If God is dead because he is meaningless, then so is meaningless sex.

Uh? WTF?

Dead-God has nothing to do with sex nor meaning. Sex has meaning or has not meaning, depending on the individual. Sexual meaning is subjective, driven by biology.

The original reason why religions find sex problematic in general is that promiscuous behaviour is not seen as a good survival strategy (think Sodom and Gomorrah as the classic example).

Yet the 20th century has brought forward that we are biologically driven to procreate. So we must learn to balance the best survival strategy (i.e. monogamy as a positive social behaviour) and a healthy sex life (as a biological necessity).

To me there is no contradiction. And feminism is right in reminding us that promiscuous behaviour is inherently bad.

But the strict get-married-once-in-your-life meme is stupid. Surely one must carefully choose a mate. The current western divorce rate is a reminder that we haven't quite got a grip on that one yet.

Yet there is this nagging feeling in my head that female hair is very disturbing so perhaps we should cover it up with some cloth, or something. ;-)

One thing I learned when I became an atheist is the need NOT to imperialize thougts on actions such as morals/integrity/respect or any other word that has been given a spiritual meaning higher than its definition to another person or group of people. I don't think you have learned this lesson yet. If you don't want to be in a strictly sexual relationship then don't but don't pretend to be qaulified to make a broad statement critizing peoples choices.

Funny thing is, I've only had sex with one woman and that woman is the one I will spend the rest of my life with. However that fact doesn't make my life any better than if i had casual sex with 100 women before that. It makes absolutely no difference.

Hedonism/materialism are wonderful, the first isn't exactly for me but I dont have an insane notion that my feelings should be a moral code for others.

An atheist blog that still practices the supremist theist values.... crazy

I'm going to have to agree with the first two posts here. Just as atheism frees us from the ultimate Purpose purported by religion and let's us choose our own purpose, it also frees us to choose our own attitude toward sex. So thank you kindly for the suggestion RA, though I am already engaged and take my commitment VERY seriously, don't expect that everyone is going to abandon their promiscuous ways.

So now the pieces start to come together. Anti-choice and anti-sex, surprise, surprise, surprise.

I'm in a committed relationship that is also open. My SO and I love the unique sexual experience we have together; we also love the spice that casual sex offers. We understand that its not for everyone. Why can't you realize that your views are the same?

By the way, I've never had meaningless sex. I don't expect a quickie in the back of a car outside a bar to have mind shattering implications, but the sharing of pleasure between two strangers is not meaningless.

RA said: "Women view men who sex dolls, pornography and prostitutes as pathetic, rather than idolizing them for their ability to divorce their feelings from reality."

Do they? How would you know? I've known lots of women who liked pornography and played with sex dolls, toys, etc. I've known women who were more "liberated" than men. Why the broad generalization which obviously isn't true in all cases?

RA: "To seek a sexual partner for mere gratification or release is to reduce a human being to an object, a sex toy, a porn magazine, a prostitute. "

Really? What if I tie my wife up (after she asked me too) and I abuse here like a priest would a schoolboy, does that make her a prostitute or degraded? Does it matter if she likes it? What if I don't like it, but I do it because SHE likes it?

The belief that females of most species, including our own, strongly tend toward sexual fidelity is just as false as claiming that men are more promiscuous. Biology tells us that monogamy is rare in animals, and only a handful of mammals have been considered monogamous.

"Women view men who sex dolls, pornography and prostitutes as pathetic, rather than idolizing them for their ability to divorce their feelings from reality."

Then, what is your problem?

Please don't teach me morals. Keep it for yourself.

Wow, everyone else said pretty much everything I had to say. But let me add this:

Arguing about the values of monogamy vs. casual sex is like arguing over the superiority of chocolate ice cream vs. strawberry. Different people will have different preferences, and there are plenty of other flavors to choose from.

Is there any room for moderation? Why must the choice be either abstinence-till-monogomy or meaningless carnality? Furthermore, for what reason would or should "an atheist"--as though we are part of the same belief system--push for promiscuity over chastity? Just to flip the bird to puritanical theists? Such a claim strikes me as an obvious straw man.

I like the fact that RA has his own mind and opinions, even if I don't always agree with them. It shows that he is a free-thinker which is something I definately aspire to be in my own life. Expressing your opinion on something and stating that others would do well to follow your example and change their lifestyle is not necessarily a "bad" thing. Doing it at the point of a gun is but I don't get the impression from the article that RA is calling for a constitutional amendment banning casual sex.

