbation as the safest form of heroin. You can’t even get HIV from masturbation.

      REPLY: Masturbation can be a positive release of stress. Many doctors say masturbation is good for the body. I cannot recall a single Dr. saying the same for heroin. I will give you that you cannot get AIDS from masturbation. (Unless you are using AIDS contaminated blood or saliva as lubricant then it might be possible.) But to say masturbation is the safest form of heroin is ludicrous.

      YOU: Why is there a subreddit dedicated to “no fapping” whereby its participants claim liberation and improved quality of life? Surely their improved quality of life is anecdotal. If not, we can blame society for guilt tripping or shaming them. On the other hand, should we trivialize other’s personal experience to promote our ideology?

      REPLY: Individuals have different experiences and different desires. I am not suggesting that just because something is not wrong that everyone should participate. If individuals feel like their lives improve because they quit masturbating I do not doubt their experience. More power to them. Many people give up things that are perfectly fine to create an environment that improves their quality of life. But just because some people find life better while keeping their hands off themselves does not mean other do or should. I do not think we should trivialize another person’s experience and I do not think we should shame people for something that is natural just because we do not like it or participate in it.

      YOU: At the very least real life very often attests to the negative effects of masturbation and pornography and we have no justification to ignore real life for sake of promoting our ideology.

      REPLY: I am not convinced that real life attests to the negative effects of masturbation and pornography (those do not always go together are you insinuating that they do?). I have read books, articles, etc. that say masturbation is always wrong. I have read books, article, etc. that say it is not wrong and even healthy. The same goes for pornography. I will be honest, conflicting ideas on sex and differanting opinions on the matter is, in part, why it is difficult for me to define what is right and wrong with regards to sex.

      YOU: There are secular humanists in full agreement with me up to this point.

      REPLY: To be clear, what point are they in full agreement with you? It seems like, up to that point in the post you only took issues with my post and did not make a definitive statement on your stance regarding this issue.

      YOU: The most substantive controversy between them and Christian sexual ethics is homosexuality.

      REPLY: I disagree. Homosexuality only seems to be a big issue to religious people. Other people do not see a problem with homosexuality. There is no issue for most outside of religion. Most people outside of religion do feel that religions use sex in many aspects to manipulate or control people. I mean, really, birth control has been a bigger issue for a much longer time for Christians, especially Catholics.

      YOU: Pro-homosexuality arguments tug on the emotional heart strings. They insist if we only knew gay people, we would accept them.

      REPLY: I disagree here too. It is not an emotional thing for me to see any other person my equal regardless of their sexual orientation and accept them. I think it is much more often that Christians meet homosexuals and end up liking them. So, they change their views to accommodate them somehow. Some realize sex between two loving, consenting adults is fine, others learn to like the people and ignore their sexual actions.Of course there are many more reactions too.

      YOU: I seriously wonder what the conscience attests. I wonder if the homosexual engaging in sex for the first time has to suppress their guilt, whether this guilt is a social construction.

      REPLY: I do not think all homosexuals feel guilt the first time they have sex. I do not think they should. I think your assumption is wrong. I also, feel that it is quite likely that post adolescents who feel guilt for engaging in consensual sex do so because of the social influences that have told them they should feel guilty.

      YOU: If they have to suppress guilt, then conscience itself might attest to the immorality of homosexual sex.

      REPLY: I do not think that “HAVE TO” suppress guilt. I think many do not and many who do were falsely taught it was sinful.

      YOU: If guilt is a social construction, this raises the problem that maybe not feeling guilt is also a social construction. How else could the Nazi’s carry out the Holocaust? Could it be the same way a society is deluded into thinking homosexuality is not immoral?

      REPLY: I did not say guilt is strictly a social construct. I do think guilt can be manipulated.

      YOU: From here we are lost in postmodern confusion where ideology rules and is disconnected from real life. The most concerning option would be not feeling guilt in a psychopathic way.

      REPLY: Being, that I felt you falsely attributed my view as the only deciding factor in determining right and wrong sexual behavior that of consent. then you made assertions I disagree with I do not think we are “here lost in a postmodern confusion…

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 25, 2015

        I rather feel you acquitted yourself quite nicely. And Victoria was concerned you couldn’t handle it. Pshaw, and I don’t say that lightly.

        Like

      • N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ · October 25, 2015

        “And Victoria was concerned you couldn’t handle it.”

        No, Arch, that was not what I was alluding to. I just thought it was unnecessary and insensitive for you to invite Brandon here, knowing the extensive history, because you thought AD needed to be tested by fire. 😦

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 25, 2015

        Pshaw!

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 25, 2015

        Here’s something you might want to consider doing, A/D, when you feel ready – going to some of our known theist’s sites, clicking “Follow,” and saying nothing, simply ‘lurking’ while you get the flavor of the blog, see how the host responds to questions, the caliber of commenters he gets, etc. Then, and only then, if you ‘feel the calling,‘ chime into the discussion.

        Say the word, and we can give you several.

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · October 25, 2015

        I am probably ready to do that but I am not sure i will be taking the time to do it just yet. Thanks.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

        Again, just say the word —

        Liked by 1 person

      • Shane · October 27, 2015

        Nice reply.

        Like

  19. anaivethinker · October 25, 2015

    @Peter, thanks for the feedback. I remember our exchange being good as well. With disappointment, it seems Adissolutionist “liked” Arch’s comment which I take to be an approval of his trolling.

    I will not be commenting on this blog anymore. Hope to see you around, Peter.

    Like

    • adisillusionist · October 25, 2015

      Well, I hate to see you go.

      Like

    • adisillusionist · October 25, 2015

      I more approve of the different views being expressed. I do not always agree with posts I like and I don’t always remember to “Like” posts I like or differ from express an independent view.

      Like

    • Shane · October 27, 2015

      I always find it best to take obscure and random actions from people to be a true judge of their thoughts and intent. You know … rather than the words they actually say, for example.

      Of course, it’s not surprising to see a Theist take the smallest sign as a confirmation of a long held belief or prejudice.

      Shane

      Liked by 1 person

  20. archaeopteryx1 · October 26, 2015

    Like

  21. archaeopteryx1 · November 12, 2015

    Speaking of, “Sex, Sex, Sex,” my 14-year old granddaughter told me this:

    A wife treats hubby by taking him to a strip club for his birthday. At the club, the doorman says, “Hi, Jim, how ya been?”

    The wife asks, “How does he know you?”

    Jim says, “Oh, Dear, I play football with him”

    Inside, the bartender says, “The usual, Jim?”

    Jim says to his wife, “Before you say anything, he plays on our dart’s team.”

    Next, a stripper says, “Hey, Jim – do you want the ‘Special’ again?”

    Incensed, the wife storms out, dragging Jim with her, and jumps into a taxi. The taxi driver says, “Hey, Jimmy Boy! You sure picked up an ugly one this time!”

    Jim’s funeral is on Sunday.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. sallybr0wn · February 24, 2016

    Why didn’t we all evolve into Bonobos ? Wanted to add a little humor… But ya, Bonobos are pretty awesome lol

    Liked by 1 person

    • archaeopteryx1 · February 24, 2016

      Not bonobos exactly, but here’s something to think about, Sally —

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s