Religious people: Did you feel any guilt when you lost your virginity?

[Shane Roach]

Here's one of the lovely and beautiful outcomes when society grows lax in its sexual mores and simply leaves sex as an activity where everyone fends for themselves.

Expected rise in human trafficking for Formula 1 | kvue.com Austin

So not only is the U.S. a center for greed and avarice that destroys human dignity all around the globe, but when we get done glutting ourselves on the worldwide phenomenon of wage slavery driven by bank induced inequalities in the money markets, we settle in for an evening of sports and enslaved harlots.

Thanks for the "progress".

FYI, women for recreational sex was more or less the norm in ancient Greece, so.... progress is definitely in the eyes of the beholder.

"I'm not talking about prostituion and rape!" Flails and screams from the indignant leftist ensue.

Kindly propose a way where we can know whether or not sex happening outside of expected boundaries is forced or not? Does the poor girl have to resist until blood? What exactly do you propose to do? Put any man that any woman so much as accuses in jail for life, perhaps? We were on that track until the Grand Pubah of Leftists, His Majesty Bill Clinton got caught. Then all of a sudden we were not as inclined to crucify a man merely on hearsay (or mountains of physical evidence for that matter).

 

[jminnesota]

yea sex traffic happens and its sad. we have to do all we can to stop it and prevent it. Rape or forced sex in my book is wrong. if a woman tells a guy No then he should stop at once.

sex to me is between 2 people that love eachother hopefully when you are married or at least in love with someone

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here's one of the lovely and beautiful outcomes when society grows lax in its sexual mores and simply leaves sex as an activity where everyone fends for themselves.

Expected rise in human trafficking for Formula 1 | kvue.com Austin

So not only is the U.S. a center for greed and avarice that destroys human dignity all around the globe, but when we get done glutting ourselves on the worldwide phenomenon of wage slavery driven by bank induced inequalities in the money markets, we settle in for an evening of sports and enslaved harlots.

Thanks for the "progress".

Please demonstrate that the rise in human trafficking has anything to do with increased sexual liberty.

FYI, women for recreational sex was more or less the norm in ancient Greece, so.... progress is definitely in the eyes of the beholder.

"I'm not talking about prostituion and rape!" Flails and screams from the indignant leftist ensue.

Can anyone else make sense of this?

Kindly propose a way where we can know whether or not sex happening outside of expected boundaries is forced or not?

The same way we determine whether any sexual conduct qualifies as 'rape' or not - if informed consent has not been given, it's rape. If the woman wilfully and happily engages in sex, with no negative repercussions, guilt, regret, etc, then it's fair to say it's not rape.

Why is this something that needs explaining?

Does the poor girl have to resist until blood? What exactly do you propose to do? Put any man that any woman so much as accuses in jail for life, perhaps?

The phrase 'trial by a jury of your peers' springs to mind. The woman can accuse, the man can defend, and the jury decides the truth. This is - or should be - the case with any criminal allegation. Again, why is this something that needs explaining? Are you unaware of how the Western justice system operates?

We were on that track until the Grand Pubah of Leftists, His Majesty Bill Clinton got caught. Then all of a sudden we were not as inclined to crucify a man merely on hearsay

Well, yes. Even if it's true, if all your evidence is hearsay, then that's not exactly enough to convict someone. Still, leave it to the Religious Right and the ironically-named PATRIOT act to think that gossip is enough for a conviction.

(or mountains of physical evidence for that matter).

Like all that evidence proving increased sexual liberation leads to increased sexual trafficking, that you've so teasingly hinted at?

 

[freezerman2000]

Did I feel guilt? No.

 

[Shane Roach]

Typical leftist content-free response.

"Trial by jury" presupposed some evidence. What evidenciary threshold are you proposing?

"Demonstrate that the rise in human trafficking has anything to do with increases sexual liberty."

No one frowns on sexual promiscuity, therefore it is easier to market.

Next.

Please demonstrate that the rise in human trafficking has anything to do with increased sexual liberty.