Does this include anal or what?

I completely agree with RA.

Lets identify something as "good" if it is the most beneficial choice for the individual and society as a whole. Something is "bad" if it the consequences of said action normally lead to negative effects on the individual and society as a whole.

Using these definitions of good and bad, chastity and modesty in the arena of sexual affairs is the best choice because they are more likely to result in a positive outcome for all involved.

There are some people that engage in polygamy and open-sexual relationships and these situations are satisfactory to the individual but much more often than not these situations do not work out.

G.K Chesterton once said: Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

If you substitute the word "Christianity" and replace it with chastity then you will see the point I am trying to make. Remaining chaste and faithful is hard. Following your will and desire wherever it takes you is not. And so we often choose the easiest road for no other reason that the fact that it's easy and doing what is probably best is the hardest thing to do.

That means you're equating something being difficult with something being good.
What makes chastity better? Nothing. Just because its difficult to be chaste doesn't mean its a good thing.
That is soooo christian.......whip me please, the pain makes me better.....

"If you substitute the word "Christianity" and replace it with chastity then . . ."

"Christianity" is not hard. Beleiving in fairy tales and blindly accepting and following the teachings of savages from the past is not difficult at all. The only time people have a hard time following christianity is when they realize how simplistic, savage, unrealistic, and immoral it would is to follow it. Arguing that people don't try christianity because it is hard is like arguing that people don't jump off a cliff head-first--without a parachute--because it is hard. On the contrary, any fool can do that. The smart folks don't jump because they realize the stupidity of the endeavor.

///qedpro said: That means you're equating something being difficult with something being good.////

That statement means that you didn't read what I wrote. I did not say that because something is difficult that it automatically makes it good. I said the the good thing is often the most difficult thing.

////What makes chastity better?/////

The fact you don't have to worry about pregnancy and std's maybe? The fact that you don't have to deal with the other stressors that come along with maintaining a relationship? The fact that the energy being put into a relationship that won't last could be put into something more lasting such as helping the poor, or starting a company or doing something else worthwhile that will not only benefit you but others?

////That is soooo christian.......whip me please, the pain makes me better.....////

My statement was soooo intelligent, which explains why you didn't think of it.

////mycyrus1 said: "If you substitute the word "Christianity" and replace it with chastity then . . ."

"Christianity" is not hard. Beleiving in fairy tales and blindly accepting and following the teachings of savages from the past is not difficult at all. The only time people have a hard time following christianity is when they realize how simplistic, savage, unrealistic, and immoral it would is to follow it. Arguing that people don't try christianity because it is hard is like arguing that people don't jump off a cliff head-first--without a parachute--because it is hard. On the contrary, any fool can do that. The smart folks don't jump because they realize the stupidity of the endeavor.////

Some of you all are so stupid you would chop off your noses to smite your face. You are so eager to talk about religion that you bring it up out of nowhere when that is not even the topic. I know paying attention is hard sometimes but I assure you that it is well worth your effort. My argument is that being chaste is harder than being promiscuous. When one is following every urge they don't have to practice control like when you are chaste.

Can someone argue the merits of the argument intelligently or am I just wasting my time feeding the peanut gallery again?

Using these definitions of good and bad, chastity and modesty in the arena of sexual affairs is the best choice because they are more likely to result in a positive outcome for all involved.

LMAO!!! Yeah! For somepeople! If that's what they really want. Aaahhhh... But now we get into the psychology of things. Let's step back again.

Who is better off? The woman in a relationship where "her man" sleeps with whomever he wants and treats her like a queen? Or the woman who's man does the former but treats her like a fucktard, with no ability to take care of anything but the kids (barely) and His house?

Or

The woman married to an entirely wonderful and caring man who never seems to have any desire for her? Or the woman married to the guy that always wants to fuck but is, well, just okay to have around the house? Like, she doesn't mind him there, but really wishes he'd go hang out with his friends or spend more time at work?

Okay. This could take a while. Y'all got time for a couple hundred million more wildly different types of couples?

Me neither.

Show me some survey stats of thousands of couples which are correlating 1) Individual Happiness, 2) Happiness w/ Spouse a) w/ Sex Life b) w/ non-sex life (integrated what???) 3) happiness and personal success of children (according to income and their answers to the same survey.)

