Modesty

[mpshiel]

What is worse... Looking at something with lust, or dressing up lustfully? Granted, there is no black and white answer.

I am not sure what dressing up lustfully would be unless you were talking about a fetish. Wearing sexy lingerie is not "dressing up lustfully" even if it makes you feel sexy. Perhaps that should be "dressing up manipulatively" as when I go into a situation that makes me nervous I sometimes wear a tupe top or something that shows a curve of breast because then I know that a) guys won't be looking at my face and b) they will be extra nice to me. Beyond that, I purposefully wear clothes that make my gf hot and bothered; do I care what guys might "fall to lust" due to that - nope. It is their problem and if seeing a girls legs or expose of skin is going to cause a problem then I suggest the first things these guys do is throw out thier TV and don't look at any magazines because that shows up in commercials about ever minute.

Hmm.... I just thought of something else. Women should be interested in men who are like christ... what would a girl wear if she was trying to get jesus to "pursue" her? Or take a step farther. If you were on a date with Jesus, what do you think would be suitable?

Well, since Jesus hung out with "working girls" I don't think he was much in the prude department when it came to clothing. Indeed, I never remember Luke 21:83 "And Jesus said 'get thee inside and cover up let thou cause men to get uncomforable' - instead didn't he point out the ridiculous custom of the day (which is very similar to this thread) of seeing women as a path to lust and sin so "devout" jews would turn thier face away from women. What did Jesus do...he went and talked to them. But then, I don't think you have to worry much when you are "going with Jesus" considering he views the heart and is already in love with you.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

I hear you, but it's an unavoidable problem with abstinence programs. I think there is much more pressure to get married under an abstinence program than there is pressure to have sex in society. In fact I think there are laws against that last one. You say you wouldn't advocate it, but by saying 'there's nothing wrong with choosing abstinence' you effectively are. There are problems with it, this is one of them.

You are right, there is more pressure. One is always under pressure when striving for righteousness.

No, I advocate having more than one sexual relationship before you decide on who you are going to spend 50-60 years with. Sort of a no-brainer I'd have thought.

I see where you are coming from, from worldy standards. My standards are set on christian standards though, and they definetly do not encourage this.

The two go hand-in-hand. How many abstinent teens carry condoms in their wallets do you reckon? It's not just information, it's attitude.

You kind of went wround his statement. Abstinence keeps one safe from pregnancy 100% (unless you are the virgin marry.) And just for your information, I have never even touched a condom, and I am alost 20, and have been in MANY unfortunate "sexual" relationships, but never had sex.

So I suppose all of your fun is gleaned from deep, meaningful pursuits? You also are a roller-coaster-avoider?


Some things in life are just fun. If just having fun for the sake of having fun is childish, screw ever growing up

Very childish... Sex is a gift not to be abused. Those who do end up with the consequences we are discussing. I personally don't want my wife to have to deal with a step child or an STD. It's statements like yours above that show the one does not realize their actions will affects others just as much as the person making the poor choice.

Of course, I never said emotion could not be involved. But you, like some of the others here, are assuming I am talking explicitly about one-night-stands. I'm not. While there is certainly nothing wrong with them, they do get old, for the reasons you've been talking about. You can fall in love and have a sexual relationship and not get married. THIS is what I'm advocating. It isn't necessarily a marriage vs one-night-stand duel that you guys seem to be making it into.

Thats the thing, there is no difference between that in Gods eyes, which all that I care about. If I have sex with her, I am telling her that I willing to make choices that will affect me my whole life, whether I know her for one night, or over a year. Sex is a life long affecting choice. Not just a 15 minute time of plesure.
"While there is certainly nothing wrong with them, they do get old"
Do you think there will be any difference with your spouse? No, there won't. That makes me sad for those who are already desensitised to sex.