Can anyone else make sense of this?


The same way we determine whether any sexual conduct qualifies as 'rape' or not - if informed consent has not been given, it's rape. If the woman wilfully and happily engages in sex, with no negative repercussions, guilt, regret, etc, then it's fair to say it's not rape.

Why is this something that needs explaining?


The phrase 'trial by a jury of your peers' springs to mind. The woman can accuse, the man can defend, and the jury decides the truth. This is - or should be - the case with any criminal allegation. Again, why is this something that needs explaining? Are you unaware of how the Western justice system operates?


Well, yes. Even if it's true, if all your evidence is hearsay, then that's not exactly enough to convict someone. Still, leave it to the Religious Right and the ironically-named PATRIOT act to think that gossip is enough for a conviction.


Like all that evidence proving increased sexual liberation leads to increased sexual trafficking, that you've so teasingly hinted at?

 

[Shane Roach]

I was musing earlier today about the constant hue and cry concerning "paternalistic" society. What leftists are really struggling to avoid addressing is that men are bigger and stronger than women, and often to this day use that to their advantage. Women's equality in the modern world can in large part be explained as the reduction of the premium on physical strength in the modern economy. It has nothing to do with leftist ideology or the right to engage in behavior that the vast majority of women find, to this day, more repugnant than the average man does.

One of the more equalizing aspects of technology is the handgun. Many women have handguns precisely because they want to protect themselves from sexually agressive men, but intriguingly, despite the availability of handguns being by far more advantageous to women than men, more women promote gun control and gun bans.

Before Recent Shootings, Gun-Control Support Was Fading

So women's response to being treated as sexual objects and taken advantage of because of their inferior physicality is to promote sexual promiscuity (which they tend to still eschew more often than men) and to deny themselves the instruments of self protection afforded them by advancing technology.

I assume women don't think there are any men at the top of the leftist political machinery? What exactly IS the weird attraction that this political movement has on women?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Trial by jury" presupposed some evidence. What evidenciary threshold are you proposing?

You use something called a 'rape kit' - you check the orifice for signs of trauma, seminal/vaginal emissions (depending on who raped whom), etc. You also check for secondary signs of a struggle - bruises, skin/blood/hair/clothing from the alleged rapist, etc. CCTV footage can also show whether the victim struggled or not. Psychiatric evaluation can also help determine whether the rapist/rape victim are lying or telling the truth. There are lots of different types of evidence that bolster or diminish the claim that X was raped by Y. In some cases, rape cannot be proven.

"Demonstrate that the rise in human trafficking has anything to do with increases sexual liberty."

No one frowns on sexual promiscuity, therefore it is easier to market.

I asked for evidence, not a non sequitur. You probably won't deliver (please, prove me wrong), but don't you ever wonder why that is? Don't you ever wonder why you have to resort to slander and ad hominems instead of actually citing hard data?

 

[jminnesota]

when i here that well if she wears a bikini then if she is raped she should of not worn that etc. but back in the 1800s when women covered everything there was still rape back then so you cant really blame lack of clothing when it comes to rape and abuse etc.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

when i here that well if she wears a bikini then if she is raped she should of not worn that etc. but back in the 1800s when women covered everything there was still rape back then so you cant really blame lack of clothing when it comes to rape and abuse etc.

You still can't. Look at women in Afghanistan covered from head to toe and you can be certain there is still rape there. What's more these women are "blamed" for their rape, even though it's not a sexually promiscuous society.


I did feel guilt and shame when I lost my virginity. It was basically a case of playing doctor gone too far, and because I had it pounded into my brain that being a virgin was the most important thing I could be my guilt was very well understood.
I never regreted it though. Back then it was "well what's done is done", but now I'm actually glad I did because my first married experience with my husband is not going to be a shock, painful or awkward.

One thing I would want to know: If you're in a loving relationship with a good person why the HECK should they be so possessive and awkward about your past experience? I don't understand that kind of infantile thinking, like "You're mine and only mine." You're telling me you are actually jealous about the first awkward (and probably painful) sexual experience your spouse had?! In my opinion someone who holds your loss of hymen or whatever against you isn't worth it.

