|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 20:40:35 GMT
Sleeping Beauty is promoting Necrophilia. not really. more like sleepy
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 20:45:38 GMT
you are quite correct that the bible isn't keen on cohabitation without marriage. 'Isn't keen'!!! The bible isn't keen about sex outside marriage? Are you having a laugh? I would say that the bible and the church is more than 'not keen' on fornication! Here we have the biggest bible thumper on the message board, a man who sees things in pure 'right' or 'wrong' terms, a man who claims that these moral are to be taken as absolutes for all time, a man who thinks that anything condemned 2000 years ago should be equally condemned today without any plea of mitigation. A man who feels that he has the right to comment of anyone else's sexual history... ...yet feels that having slept over a hundred women, without being married to any of them is somehow better than two men sleeping together. You feel that sex outside of marriage is something the bible 'isn't too keen' on? This is why I despise Christians and the church. They are nothing but stinking hypocrits. you're quite funny, in an absurd kind of way. moi, a bible thumper? i hardly think so laddie. yes, for the most part i do follow the bible, but, as i have pointed out many times, morality is NOT totally religious. nonetheless, what i have done is relevant to absolutely NOTHING. i have, more than once, stated that it is wrong. sorry about your luck
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 21:20:29 GMT
your teachers are failing miserably at the honesty just as ours are. obviously, kids SHOULD be taught that homosexuality exists so they can be trained to be wary of it. it is the dishonesty of not teaching them the fact that homosexuality is, at the very best, totally undesirable where the schools are failing the kids Ah right. So you don't have any actual evidence or anything of teachers 'failing miserably'. It was just a rhetorical device you were using to emphasise to us just how much exactly you really hated homosexuality. what I hate or don't hate is irrelevant. the point is that the teachers are failing to teach the kids what they should be teaching them, which is that homosexuality does indeed exist, and it is something that they want no part of
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 19, 2010 22:38:24 GMT
This is something that has always baffled but amused me in equal measure. It reminds me of an exchange I had on a BBC message board months ago with a (male) poster who was extremely anti-gays but said it was normal for straight men to get a kick out of watching 'girl on girl' action.
When I pointed out that he was therefore approving homosexual behaviour he denied it and just couldn't get the point at all.
Strange that men who don't approve of homosexuality seem to be more relaxed, or in Iamjumbo's case, less concerned, when the homosexuals are women ;D Logic would dictate that if homosexuality is wrong it is wrong whether it is male/male or female/female and not more wrong if it is one sex rather than the other.
But hey ho, whatever did logic have to do with phobias....?
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 19, 2010 22:43:40 GMT
On the theme of fairy tales, what concerns me most is not whether they are about puberty, phallic symbols, foot fetishes or anything else, as some see sex in everything, a bit like Freud did, which probably says more about the observer than the object. I hate the way it depicts females, in the main, as wimpy helpless little fluff-brains who can't function without a handsome hero to rescue them or marry them. If not that then they are nasty vindictive females e.g. stepmothers. A variation on the Madonna/whore belief about women. Not the best examples for our daughters. (But I confess to having read them to my daughters...)