Track the folks over time (you'd need their Family MDs or the like to maintain follow-up.) How does their Health progress? Income? Those "Happiness" questions? Are counseling or divorce occasioned? Do their children fit the ever more accurate profiles for aptitude for personal "success"?

It's pretty soft, though becoming better, science that RA is attempting to bypass in this post. Without being in his head, I can only imagine his motive is fair and I see enough anecdotals to know that, for many people, his reasoning works out fairly soundly indeed. I am in the group for whom sex is sex and gets old fast unless it helps developes into love or for whom love blossoms into sex from an unexpected directions.

There really isn't any way around either of those things. The only issue is whether the two folk involved are in agreement on whatever their personal goals vis-a-vie one another are at the time and for the future. If you're gonna have kids, I'm gung-ho for committment 'til they're, depending upon the family dynamics, about 16 to 20 yo and mature enough to deal with mommy and daddy breakin' up.

Again, you got time for a couple hundred million variations on that theme?

Gimme a fuck-buddy who'll have my back and appreciate me as I love her madly (or sometimes less so, lol but true!) for the rest of my life. Give me love.

But don't go suggesting I lock it down with someone with whom I am just not compatible in the long run. You might as well give me death.

Numbers man! Gimme numbers!

{-;

"Some of you all are so stupid you would chop off your noses to smite your face. You are so eager to talk about religion that you bring it up out of nowhere when that is not even the topic."

Honey, you brought up religion in your post. TRA brought it up in the original post. It's the topic of the blog. How does that escape you?

"To seek a sexual partner for mere gratification or release is to reduce a human being to an object, a sex toy, a porn magazine, a prostitute."

But, libido and love *are* distinct. You can't deny biology, TRA. It is comomon, natural, and normal to be sexually but not emotionally attracted to another person. Loveless sex is part of being human or of any animal. Besides, I like being a sex toy sometimes.

Let's see if this one posts: It's about a true Patriot and a man who knows how family life should be.

errrmmm.... uhhh, or somethin'.

(btw TRA, have I been the lucky "banned biatch of the month" or something? Or do you delete for length of comment? Just curiouser... )

What makes chastity better? The fact you don't have to worry about pregnancy and std's maybe? The fact that you don't have to deal with the other stressors that come along with maintaining a relationship? The fact that the energy being put into a relationship that won't last could be put into something more lasting such as helping the poor, or starting a company or doing something else worthwhile that will not only benefit you but others?"

How is an active sex life and all the things you've listed mutually exclusive? Our society's problem is the way it relegates sex to the status of taboo, the way it turns sex into something dirty and perverted. When a person is made to feel shameful for his or her natural impulses, obsession follows. It's the puritanical repression of sex, and the ignorance it breeds, that's responsible for the glut of pornography, unintended pregnancy, spread of STDs, and all the misdirected energies you're so worried about. Surprise! It's the society we live in now. I'm not saying the solution is unfettered sexual promiscuity. I am saying that when a society matures, when its populace accepts the duty of keeping itself informed, when it practices forethought and moderation, and when each individual takes responsibility for his or her own actions, the negative consequences of sex will drop.

SBW,

Get your head out of your ass, then reread your post, then respond. You brought up "Christianity" and implied that it was hard to follow because it was so god damned right, just like "Chastity." So stop your stupidity and quit cutting off your ugly nose:)

Next thing we know he'll become the Raving Theist.

You are correct about casual sex. However, I fear you are misreading Nietsche. God is not dead in the literal sense, only as it relates to the previous literary descriptions.

I can't put the two words "casual" and "sex" together in any meaningful way anymore. Not when I've tried to conceive children and couldn't when I wanted to, and thought I HAD conceived when it just wasn't "convenient."

Any human action with the power of creating life can't be casual. You can't fire a gun into a crowd of people "casually." You can't have sex casually, unless you are prepared to kill the life you might create, contraceptive methods notwithstanding.

Unless you're prepared for the consequences of a baby, then it's hardly casual sex. I am sad to presume that the other commenters here are prepared to simply stop that beating heart, should they be given the gift of a child!

It took being married to finally get it: sex within marriage is safe and free of any worries of what might happen. Makes it one heck of a lot more pleasurable, too.

Well maybe you can't but I can... Casual Sex.