 

[Shane Roach]

You use something called a 'rape kit' - you check the orifice for signs of trauma, seminal/vaginal emissions (depending on who raped whom), etc. You also check for secondary signs of a struggle - bruises, skin/blood/hair/clothing from the alleged rapist, etc. CCTV footage can also show whether the victim struggled or not. Psychiatric evaluation can also help determine whether the rapist/rape victim are lying or telling the truth. There are lots of different types of evidence that bolster or diminish the claim that X was raped by Y. In some cases, rape cannot be proven.<<<<<<< Why, thank you. My point exactly.

I asked for evidence, not a non sequitur. You probably won't deliver (please, prove me wrong), but don't you ever wonder why that is? Don't you ever wonder why you have to resort to slander and ad hominems instead of actually citing hard data?

Do you even know what a non sequitur is? It means, "it does not follow". Of course it follows that if sex is considered more private and less a mere act of entertainment, that people will treat it differently. You can't HIDE sex for hire as a "massage parlor" where the girls just happen to be naked if people do not treat that sort of thing as just another entertainment choice.

Nor is it any big secret which half of the political spectrum is always pushing more and more eccentric sex attitudes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why, thank you. My point exactly.

Your point was that rape can't be proven in some cases? Did you feel this needed pointing out?

Do you even know what a non sequitur is? It means, "it does not follow".

Indeed, and since your conclusion does not follow from your premise, that's why I used the phrase.

Of course it follows that if sex is considered more private and less a mere act of entertainment, that people will treat it differently.

Nope. Prostutution and sexual trafficking has existed throughout human history, no matter how sexually repressed a culture gets, and studies have shown that more sexual rigidity leads to more sexual violence (source). I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a sexually liberal culture with minimal violence than one so repressed it can't comprehend the idea that people can actually enjoy sex.

You can't HIDE sex for hire as a "massage parlor" where the girls just happen to be naked if people do not treat that sort of thing as just another entertainment choice.

Nor is it any big secret which half of the political spectrum is always pushing more and more eccentric sex attitudes.

"If it doesn't harm anyone, go nuts" verses "Abstinence only" - guess which one leads to unwanted teen pregnancies (source), and STDs (source).

 

[Shane Roach]

Your point was that rape can't be proven in some cases? Did you feel this needed pointing out?


Indeed, and since your conclusion does not follow from your premise, that's why I used the phrase.


Nope. Prostutution and sexual trafficking has existed throughout human history, no matter how sexually repressed a culture gets, and studies have shown that more sexual rigidity leads to more sexual violence (source). I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a sexually liberal culture with minimal violence than one so repressed it can't comprehend the idea that people can actually enjoy sex.


"If it doesn't harm anyone, go nuts" verses "Abstinence only" - guess which one leads to unwanted teen pregnancies (source), and STDs (source).

From your source on violence.

"Sexual permissiveness was uncorrelated with either sex-role rigidity or violence..."

In this specific instance, no one but you was talking about abstinence only. Even the Old Testament doesn't talk about abstinence only. It does, however, draw marked distinctions between those who are sexually permissive and those who are not.

The underlying reason for that seems to be that if you make it TOO difficult for people to live up to an expectation, they simply stop trying.

Finally, I brought up rape in a context having to do with sexual permissiveness. A less sexually permissive culture would help mitigate rape and similar crimes where women, as the weaker gender, are exploited sexually by creating a more healthy environment towards sex and relationships.

When you begin to speak in terms of psychology, though, things are less cut and dried. That's where people like you come in with your crazy, spatter-patterned denials and illogical accusations, not even able to read and comprehend your own citations, and make it difficult for people to wade though the possibilities and make an educated choice.

Most choices in life are going to end up being educated guesses, not scientific proofs.