Now it's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or death? Are you sure you aren't being obtuse? The likelihood of catching a fatal disease when practicing safe sex is minute. Of course abstinence is a 100% way of assuring std avoidance, but never driving is a 100% guarantee of never being in an accident. They are directly analogous, I was not being obtuse, I am - in fact - quite serious. You are being wantonly dramatic in your conception of stds.

This claim is completly conditional. With me being a guy, if I wanted to find a girl to have sex, it will probably be a girl that has had sex before many times cause most of the girls I know don't want sex so quickly or easily. So in reallity, one more likely to find an STD carrying partner. I think of it be very wreckless and actually inconsiderate of your future spous to make such a rash decision.

Again, stay away from rollercoasters, they can and have killed people. It is exactly the same logic as you are using here. Am I wrong?

Yes, cause a roller coaster doesn't spread to other people, especially the ones you care about enough to have sex with.

The dichotomy usually is sex or no sex. Not sex or sex with love. This is a common conceptual error, I think. In the more accurate former dilemma, sex has the immediate upper hand.

But once more, you create this realm where not being abstinent = having one night stands. This is rot, feral. Utter rot. I would not advocate one-night-stands to the degree that I would advocate sex outside of wedlock but in a loving relationship. That said, one-night-stands are also fantastic learning tools, but are understandably not for the faint of heart.

Learning experiance? Sorry, but it does not take a genious to give a person good sex. It is actually a lot like dancing. You can learn to dance all you want, and you can learn very awesome BASIC things, but the actuall rythem of it comes naturally. Yes, this coming from a virgin who's girlfriend does not really care how good sex is.

Yes, sex outside of wedlock is an embodiment of the devil. Sheesh. It's sex, man. Not ritual suicide.

Fornication is sin, which is a type of spiritual death. Yes, it is suicide for us.

Sure. But if being scared of everything which could possibly do you permanent harm is your way of dealing with life, I'd say the same to you

It's about living in sacraficial love (not dieing sacrifice, but possetional and comfortability sacraficial), quite the opposite of self gradification, which is what sex tends to be in most cases.

The leap of logic you take here is immense and I would love to see you try and justify it

It's a fact, about 52% of all marriages in the USA have been divorced.

The learning point should be that they never have to feel any of these emotions after sex. If they choose their first partner wisely, I doubt they'd feel it anyway.

If you feel no emotions then I greatly pitty you.

I have a good friend of mine who is a (freaking attractive) Christian. Now she has had sex with three different people and has decided that she will now wait until marriage. She doesn't regret her partners, nor does she think of sex in a cheap casual way. She has had one one-night-stand, she has had one very long very serious relationship, and one which was somewhere in between (I think he was a hot or something. Chicks man.) The point being, she has experienced the gambit of sexual emotions and has learnt from them. She is comfortable with her sexuality and is more prepared for the big relationship to come. I find this approach difficult to fault. Had she only had the one serious relationship and then decided to wait, I wouldn't fault that either. At least have some background knowledge before throwing yourself into the deep end.

I feel the same way with my past relationships. Christians technically should not regret anything unless it has negativly affect someone else. Nevertheless, I would feel better if I had not of been in my sexual relationships.

Ok, I haven't really been talking about young people. I'm talking specifically about mature adults who still remain abstinent due to some (wayward) moral arithmetic.

So I guess whatever you don't understand is automatically wrong or illogical?

 

[sculpturegirl]

OK OK OK This thread is about MODESTY and while chastity is an aspect of sexual modesty, let's get back on topic. There are plenty of fornication threads out there.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

hehehe thanks scultpure girl

 

[justaman]

You are right, there is more pressure. One is always under pressure when striving for righteousness.

Great so being 'righteous' forces one to get married. How positively awesome.

I see where you are coming from, from worldy standards. My standards are set on christian standards though, and they definetly do not encourage this.

Goodo. Funny, though, that you admit a gap between your Christian standards and the standards of observable reality.