I dont plan on ever having casual sex but I wish I could have before I met my fiance. There is no mysticism here, casual sex doesn't change a thing.

And abortions are awesome, they are just another medical advancement and human achievement that should be applauded. We have advanced our birth control methods and can now keep woman safer and healthier. I fail to see how an atheist can support abortions, if you dont believe the thing has a spirit, it's just a fetus. A nothing, a know nothing physical manifestation of the body.

////Nokot said: Honey, you brought up religion in your post. TRA brought it up in the original post. It's the topic of the blog. How does that escape you?///

Sugarpie, please reread my original post. The topic is not about christianity, it is about using non-religious definitions of "good" and "bad" to make the case for chastity and faithfulness. I used the quote from G.K Chesterton because I thought that the phrase would be useful if you take Christianity out of the wording. The problem is that certain people saw the word "christianity" and stopped paying attention to everything said afterward and before it.

Furthermore, we are not discussing the topic of this blog, we are discussing the topic of my post. I attempted to explain the case for chasity in non-religious terms yet some people seem hell bent on bringing the subject constantly back to Christian morality. Once again, I am not discussing this issue from a Christian standpoint.

///mycyrus1 said: Get your head out of your ass, then reread your post, then respond. You brought up "Christianity" and implied that it was hard to follow because it was so god damned right, just like "Chastity." So stop your stupidity and quit cutting off your ugly nose:)////

Talking to you is like trying to explain calculus to a third grader. They just don't have mind for it and any attempt will be futile.

"Talking to you is like trying to explain calculus to a third grader."

Wow SBW! I'm surprised that a bird-brain dimwit like you has even heard of calculus. Then I remembered that many parakeets, who couldn't distinguish the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground, could learn to say some words too.

///mycyrus1 said: "Talking to you is like trying to explain calculus to a third grader."

Wow SBW! I'm surprised that a bird-brain dimwit like you has even heard of calculus. Then I remembered that many parakeets, who couldn't distinguish the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground, could learn to say some words too.///

ROFLMAO. Nothing smells as good as the sweet smell of victory. When your opponent can't even argue anymore but is using their last gasps to hurl insults it really is a beautiful thing to witness.

Dearest Jamila,

You really have got to teach me that technique. Not only did you manage to start the insulting--sorry, making fun of Christianity doesn't count as insulting on an atheist forum--you managed to sneer arrogantly at someone else as if they'd started it. You have my admiration. I consider myself an expert at arrogant sneering, but you've completely humbled me.

Respectfully Yours,
Viole Kérinav

LOL! SBW you are amazing! You truely are the victor, but I think you are just smelling your upper lip. Speaking of calculus, I will make no attempt to explain it to you even when you do get to the third grade--five years from now.

Ok, ok, I'll be nice, so I will let this be my last reply to you on on this thread.

////Viole said:Dearest Jamila,You really have got to teach me that technique. Not only did you manage to start the insulting--sorry, making fun of Christianity doesn't count as insulting on an atheist forum--you managed to sneer arrogantly at someone else as if they'd started it. /////

My equally dearest Viole, please go back and reread the comments. Our dear friend mycyrus1 called Christian believers "savages" before I had typed a word to him. I was not the one who began hurling insults in reply to another persons statement that I had not thoroughly read. Most importantly you cannot say that insulting Christianity (and any other religions) and the believers of those religions with slanderous name-calling is valid, yet when the tables are turned and you are the one being insulted the behavior now becomes arrogant sneering. Do unto others and you would have them do unto you. If you or any other atheists on this site do not want to be called names, think twice before you do it to someone else.

I do not have problem with Christianity being critiqued on an atheist website. If I did then I would leave you all to your business. I do have a problem when people think that they will be allowed to make unfounded, slanderous statements and that they should not receive the same replies inkind.

///You have my admiration. I consider myself an expert at arrogant sneering, but you've completely humbled me.////

Coming from you I take this as a compliment. I pride myself on giving as good as I get.

women becoming commodities? a debasement of the human body? a lot abortion-advocating betty friedan would know about these.

