Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (11761)	12/31/2010 10:02:54 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 69300

The idea a man and a woman can have a non-permanent sexual relationship that isn't intended to be lasting, that will never result in the responsibilities that come with children seems to me to be a fantasy. One that is most popular with men. And I understand the appeal. But its just not realistic. I believe there are responsibilities that go with having a sexual relationship with someone. I realize a lot of people think its mean to say so, but its a fact of life. If a relationship is genuine, intense and total, then the two parties ought to be willing to make a long term commitment to one another and to what children may result from the union. I cannot see any basis for restricting or disallowing their sex lives ... outside of religious doctrine. One would be avoidance of those unwanted pregnancies previously discussed. I can anticipate the comment that there are ways to avoid that but if they were that reliable there wouldn't be all those unwanted pregnancies. If anything, I cheer them on for placing pressure on doctrine to evolve, for removing the priest class' instrument of sexual terror. One of my biggest beefs with Christianity (and Islam and...) is this medieval doctrine of sexual continence. The "priest class"? "Sexual terror"? LOL I'm sorry but that sounds ridiculous. That said, I do not think that treating pregnancy andor abortion casually is in anyone's interest. But it needs to be there so it doesn't spoil peoples fun without responsibility. But we're not going to be casual about it. But I get ornery when I see those valid concerns being used to promote or justify the harmful doctrine of Don't. I think a whole lot of hostility to religion comes down to that. Those meanies and their God are trying to spoil our fun. You know studies show married people have more satisfactory sex lives on average than unmarried? That they tend to be both happier and healthier, physically and mentally? BTW I will say that in most of those genuine, intense and total non-permanent relationships, it will tend to be the case that the woman will be the one most dissatisfied over time. The man is getting the milk without having to buy the cow. Because the woman won't tell him if he wants it he better put a ring on it. And some of the unwanted pregnancies are only pretend accidents on a woman's part hoping it will get the guy to stsp up and marry them and be a daddy ... and even if it doesn't they'll get a baby out of it.