You kind of went wround his statement. Abstinence keeps one safe from pregnancy 100% (unless you are the virgin marry.) And just for your information, I have never even touched a condom, and I am alost 20, and have been in MANY unfortunate "sexual" relationships, but never had sex.

Aw, that's super.

Very childish... Sex is a gift not to be abused. Those who do end up with the consequences we are discussing. I personally don't want my wife to have to deal with a step child or an STD. It's statements like yours above that show the one does not realize their actions will affects others just as much as the person making the poor choice.

You speak with such authority and yet...well...you've never done it. So I don't really know where you get such confidence from. Sex out of wedlock is not some brutal male-orientated ravaging of the fragile, vulnerable female. Why you guys keep painting it with these colours is utterly beyond me.

Thats the thing, there is no difference between that in Gods eyes, which all that I care about. If I have sex with her, I am telling her that I willing to make choices that will affect me my whole life, whether I know her for one night, or over a year. Sex is a life long affecting choice. Not just a 15 minute time of plesure.

That's up to you to decide. And once again, you go off on this ridiculous dichotomy. I have had sex which was a matter of minutes with someone I will never see again and I have had intensely emotional sex with someone I loved very deeply and will always remember fondly. To think that sex will only ever fall in one category for your entire life is, quite simply, wrong.

"While there is certainly nothing wrong with them, they do get old"
Do you think there will be any difference with your spouse? No, there won't. That makes me sad for those who are already desensitised to sex.

What are you suggesting, that being desensitized to one-night-stands = eventually being desensitized to your spouse?? What nonsense. That happens anyway

This claim is completly conditional. With me being a guy, if I wanted to find a girl to have sex, it will probably be a girl that has had sex before many times cause most of the girls I know don't want sex so quickly or easily. So in reallity, one more likely to find an STD carrying partner. I think of it be very wreckless and actually inconsiderate of your future spous to make such a rash decision.

Don't be ridiculous. Most STDs you're ever likely to come across are curable with a hit of anti-biotics. They are diseases, man. Not demons. Nor are they quite as rampant as you seem to think.

Yes, cause a roller coaster doesn't spread to other people, especially the ones you care about enough to have sex with.

This is getting ridiculous. Yes arch angel old buddy, if you have sex before you get married, you will get a disease. And it will be fatal and you will give it to your partner. Talk about theatrics...

Learning experiance? Sorry, but it does not take a genious to give a person good sex. It is actually a lot like dancing. You can learn to dance all you want, and you can learn very awesome BASIC things, but the actuall rythem of it comes naturally. Yes, this coming from a virgin who's girlfriend does not really care how good sex is.

Again, why are you making a commentary on sexual acts when you have never done it? Do you think I have something to learn from your musings?

Fornication is sin, which is a type of spiritual death. Yes, it is suicide for us.

I take back my theatrics call before.

It's about living in sacraficial love (not dieing sacrifice, but possetional and comfortability sacraficial), quite the opposite of self gradification, which is what sex tends to be in most cases.

Yes, never do anything to please yourself. God hates that.

If you feel no emotions then I greatly pitty you.

Oh where the **** did I say that, champ? Honestly, have a read of my posts before you start shooting off at the hip. I was talking about the negative emotions the other person mentioned, not emotion period.

I feel the same way with my past relationships. Christians technically should not regret anything unless it has negativly affect someone else. Nevertheless, I would feel better if I had not of been in my sexual relationships.

Super. I wish I regretted all the stuff I did. That'd be grand.

So I guess whatever you don't understand is automatically wrong or illogical?

Again, what are you doing, are you reading what I'm saying? I understand it perfectly, that's why I am confident in saying it is wrong and illogical (in most cases).

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Great so being 'righteous' forces one to get married. How positively awesome.

I never said that. If a christian wants to have sex, he or she needs to be married, but that is why God tells us Love is patient.

Goodo. Funny, though, that you admit a gap between your Christian standards and the standards of observable reality.

Not sure what you mean by this...