Some (not all) religions promote the idea that sex, within or without marriage, is dirty and shameful. Some social systems do likewise. Some religions and social systems celebrate sex, sometimes within marriage, sometimes without, sometimes both. Some religions and social systems promote polygamy, some mongamy, and a few celibacy. For most people, the morality of sex is a reflection of which religion and/or social system they have accepted. Interestingly, even then, many people's sexual activity is at odds with their moral beliefs. Truly, this is not a simple matter of "monogamy is best," much less "monogamy is moral" or "monogamy is natural." I believe all three of these statements are arbitrary. In an evolutionary, biological sense, the purpose of sex is procreation, which may speak to TRA's feelings about abortion and marriage. Even there, however, monogamy is hardly proven best: it is estimated that 18 million of the people in Asia are descendants of Ghenghis Khan, while most of his contemporary males left no descendants alive today.

SBW,
You wrote: "chastity and modesty in the arena of sexual affairs is the best choice because they are more likely to result in a positive outcome for all involved. "

Fine and dandy.

Except on your own blog you boast that your "breasts" are your finest physical attributes.

Your cherished daughter is the result of a now regretted relationship, and your ex-boyfriend had another woman pregnant even while you were hooked up with him.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if your own life has been party central.

But this "strait is the gate" stuff is pretty theoretical, no?

Dr. BDH, I think you've put it best. TRA may feel monogomy is the best perhaps because that is the view of the larger culture that he has grown up with. Hey may have shunned his culture's view on faith, but he seems to harbor some things from his culture still.

The question of whether monogamy is more likely to make people happy than casual sex is an empirical one and should be answered through research. However, if there are some people who claim to be happy when having casual sex, what will we do to them? Tell them they're lying? Or that their happiness is really just an illusion? Honestly, I thought one of the primary benefits of being an atheist was a willingness to answer questions through research and evidence, and to afford each person the right to pursue his or her own happiness.

SBW
////Except on your own blog you boast that your "breasts" are your finest physical attributes.

Your cherished daughter is the result of a now regretted relationship, and your ex-boyfriend had another woman pregnant even while you were hooked up with him.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if your own life has been party central.

But this "strait is the gate" stuff is pretty theoretical, no?////

Perhaps she knows more about this "strait the gate" stuff because she knows the consequences of not.

StupidBlackWoman trolls on an ATHIEST blog and gets all worked up when her superstition is held up for ridicule... me thinks the lady needs a long night of casual sex! I'm sure Choobus and I could tag team it for a few hours this weekend! (as long as she will agree to anal as I'm sure Choobus will insist on it) :P

I find it highly amusing, and somewhat instructive, that the Bible-beaters, and a woman who is, perhaps, the all-time first-place bête noire of Christians, and in particular, the Christian-right "family values" crowd, are tuned to the same radio station on sexuality.

But I guess it just makes sense. Sexuality is universal to human beings. It's the one truly common language, since it can be practiced without formal education. Whether you're just setting the "permissible" terms and limits, or actually prohibiting certain behaviors, everyone is a potential subject for control. Has there ever been a repressive regime that didn't seek to define the "acceptable" boundaries of sexual behavior?

The choice between monogamy and "materialistic libertine hedonism" is a false dichotomy. The funny thing is, Betty Friedan and the theists have found the same agenda useful for promoting opposite ends. For theists, the anti-sex agenda is useful tool for subordination, of women in particular. Friedan, on the other hand, perceives the anti-sex agenda as a useful tool for female liberation. And, even though I find her anti-sex agenda unpalatable, I can't quarrel with its objective.

Hermesten,

There are indeed some aspects of Friedan's objectives I can't quarrel with.

But I'm also damned if I can recognize my own sexual behavior as forming part of Betty's "strangely joyless national compulsion"!!

The sensible response, I think, of many adults to prescriptive theories about sex is pretty much "speak for yourself, sweetie".

Hey herme, quit talkin all smart! you know that we atheist can only understand bathroom stall humor! and where the hell is lucy muff? I miss her gibbering. (and no, the comments of StupidBlkWhore don't count as an appropriate substitute)

This used to be a moderately interesting site to visit, but I won't be wasting time here anymore. The lack of any real insight and the increasingly pedestrian and hackneyed pontificating (as witness this inane and silly posting about sex) has just become tedious.

MBains said:
There really isn't any way around either of those things. The only issue is whether the two folk involved are in agreement on whatever their personal goals vis-a-vie one another are at the time and for the future. If you're gonna have kids, I'm gung-ho for committment 'til they're, depending upon the family dynamics, about 16 to 20 yo and mature enough to deal with mommy and daddy breakin' up.