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 19, 2010 23:26:59 GMT
it is the dishonesty of not teaching them the fact that homosexuality is, at the very best, totally undesirable where the schools are failing the kids. Who gives you the right to decide that this wrong? The 'best' you can up with is 'it is because it is been wrong before and should stay wrong'. Well here is some news for you, homosexuality is part of life and around ten per cent of the population are gay and the evidence points to this being natural for the ten per cent of the population that are homosexual. Not learned, not a choice, not a lifestyle, nothing. Homosexuality cannot be taught, or picked up, it is something that people find out about themselves from an early age. Homosexuality used to be a totally clandestine practice, hidden away and never spoke about, you could go to jail for it in this Country and be totally shunned by society for being gay. Gay people were sacked and suffered attacks and were murdered for being found out. And yet people from early ages still found themselves gay! Despite not having books, fairy tales, Stonewall, gay clubs, gay bars or gay pride marches or any other reference points, thousands of people found themselves attracted to others of the same sex. Famous people from every era were known to be gay, yet these people risked everything. For those of gay tendencies it is normal AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU or anyone else can do about it. You have not been able to stop people being gay for the last two thousand years, even when nothing existed that promoted gayness and there is nothing you can do to stop it now. The good news is, by the same token, the gay lobby cannot turn straight people gay either. So, given that people who (for whatever reason) are gay cannot be stopped being gay and that straight people cannot be converted in gays, what possible benefit can society gain from denying children the facts that they need to understand what is going on in their life? Not having information about homosexuality did not stop Oscar Wilde and thousands like him being gay, so what do you get from stopping a 14 year old gay guy reading about homosexuality? WHAT IS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN PREVENTING CHILDREN GETTING THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE SENSE OF THIER FEELINGS? WHAT IS THAT YOU POSSIBLY GET FROM THAT?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 19, 2010 23:39:48 GMT
moi, a bible thumper? i hardly think so laddie. Well this statement: yes, for the most part i do follow the bible Er, you are not a religous nut, you just follow (for the most part) the bible! That makes you a bible nutjob in my book. nonetheless, what i have done is relevant to absolutely NOTHING. Yes, that is rather typical of the religous nut. You feel able to talk about the shortcommings of others, but your own sins are strictly off limits? i have, more than once, stated that it is wrong. But not wrong enough for you to have stopped though? Those parts of the bible that condemn sex outside marriage can be left to one side, but other parts are to be taken as read? So 'an eye for an eye' is to be taken at face value, and 'man must not lie with man' goes without saying, but sex outside of marriage? Yeah well, nobody's perfect? Yeah right? If a Christian had slept with 118 gay men, but admitted it was wrong would he still had been a Christian?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 23:52:10 GMT
This is something that has always baffled but amused me in equal measure. It reminds me of an exchange I had on a BBC message board months ago with a (male) poster who was extremely anti-gays but said it was normal for straight men to get a kick out of watching 'girl on girl' action. When I pointed out that he was therefore approving homosexual behaviour he denied it and just couldn't get the point at all. Strange that men who don't approve of homosexuality seem to be more relaxed, or in Iamjumbo's case, less concerned, when the homosexuals are women ;D Logic would dictate that if homosexuality is wrong it is wrong whether it is male/male or female/female and not more wrong if it is one sex rather than the other. But hey ho, whatever did logic have to do with phobias....? i never said that girl on girl wasn't wrong. it is just not disgusting as male gay sex is. two girls aren't doing anything to each other than a normal man wouldn't do. two males are doing something NO real man would ever do
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 20, 2010 0:07:59 GMT
Let's not get abusive or argue unproductively here folks or a few posts will be transported to "Speaker's corner". An opinion or a point can be stated or made without insults.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 20, 2010 0:28:08 GMT
two girls aren't doing anything to each other than a normal man wouldn't do. two males are doing something NO real man would ever do What kind of twisted 'logic' is that? So a woman performing oral sex on another woman is morally different than a man having oral with another man? Can you explain the difference in a rational fashion?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 20, 2010 0:29:35 GMT
In college i had to read Thomas Mann's novel "Tonio Kröger", which is described as a "homoerotic phantasy". There are no sex acts or anything. I really didn't feel the novel offered me anything, although intellectuals go crazy about it.
If someone has a desire to read this type of literature i would recommend Roger Peyrifitte's "Special Friendships". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_amiti%C3%A9s_particuli%C3%A8res It's about 2 young schoolboys in an all boy Catholic school, who develope an intense friendship together and write poems to each other. No sex! However a pedophile priest notices this friendship and draws the boys into his sphere of influence. The priest even performs a mock marriage ceremony on the boys. The pedophile wants more and the older boy gets this pedophile thrown out of the school.
Another priest also noticing the friendship between the 2 boys interprets it as very dangerous and causes a horrible tragedy with his extreme measures to destroy the friendship. It's a very sad and moving story and not like the stupid "King & King" fairy tale, where everyone lives happily ever after!