You speak with such authority and yet...well...you've never done it. So I don't really know where you get such confidence from. Sex out of wedlock is not some brutal male-orientated ravaging of the fragile, vulnerable female. Why you guys keep painting it with these colours is utterly beyond me.

And you speak like sex is something to be studied. Even my dog knows how to have sex. You are right, I have not done, and I have still felt the consequences of my mistakes leading up to sex. I can imagine what the actual of premarital sex would be like. I want nothing to do with it.

That's up to you to decide. And once again, you go off on this ridiculous dichotomy. I have had sex which was a matter of minutes with someone I will never see again and I have had intensely emotional sex with someone I loved very deeply and will always remember fondly. To think that sex will only ever fall in one category for your entire life is, quite simply, wrong.

all I can say is that I pitty you, and pray to God that the people who have sex with you feel the same way.

What are you suggesting, that being desensitized to one-night-stands = eventually being desensitized to your spouse?? What nonsense. That happens anyway

I believe thats what I am getting at.... and having sex before already being de sensitized only makes it worse. However, I can probably be sure that I will not get tired of having sex with my future wife.

Don't be ridiculous. Most STDs you're ever likely to come across are curable with a hit of anti-biotics. They are diseases, man. Not demons. Nor are they quite as rampant as you seem to think.

SOME are curable, most "curable" you need to take your whole life to contain it. And did I say anything about demons?? Please do not make me out to some radical spiritualists when I am only stating points of morallity.

This is getting ridiculous. Yes arch angel old buddy, if you have sex before you get married, you will get a disease. And it will be fatal and you will give it to your partner. Talk about theatrics...

once again, did I EVER say this? No, you are taking what I am writting and making it something else- Don't. What my point was is that you are willing to risk taking that chance over and over again just for gratification. Tell this to any person who actually does have aids or a pregnancy. Some were so unlikely to get it the first time they had sex, others say "well, I have always been having sex and been OK... until now" Like you said, will they all be affected? Absolutly not, chances are indeed slim. But is the risk worth taking the chance? You obviously think so, thats your call, but I find it repulsive.

Again, why are you making a commentary on sexual acts when you have never done it? Do you think I have something to learn from your musings?

Musings? No. Morals? Yes. Like I said early, it does not take a genious to know how to have good sex. I know what sex feels like, I know how the people move, it's more about rythem and movement than anything else.

I take back my theatrics call before.

Thank you, I greatly appreciate this and have earned a lot of respect in my book.

Yes, never do anything to please yourself. God hates that.

I disagree with this... I believe that we are here to please God and others at the expense our lives... one way or another.

Oh where the **** did I say that, champ? Honestly, have a read of my posts before you start shooting off at the hip. I was talking about the negative emotions the other person mentioned, not emotion period.

I ment after sex, sorry... I misread what you posted. Please forgive me...

Super. I wish I regretted all the stuff I did. That'd be grand.

I never said you have to, infact quite the opposite.

Again, what are you doing, are you reading what I'm saying? I understand it perfectly, that's why I am confident in saying it is wrong and illogical (in most cases).

You said this earlier:" I'm talking specifically about mature adults who still remain abstinent due to some (wayward) moral arithmetic."

Which makes me think you really don't understand it with the "some wayward" description. Hence my statement. This all depends on moral principles, which boils back down to the OP of this thread.

 

[sculpturegirl]

Perhaps Justaman is concerned that if women embrace modesty and chastity, then he might have to actually commit to one of them and be faithful for life.

 

[justaman]

I never said that. If a christian wants to have sex, he or she needs to be married, but that is why God tells us Love is patient.

"I never said that but I'll go ahead and say it again."

all I can say is that I pitty you, and pray to God that the people who have sex with you feel the same way.

Yes. Pity me and the girls I've been with our good, positive emotions. So regretable.

I believe thats what I am getting at.... and having sex before already being de sensitized only makes it worse. However, I can probably be sure that I will not get tired of having sex with my future wife.