A very interesting point.

Morality (in the sense that it is conceived with our survival strategy in mind) is nothing else really but guaranteeing that the species survives. And that means of course protecting the children until they are old enough to fend off for themselves.

And then of course there is the classic question: once your children are old enough, why continue to be "moral" ?

Thank you MBains for hitting the target, I couldnt have said it better: monogamy is a better survival strategy... for about 20 years. Then comes the meaningless sex. ;-)

Shane, why should we care? Why not just disappear and leave us all mystified about the great mystery?

I went to my priest and showed RA's post and he told me "tha's fine", then he asked , Why do you go to an atheist site? and I showed him the antiabortionist post. He told me "this is awesome. Looks like a covered christian site. Maybe the Opus Dei is behind, please give me the link!!"

you is right saintyago, RA is align with the christian way on matter of babykill. If he has be seen light of this maybe he wil acept jesi love and understand that jesus is loord. then big joke will be on all you atheist! me will say big ha ha to all then.

and twg, you shits moith about smart black lady. Just because she has baby out of wedding no make her whore. She is now asking to jesus for forgive anyway so you can put your rudeword in hat and then eat the hat. theblack is right about yous all being unable to diss her argument so yous just diss her. Thats be proof that she be more cleverere than you so joke is on you from that!

///Jody Tresidder said: But this "strait is the gate" stuff is pretty theoretical, no?////

///IA_ said:Perhaps she knows more about this "strait the gate" stuff because she knows the consequences of not.////

That pretty much sums it up. And look around people, you don't have to personally experience something when you see it everywhere you turn.

Dearest Jamila,

Personal experience helps. I say this, because sex seems to be one of the most subjective experiences in human nature, probably because it's so universal. I've never known anyone who disliked sex, just certain sexual practices, and partners. That's probably fair enough, but as outside my experience as promiscuity. Not that I think people should refrain from talking about things they haven't experienced; the world would be awfully quiet if they did. Talking is fine. It's moralizing that's idiotic. Sure, I like monogamy, but I'm loyal by nature. Some people like variety.

Which is why I refuse to pretend there's something wrong with casual sex. As with anything else, one should have an understanding of what one is getting into. Abstinence-only education, after all, leads to more of your much-referenced consequences than does comprehensive sex education. However, that's quite different from saying one shouldn't get into it all. I certainly intended to sleep around a bit, though I don't regret not doing so.

I think the whole point here is about control, though. Which is why, Jamila, I don't really consider you a feminist. If telling people what to do, and what not to do, was empowering, women wouldn't have self-esteem problems. Make no mistake, we're still told what to do often enough, and marginalized. Some things we just have to learn for ourselves. How to handle our own sexuality is one of them.

//Viole said: Not that I think people should refrain from talking about things they haven't experienced; the world would be awfully quiet if they did. Talking is fine. It's moralizing that's idiotic.///

I disagree. I don't believe that there is anything wrong with moralizing. I can't think of who said it but there is a famous quote that says, "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything". I believe this to be true. I believe that when people engage in moral relativism it soon disintegrates into thinking that there is no such thing as definite wrong and right and this often further disintegrates into an anything goes mentality. If someone believes in their convictions there is nothing wrong with promoting and explicating those convictions to others. We all have the option to chose not to listen and to make our own morality, but to say that a person who believes morals to be definite is wrong for moralizing is just another form of moralizing itself. You're are saying that your morals ( moral relativism) is better than their morals (moral absolutism).

///Which is why I refuse to pretend there's something wrong with casual sex. As with anything else, one should have an understanding of what one is getting into. ///

To have an understanding of what one is getting into and to be casual concerning the matter are antithetical. When we call someone a casual observer it is because we see that person as having a superficial understanding of the reality of a situation. You can't casually play with a loaded weapon, casually play with someones emotions, or casually play with your sexuality and not expect mayhem to ensue. To be casual with something that is of the utmost seriousness is inviting disaster. One night of casual sex can result in any number of diseases or pregnancy. There is nothing casual about HIV.

If someone has an understanding of what they are getting into and is taking responsible precautions I don't see how their behavior can be called casual.

And of course there are exceptions to every human behavior. Some people have sex on their first date and end up in long-term relationships or married. However for every couple that enters into a sexual relationship responsibly and with their eyes open regarding expections there are dozens of others that end up with std's, unintended pregnancies, or a world of regret. These situations where things end badly are the norm, not the exception.