 

[Shane Roach]

If you want a historical example of sex role rigidity, sexual permissiveness, and violence, you really need look no farther than classical Greece.

 

[Shane Roach]

It occurs to me just in pondering the assertions seeming to be made by that study that there is probably no way to distinguish whether the association between sex role rigidity and violence is causal. It seems as likely, if not more so, that in an already violent society, sex roles are reinforced by the simple reality that women are weaker. So this idea that sex roles are bad and cause violence is likely not supported by your study.

I note that, like most information that is used to shape our society, this document is copyright protected, and thus not made available for perusal and discussion by the general public. They won't even bother telling you how much they want for it until you both register and give them billing information. So the link is more or less worthless for any real, in depth conversation. That's not your fault, that's just the way our diabolical system runs itself, but in the meantime, if you don't mind, take a look at that article in full (if you have access) and see if it does not make the point that you cannot extrapolate cause of violence from this study.

If it is like most I have seen, it will actually spell out that that is not the case.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From your source on violence.

"Sexual permissiveness was uncorrelated with either sex-role rigidity or violence..."

In this specific instance, no one but you was talking about abstinence only. Even the Old Testament doesn't talk about abstinence only. It does, however, draw marked distinctions between those who are sexually permissive and those who are not.

The underlying reason for that seems to be that if you make it TOO difficult for people to live up to an expectation, they simply stop trying.

Finally, I brought up rape in a context having to do with sexual permissiveness. A less sexually permissive culture would help mitigate rape and similar crimes where women, as the weaker gender, are exploited sexually by creating a more healthy environment towards sex and relationships.

From the source: "Sexual permissiveness was uncorrelated with either sex-role rigidity or violence"

You want a less permissive, more rigid society. Per the source, that increases violence: permissiveness does not alter violence (so we can be as permissive as we like), while rigidity does increase violence (so we should strive to be less rigid).

I agree that creating a healthy environment towards sex and sexuality is what diminishes crimes like rape, sexual trafficked, etc. The trick is working out just what environment does this - and if there's one thing history teaches us, and what the source supports, it's that sexual repression just causes problems.

When you begin to speak in terms of psychology, though, things are less cut and dried. That's where people like you come in with your crazy, spatter-patterned denials and illogical accusations, not even able to read and comprehend your own citations, and make it difficult for people to wade though the possibilities and make an educated choice.

I'm well aware of what my source says; that's why I cited it. It says that being more or less permissive doesn't affect violence, contrary to your claim. It says being more rigid increases violence, which is exactly what I claimed.

Most choices in life are going to end up being educated guesses, not scientific proofs.

Hence why we have calm, rational discussions without resorting to hyperbole. It's telling that you feel the need to resort to rhetorical devices, and I don't, and it's telling that you do this instead of citing actual sociological studies.

It may not be as cut and dry as something like physics, but that doesn't mean real data can't be accrued.

If you want a historical example of sex role rigidity, sexual permissiveness, and violence, you really need look no farther than classical Greece.

The birthplace of science, philosophy, mathematics, and democracy? Sounds like a pretty good case for permissiveness to me.

It occurs to me just in pondering the assertions seeming to be made by that study that there is probably no way to distinguish whether the association between sex role rigidity and violence is causal. It seems as likely, if not more so, that in an already violent society, sex roles are reinforced by the simple reality that women are weaker. So this idea that sex roles are bad and cause violence is likely not supported by your study.

I note that, like most information that is used to shape our society, this document is copyright protected, and thus not made available for perusal and discussion by the general public. They won't even bother telling you how much they want for it until you both register and give them billing information. So the link is more or less worthless for any real, in depth conversation.

The abstract serves to present the results without needing to buy the full article. If you think they lied, I suggest you write a letter of complaint.

That's not your fault, that's just the way our diabolical system runs itself, but in the meantime, if you don't mind, take a look at that article in full (if you have access) and see if it does not make the point that you cannot extrapolate cause of violence from this study.