It will become routine. It is a clinical fact that the first rushing experiences of love you have at the beginning of a relationship fade. That is because we have different chemicals at work at different stages of the relationship. This is now common knowledge and can be reviewed here.

You will notice it says specifically "a relationship cannot remain in the infatuation stage forever". I.e. physical lust for your wife will fade. That's not to say you get tired of having sex, per se, but what you seem to be suggesting is that if you don't becomes 'desensitized' to sex, it remains magical forever. This isn't true.

SOME are curable, most "curable" you need to take your whole life to contain it. And did I say anything about demons?? Please do not make me out to some radical spiritualists when I am only stating points of morallity.

It's exactly what you are doing. They are diseases and yet you are talking about them as if they were some malevolent demons that hide in genetalia. Your abhorance of pre-marital sex is just that radical.

once again, did I EVER say this?

Not literally, I'm clearly making a point about how paranoid you are being.

Musings? No. Morals? Yes.

No, musings. You've taken much time to dictate to me what sex actually is. Like 'dancing' you suggest. Why do you - a virgin - think I - not a virgin - would need your input about what sex is and is not? One would almost think I'd have more authority to describe it to you...

Thank you, I greatly appreciate this and have earned a lot of respect in my book.

I think you misunderstand...

I disagree with this... I believe that we are here to please God and others at the expense our lives... one way or another.

So why aren't you fixing to become a member of the clergy?

Which makes me think you really don't understand it with the "some wayward" description. Hence my statement.

Again, I understand perfectly, the maths is wrong.

 

[Mustaphile]

It will become routine. It is a clinical fact that the first rushing experiences of love you have at the beginning of a relationship fade. That is because we have different chemicals at work at different stages of the relationship. This is now common knowledge and can be reviewed here.

You will notice it says specifically "a relationship cannot remain in the infatuation stage forever". I.e. physical lust for your wife will fade. That's not to say you get tired of having sex, per se, but what you seem to be suggesting is that if you don't becomes 'desensitized' to sex, it remains magical forever. This isn't true.

I'm going to disagree with this on the grounds that I have been able to sustain the same feeling for a period of five years, in a prior relationship, through actively and creatively seeking to love my partner unselfishly, on a daily basis. I am now in a new relationship and we are coming up to being together for two years and the feelings only grow stronger as we both actively work on loving each other. The infatuation stage can be recreated for as long as two people are willing to sustain it. The degree to which I loved in the with the woman prior to my new love, was exemplified in the fact that I was quite happy for her to leave and find new horizons, as I was not interested in having any more children, and I felt the greater good for her was to fulfill her dreams of motherhood with someone who would share her enthusiasm. Unselfish love for another is the key to success. Love that is possesive is not the greatest love of all. I find the fatalistic notion that it is impossible to sustain such feelings is a fallacy. My feelings increased and grew stronger as time went on. The attitude that we bring to relationships is the key factor. This is where I find science and the human experience part ways. Science can't measure the heights to which the human soul can soar if it only sees blue sky potential. Your attitude to love and sex will only serve to limit the intensity of your experience. For myself, love is everything. My love for God, my love for all people, my love for the woman that my soul seeks to merge with. There is not greater lesson in life than to strive for excellence in love. Perfect love casts out fear, as is so wisely elucidated in the Bible.

 

[morningstar2651]

Not just a 15 minute time of plesure.

Wow, that's the average? Only 15 minutes?