///I think the whole point here is about control, though. Which is why, Jamila, I don't really consider you a feminist.///

Let me get this straight. You're telling me I'm not a feminist and at the same time talking about control? Oh I get it, the only feminists are the ones that agree with you.

///If telling people what to do, and what not to do, was empowering, women wouldn't have self-esteem problems. Make no mistake, we're still told what to do often enough, and marginalized.///

Like how you just told me that I wasn't a feminist because I don't agree with you? Is that the kind of marginalization that you were referring to? Tragically many feminists today have gotten so far away from what the first feminists were fighting for that they don't even know what the original aims of feminism were. The movement was co-opted in the 60's and 70's by lesbians, upper and middle class white women, and the medical establishment that saw abortion as a cash cow. Many women took the bait hook, line, and sinker and we (women, men, and children) are paying for that mistake now. Some of us still don't see it yet though.

SWB,
You wrote: "If someone believes in their convictions there is nothing wrong with promoting and explicating those convictions to others."

Pretty words, but - and not to get too Clintonesque here - what exactly do you mean by "believe"? Or indeed "conviction"? Or "promoting" for that matter?

You represent yourself - here and on your own blog - as a spunky single mother who got knocked up by a guy who wasn't your husband and who already had a pregnant ex-girlfriend.

So your own circumstances don't "promote" the "convictions" you claim to hold dear.

So all we are left with is your "belief" in a bunch of scolding platitudes, and some childish swipes at an evil triumvirate of posh white chicks, doctors and lesbians?

oh lucy, you had me at shits moith! i have a big loveing for you and i'm glad to see you back. i was a-skeered you had left! but now i see that jesus is lord and he wants me and you to run off to jamaica together this weekend. I'll pick you up at 8.

I disagree. I don't believe that there is anything wrong with moralizing. I can't think of who said it but there is a famous quote that says, "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything". I believe this to be true. I believe that when people engage in moral relativism it soon disintegrates into thinking that there is no such thing as definite wrong and right and this often further disintegrates into an anything goes mentality. If someone believes in their convictions there is nothing wrong with promoting and explicating those convictions to others. We all have the option to chose not to listen and to make our own morality, but to say that a person who believes morals to be definite is wrong for moralizing is just another form of moralizing itself. You're are saying that your morals ( moral relativism) is better than their morals (moral absolutism).

Not really. As RA points out, that would require an absolute. Moral relativism is just more based in facts. Absolutism is just wishful thinking. Sure, I'd love it if everyone treated each other with respect and kindness, but Jamila, we're living in a capitalist would. Screwing other people is our way of life. If there is any economic system which requires moral relativism, it's capitalism. As RA pointed out correctly, sexuality in popular society has increased, and it's made us nearly immune to the small doses of earlier years.

Your conviction that unless everyone does as you say, society will collapse into anarchy reminds me of something out of low-grade christian apologetics.

To have an understanding of what one is getting into and to be casual concerning the matter are antithetical.
When we call someone a casual observer it is because we see that person as having a superficial understanding of the reality of a situation. You can't casually play with a loaded weapon, casually play with someones emotions, or casually play with your sexuality and not expect mayhem to ensue. To be casual with something that is of the utmost seriousness is inviting disaster. One night of casual sex can result in any number of diseases or pregnancy. There is nothing casual about HIV.

It's possible to be casual and careful at the same time. You seem rather tightly-wound, to me, so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject. I've gone through life with a laissez-faire attitude, taking care of causes when I could, and consequences when I had to. It works well enough. Excessive caution is probably safe, but it's also dull.

"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow."
-Albert Einstein.

[F]or every couple that enters into a sexual relationship responsibly and with their eyes open regarding expections there are dozens of others that end up with std's, unintended pregnancies, or a world of regret. These situations where things end badly are the norm, not the exception.

Which is precisely why people need more opportunities to learn about themselves. The average American citizen, cooped up in their safe little lives, ends up just as silly and ignorant as when they were born. They're just cogs in a machine. Excuse me if I don't respect that.

///I think the whole point here is about control, though. Which is why, Jamila, I don't really consider you a feminist.///
Let me get this straight. You're telling me I'm not a feminist and at the same time talking about control? Oh I get it, the only feminists are the ones that agree with you.