If it is like most I have seen, it will actually spell out that that is not the case.[/quote]

 

[Shane Roach]

From the source: "Sexual permissiveness was uncorrelated with either sex-role rigidity or violence"

blah blah blah blah.

[/quote]

I want less permissive. I nor anyone else here has been talking about rigid roles. Rigid roles are ASSOCIATED with increased violence according to the link. It does not say they cause them. I didn't read much of the rest of your post because I have seen this cycle a thousand times on this site. You are not paying attention to what is being said.

Until and unless you start reading what I write, and indeed what you link to, this conversation is a waste of both of our time.

I am aware that my tone and attitude seem terse to you and others here, but I tire of coming to an ostensibly Christian site and seeing it overwhelmed with hateful, usually perverse anti-Christian rhetoric. Thus I almost instantly get defensive when I come here. I'd love to have more thoughtful conversations, but after literally a decade of watching the tone on this site go from bad to impossible, I just do not think it is ever going to happen.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I want less permissive. I nor anyone else here has been talking about rigid roles. Rigid roles are ASSOCIATED with increased violence according to the link. It does not say they cause them. I didn't read much of the rest of your post because I have seen this cycle a thousand times on this site. You are not paying attention to what is being said.

*sigh*

"The possible relationships between sexual permissiveness, sex-role rigidity, and violence at the societal level are examined. Two judges independently rank ordered the levels of sexual permissiveness of a random sample of 17 cultures chosen from the Human Relations Area Files. A second set of two judges rank ordered the rigidity of these cultures' sex roles, and a third set of judges rank ordered the cultures on their levels of intra- and extra-communal violence. An attempt to rank order the degree of achieved masculinity content of the cultures' sex stereotypes failed because judges could not rank them reliably. Sexual permissiveness was uncorrelated with either sex-role rigidity or violence, but sex-role rigidity was highly correlated with violence. The results are interpreted as being incompatible with theories of sex and violence that stress a single physiological or instinctual factor. The results supported two-factor theories which gave more emphasis to social learning principles than to physiological determinants."

Until and unless you start reading what I write, and indeed what you link to, this conversation is a waste of both of our time.

Given that I quoted and responded to each part of your post, it should be obvious that I read your post. Still, it's telling that you lambaste me for not paying attention to what's being said, yet in the same breath admit to not paying attention to what's being said.

I am aware that my tone and attitude seem terse to you and others here, but I tire of coming to an ostensibly Christian site and seeing it overwhelmed with hateful, usually perverse anti-Christian rhetoric. Thus I almost instantly get defensive when I come here. I'd love to have more thoughtful conversations, but after literally a decade of watching the tone on this site go from bad to impossible, I just do not think it is ever going to happen.

Is it any surprise that you have trouble finding worthwhile conversations with a hostile tone? The rest of us actually enjoy coming here, and treat each other with respect - me, RickG, Eudaimonist, AV, LittleLambofJesus, good brother... we couldn't have more different views, yet we somehow manage to maintain a modicum of civility. Imagine that! We are able to *gasp* disagree.

So don't fool yourself. If you have a problem with CF, it stems from you, not us.

 

[jminnesota]

it comes down to teaching kids to wait til they are ready to have sex. hopefully when they marry but if they cant wait til then at least wait til they are ready enough to have sex and deal with what might come after

 

[Wiccan_Child]

it comes down to teaching kids to wait til they are ready to have sex. hopefully when they marry but if they cant wait til then at least wait til they are ready enough to have sex and deal with what might come after

And if it doesn't come to that (or, indeed, if it does), at least use protection. If they're going to have sex, as is undoubtedly the case, let's at least make sure they can do it safely.

 

[Episcoboi]

And if it doesn't come to that (or, indeed, if it does), at least use protection. If they're going to have sex, as is undoubtedly the case, let's at least make sure they can do it safely.

That's what my mom always taught us. Instead of absolute abstinence, she taught us responsible sexuality. Not a one of us had a kid a before age 20, and I think it is because she was open, honest, and, instead of ignoring reality, taught us to do everything responsibly.