 

[justaman]

I'm going to disagree with this on the grounds that I have been able to sustain the same feeling for a period of five years, in a prior relationship, through actively and creatively seeking to love my partner unselfishly, on a daily basis. I am now in a new relationship and we are coming up to being together for two years and the feelings only grow stronger as we both actively work on loving each other. The infatuation stage can be recreated for as long as two people are willing to sustain it. The degree to which I loved in the with the woman prior to my new love, was exemplified in the fact that I was quite happy for her to leave and find new horizons, as I was not interested in having any more children, and I felt the greater good for her was to fulfill her dreams of motherhood with someone who would share her enthusiasm. Unselfish love for another is the key to success. Love that is possesive is not the greatest love of all. I find the fatalistic notion that it is impossible to sustain such feelings is a fallacy. My feelings increased and grew stronger as time went on. The attitude that we bring to relationships is the key factor. This is where I find science and the human experience part ways. Science can't measure the heights to which the human soul can soar if it only sees blue sky potential. Your attitude to love and sex will only serve to limit the intensity of your experience. For myself, love is everything. My love for God, my love for all people, my love for the woman that my soul seeks to merge with. There is not greater lesson in life than to strive for excellence in love. Perfect love casts out fear, as is so wisely elucidated in the Bible.

I get the feeling you didn't follow the link...

I agree that what you call 'perfect love' can be sustained and in fact grow. This is attachment. I am talking about lust and attraction and the first stages which are not sustained. I'm pretty sure that if you wandered around ga-ga for 5 years at the very sight of your partner she would have got tired of you pretty quick

 

[gracefaith]

Perhaps Justaman is concerned that if women embrace modesty and chastity, then he might have to actually commit to one of them and be faithful for life.

It sounds to me like Abstinence cornered Justaman in a dark alley once, beat him up and took his wallet.

 

[justaman]

It sounds to me like Abstinence cornered Justaman in a dark alley once, beat him up and took his wallet.

This is just getting strange.

 

[feral]

You know, I think the argument is getting pointless, so I am not going to respond to all the responses from you, Justaman. Obviously, you are looking for casual sex and have convinced yourself that any higher standard or self-respect on the part of others is wayward. Well, go ahead and think that if you like. You talk of experiences - hopefully in five or ten years when you've saddled a girl with a baby she didn't want or caught a disease through 'safe sex' you can chalk it up to learning. As for me, I've done my learning. I've had my sexual experiences. That's why I am now abstinent, and for my part, I do regret the things I did to my body and spirit to get the knowledge I have. It wasn't worth it, and I would advise anyone who is considering remaining abstinent until they reach a certain point in their lives or enter into a committed relationship to wait. Roller coasters, which you keep comparing sex to, have a lot of built in safety mechanisms. Seat belts, security devises and so forth make sure that even when you think it's thrilling and scary, you are really completely safe. Sex, unfortunately, is not, even when someone knows to use protection. One only needs to look at the girls filtering into abortion clinics to see that. A lot of them thought it was safe too. It's not. Look at the AIDs quilt next time it comes by your town, because a lot of them thought they were playing it safe too. One doesn't need to be a grandma, or an old maid, or a virgin, or afraid of risks to be abstinent or to encourage others to be, but think what you like. I think your name is especially apt, by the way. I repeat it to myself as I shake my head at the things you've said. Good luck to you, and to the girls you use your argument on.

 

[morningstar2651]

It sounds to me like Abstinence cornered Justaman in a dark alley once, beat him up and took his wallet.

Abstinence isn't healty.

Abstinence-only education creates unhealthy image of sex

Some psychological theories hold that sexual oppression leads to various behavioral problems. Additionally, as sexual skill and compatibility are learned over time, there may be long term consequences to a practice that deprives people of experience they may need in order to form an understanding of their own feelings and their compatibility with others.

Even if teens make it into adulthood without having sex or getting pregnant, they may not know how to prevent having babies, or how to become pregnant when they want to, and they may suffer from lifelong sexual immaturity and shame.

James W. Prescott, "Body pleasure and the origins of violence", The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, November 1975, pp. 10-20 online copy. Claims that somatosensory (including sexual) deprivation as minors causes violent behaviour of grown-ups.

http://www.nonewmoney.org/

 

[SallyNow]

Abstinence isn't healty.