The novel is upper high school or college level reading as should be all books touching this subject in schools.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 20, 2010 0:49:12 GMT
It's a very sad and moving story and not like the stupid "King & King" fairy tale, where everyone lives happily ever after!
So, you condemn a book as 'stupid' because everyone lives happily ever after? Well you may as well condemn the entire canon of Disney/90% of Hollywood on the same basis!
The novel is upper high school or college level reading as should be all books touching this subject in schools.
Why?
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 20, 2010 1:02:30 GMT
On the theme of fairy tales, what concerns me most is not whether they are about puberty, phallic symbols, foot fetishes or anything else, as some see sex in everything, a bit like Freud did, which probably says more about the observer than the object. I hate the way it depicts females, in the main, as wimpy helpless little fluff-brains who can't function without a handsome hero to rescue them or marry them. If not that then they are nasty vindictive females e.g. stepmothers. A variation on the Madonna/whore belief about women. Not the best examples for our daughters. (But I confess to having read them to my daughters...) Perhaps you should check out a collection of feminist fairy tales edited (and some written) by Jack Zipes, entitled 'Don't Bet on the Prince.'
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 20, 2010 1:05:16 GMT
I find both activities equally disgusting and unnatural. As far as one particular activity is concerned, ladies do NOT possess the natural equipment to penetrate so are forced to resort to object insertion and strapping devices on their body.
Men and women are two halves of one whole; both are incomplete without the other.
That is the law of nature, I am afraid.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 20, 2010 1:47:09 GMT
It's a very sad and moving story and not like the stupid "King & King" fairy tale, where everyone lives happily ever after!
So, you condemn a book as 'stupid' because everyone lives happily ever after? Well you may as well condemn the entire canon of Disney/90% of Hollywood on the same basis!
The novel is upper high school or college level reading as should be all books touching this subject in schools.
Why? Yes in the "classical fairy tales" there is a "happily ever after", but these stories are full of phantasy and imagination and often so unreal that they can't be taken seriously, even by a child. The "King & King" is just dull dribble with a PC agenda!
A fairy tale limerick like "Little Miss Muffit" is amusing, creative and deals with things children face in their world, like the fear of spiders and other insects.
In response to your final question you could answer it for yourself, if you looked at the book. The book is linguistically too advanced for pre teen children. The works of Shakespeare are also too advanced. Why can't children just live their childhood? Why this need to indoctrinate them with PC mania?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 20, 2010 8:44:12 GMT
I find both activities equally disgusting and unnatural. As far as one particular activity is concerned, ladies do NOT possess the natural equipment to penetrate so are forced to resort to object insertion and strapping devices on their body. What nonsense! They aren't forced to do anything. I am afraid it is typical male arrogance to regard penetration as a sine qua non of satisfying sex for a woman.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 20, 2010 11:22:01 GMT
I find both activities equally disgusting and unnatural. As far as one particular activity is concerned, ladies do NOT possess the natural equipment to penetrate so are forced to resort to object insertion and strapping devices on their body. Men and women are two halves of one whole; both are incomplete without the other. That is the law of nature, I am afraid. Whether or not you find it disgusting or even unnatural is not really the point nor is the 'equipment' they have or don't have relevant either. The fact of the matter is that for millions of British people, right reason or none, they would rather have sex with members of their own sex. They want this irrespective of what the rest of us think and to them it is the most natural thing in the World, again irrespective of what we think. They do not see this concept of two male/female havles equaling one hetrosexual whole and there is NOTHING you, Jumbo, Anna or anyone else can do to change that. Gay people are everywhere. They are in the police, army, teaching, medicine, banking, lawyers, sport, arts and everything in between. They are here and they are here to stay. During various times in the past homosexuality has been treated as a serious crime and nothing promoted it. Yet, despite this there are numerous examples of homosexuality in our society. So sweeping it under the carpet did not work. Muslim Countries have the death penalty for homosexuals, yet there are still gay people in these Countries. Can you think of anything that is proven to work? Given that they are here and they cannot or will not change and have been here for hundreds if not thousands of years, why is pretending that they don't exist an option? We have to acknowledge that they exist and we need to teach children that too, given that ten per cent of them will (whatever reason) be gay, don't we have a duty to explain to them what is happening to them?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 20, 2010 11:41:23 GMT
Yes in the "classical fairy tales" there is a "happily ever after", but these stories are full of phantasy and imagination and often so unreal that they can't be taken seriously, even by a child. The "King & King" is just dull dribble with a PC agenda!