Something like that. As I pointed out, feminists don't agree on everything. However, someone who pines for a past that was somehow 'better' or 'more secure' lacks an understanding as to the past, and an unwillingness to strive for a better future. The former is common enough, even among those who don't have a vague sense that things were 'better back then.' The later is the mark of a conservative. Unless I'm very much mistaken, we've not made enough progress to have conservative feminists.

However, if I were trying to label you, I'd have said straight out that you aren't a feminist. Call yourself what you will, but I'll reserve the right to call you what I think is more appropriate. If anyone can be a feminist, then I'm a christian.

///If telling people what to do, and what not to do, was empowering, women wouldn't have self-esteem problems. Make no mistake, we're still told what to do often enough, and marginalized.///
Like how you just told me that I wasn't a feminist because I don't agree with you? Is that the kind of marginalization that you were referring to?

Have I tried to tell you what to do? Have I marginalized you in some way? Am I marginalizing Bush if I point out he isn't a conservative, with his rampant spending and abuse of executive powers?

Tragically many feminists today have gotten so far away from what the first feminists were fighting for that they don't even know what the original aims of feminism were. The movement was co-opted in the 60's and 70's by lesbians, upper and middle class white women, and the medical establishment that saw abortion as a cash cow. Many women took the bait hook, line, and sinker and we (women, men, and children) are paying for that mistake now. Some of us still don't see it yet though.

This is more what I was talking about. Fortunately, I'm used to people thinking I'm evil, and generally dismiss them as ignorant gits. I've heard this before, of course. If only the homely women had been asked out to prom, and not just the hot ones! You're just barely short of saying women shouldn't be allowed to work outside the home. I'm not sure what you think feminism is supposed to stand for, but you've definite managed a surprisingly idiotic logical fallacy, here. My half-hearted no true scotsman argument has nothing on your amazing suggestion that the entire feminist movement is not a feminist movement at all.

And then, of course, we have your arrogant presumption that you know better than anyone else.

Medical establishment seeing abortion as a cash cow? That must be why I can walk into any hospital or clinic and order up an abortion for dollars, no questions asked!

Oh, wait, SBW is just a moron.

yeah, i think Viole proved that quite nicely

///Viole said: Not really. As RA points out, that would require an absolute. Moral relativism is just more based in facts. Absolutism is just wishful thinking. Sure, I'd love it if everyone treated each other with respect and kindness, but Jamila, we're living in a capitalist would. Screwing other people is our way of life. If there is any economic system which requires moral relativism, it's capitalism. As RA pointed out correctly, sexuality in popular society has increased, and it's made us nearly immune to the small doses of earlier years.///

I think that there is a marked difference between recognizing that there will always be those in our society that take advantage of others and between saying "screwing other people is our way of life". This sort of belief system reflects the attitude of many of the second wave feminists that the only way for them to achieve success within the culture was to screw other people (namely lower class women and those women that dared to disagree with them) in the way that men were in many ways screwing women in general. I don't believe that women or men just have to accept that we live in a society that endorses screwing other people over.

//Your conviction that unless everyone does as you say, society will collapse into anarchy reminds me of something out of low-grade christian apologetics.///

I never said that everyone had to do as I said and I never used the word anarchy. As a whole, everyone would be better off if our society encouraged chastity and modesty as much as it encouraged permissive sexuality. I don't make up the statistics for abortion, out of wedlock births, child abuse, divorce, and std infection. To deny that these things are highly correlated if not directly caused by lack of sexual mores is to choose to ignore the facts.

//It's possible to be casual and careful at the same time.///

No, its not. I staunchly disagree.

///You seem rather tightly-wound, to me, so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.///

I say the same thing about you, except I don't forgive ignorance on the subject. I think that you should read a bit more about feminism, especially the writing of authors such as bell hooks and the original feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Wollencraft.

//I've gone through life with a laissez-faire attitude, taking care of causes when I could, and consequences when I had to. It works well enough. Excessive caution is probably safe, but it's also dull.///

I never used the word excessive either. I said that one should be aware of the seriousness of their actions and the consequences too. There are plenty of people that have made it through life with a laissez-faire attitude and they are doing fine and there are plenty of others that did the same thing and it ended up costing them dearly. Those people that manage to make it through life successfully and never take at least some things seriously are the minority and they do not reflect th