Abstinece is healthy; it is about personal choice. Many abstinece programs teach things that are not accurate. However, the article linked too mentions Planned Parenthood, which, while being accurate for medical information, is not always the best place to go for information on the psychological and socialogical aspects of sex. A more neutral source, such as university studies, has more balanced opinions.

James W. Prescott, "Body pleasure and the origins of violence", The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, November 1975, pp. 10-20 online copy. Claims that somatosensory (including sexual) deprivation as minors causes violent behaviour of grown-ups.

And early sexuality leads to many problems, and there are many more studies proving the latter.

through actively and creatively seeking to love my partner unselfishly, on a daily basis.

I think many people will be suprised to learn sex isn't just about selfish pleasure, but mutual pleasure.

I think what is really sad is that many people can not accept that some people are blessed with the ability to not be consumed by getting, having, wanting sex all the time. Sorry, okay, let me try to be serious..

I think that it is too bad that some people will refuse to see others' points of view. Abstinence and waiting until marriage is not a bad thing.

Fact is that sex DOES bring on a lot problems, even "safe" sex, when done without underlining commitment. For many, this means a long-term relationship; for others, this means marriage.

 

[justaman]

You know, I think the argument is getting pointless, so I am not going to respond to all the responses from you, Justaman. Obviously, you are looking for casual sex and have convinced yourself that any higher standard or self-respect on the part of others is wayward.

It's wayward to so obstinantly call a diffent kind of relationship 'a higher standard' or that having sex out of wedlock is somehow not having 'self-respect'. That is what is wayward, not one's decision to choose one or the other.

And once-a-freaking-again having sex before marriage DOES NOT EQUAL CASUAL SEX!

You have no idea what I am 'looking for', so making a commentary on my desires let alone calling them 'obvious' is disingenuous in the extreme.

That's why I am now abstinent, and for my part, I do regret the things I did to my body and spirit to get the knowledge I have.

Awesome, you regret what you've done. That's excellent, you must be so content with your world view.

/sarcasm.

I repeat it to myself as I shake my head at the things you've said. Good luck to you, and to the girls you use your argument on.

Yes, because I trick all of my girlfriends into having sex with me. You go on telling yourself I am the devil if it makes you feel better

Anyone want to talk about this without resorting to melodrama?

 

[SallyNow]

Awesome, you regret what you've done. That's excellent, you must be so content with your world view.

/sarcasm.

[sarcasm]Yah...those horrible flip-floppers, those sad, discontent people who learn from their mistakes. Those people are all liars...they have no central core...I mean, the actually LEARN from their MISTAKES and mistakes of others.
[/sarcasm]

I'll say/ask it again: Why is someone else's view so bad? Why is being responsible with your heart and body worth so much scorn and insult? It means being different, not being weaker or on a high horse or anything like that.

 

[justaman]

[sarcasm]Yah...those horrible flip-floppers, those sad, discontent people who learn from their mistakes. Those people are all liars...they have no central core...I mean, the actually LEARN from their MISTAKES and mistakes of others.
[/sarcasm]

I'll say/ask it again: Why is someone else's view so bad? Why is being responsible with your heart and body worth so much scorn and insult? It means being different, not being weaker or on a high horse or anything like that.

No, it means that with precisely the same experiences, one person feels good, and that they've had a positive experience, and one person feels bad and that it's been negative. Preferring to be the person who feels it is bad is, in my view, weird. Why would you want to feel bad about something you could very well feel good about if you gave it a little thought? Why do you insist on seeing it as a 'mistake' rather than an experience which helped make you the person you are?

I am attacking the strange, almost masochistic desire to punish oneself for perfectly normal behaviour, and to strip the experience of all the positive sensations and emotions which must surely have been present at the time.

If I have been a little short, it is simply because I quickly become exasperated with people who prefer whipping themselves for all their wrong-doings rather than enjoying what life does give them.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Just because it is deemed natural by society does not mean it is right.

Christians give thier life to God, even their natural instincts. You cannot understand this, obviously. It's ok, I didn;t understand it neither.