What gives you the right to describe anything as 'dull dribble'? What is the 'PC' agenda here? And what makes it 'PC'
In response to your final question you could answer it for yourself, if you looked at the book. The book is linguistically too advanced for pre teen children. The works of Shakespeare are also too advanced. Why can't children just live their childhood? Why this need to indoctrinate them with PC mania?
You miss the point of my question. You said that all books on this subject should be aimed at high school children. My 'why' was directed at why you think that?
Why can't children just live their childhood? Why this need to indoctrinate them with PC mania?
Why do you think throwing the term 'PC' validates a statement? Who is stopping children living their childhood? Who is trying to indoctrinate children? And with what exactly? The notion that some people in society are gay? That is true, millions of people ARE gay and are not going away either? Do you thing pretending otherwise will have the slightest effect on the gay population? I agree that we need to shield children from things before they get to 18. I would ban adverts for childrens toys and I would ban children from church too. I would make it illegal to teach children about the army as well, but real life? Why?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 20, 2010 11:45:58 GMT
two girls aren't doing anything to each other than a normal man wouldn't do. two males are doing something NO real man would ever do What kind of twisted 'logic' is that? So a woman performing oral sex on another woman is morally different than a man having oral with another man? Can you explain the difference in a rational fashion? you've never gotten out much have you? there's NOTHING similar in any way. nonetheless, once again, your lack of reading skills rears its head. i NEVER said that it is morally any less wrong
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 20, 2010 11:53:29 GMT
it is the dishonesty of not teaching them the fact that homosexuality is, at the very best, totally undesirable where the schools are failing the kids. Who gives you the right to decide that this wrong? The 'best' you can up with is 'it is because it is been wrong before and should stay wrong'. Well here is some news for you, homosexuality is part of life and around ten per cent of the population are gay and the evidence points to this being natural for the ten per cent of the population that are homosexual. Not learned, not a choice, not a lifestyle, nothing. Homosexuality cannot be taught, or picked up, it is something that people find out about themselves from an early age. Homosexuality used to be a totally clandestine practice, hidden away and never spoke about, you could go to jail for it in this Country and be totally shunned by society for being gay. Gay people were sacked and suffered attacks and were murdered for being found out. And yet people from early ages still found themselves gay! Despite not having books, fairy tales, Stonewall, gay clubs, gay bars or gay pride marches or any other reference points, thousands of people found themselves attracted to others of the same sex. Famous people from every era were known to be gay, yet these people risked everything. For those of gay tendencies it is normal AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU or anyone else can do about it. You have not been able to stop people being gay for the last two thousand years, even when nothing existed that promoted gayness and there is nothing you can do to stop it now. The good news is, by the same token, the gay lobby cannot turn straight people gay either. So, given that people who (for whatever reason) are gay cannot be stopped being gay and that straight people cannot be converted in gays, what possible benefit can society gain from denying children the facts that they need to understand what is going on in their life? Not having information about homosexuality did not stop Oscar Wilde and thousands like him being gay, so what do you get from stopping a 14 year old gay guy reading about homosexuality? WHAT IS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN PREVENTING CHILDREN GETTING THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE SENSE OF THIER FEELINGS? WHAT IS THAT YOU POSSIBLY GET FROM THAT? quite obviously lad, homos have been around for a long time. so have the measles. you obviously need to learn that such things exist, and learn that bad things are out there, so you can take precautions
|
|