On Nov 23, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
So those who engage in group encounters are unhealthy? Extended
intimacy partnership groups are unhealthy? People who have sex in order
to enjoy sex -- not to express love, but just for the fun of it -- are
also engaging in unhealthy sexual contact?
Cite your proofs, please.
Well, we could start with the wealth of literature on sexual addictions.
You need to remember, my wife is a psychotherapist who has specialized in
incest survivors and sexual abuse.
I didn't say anything about sexual addictions, incest or abuse. I'm not sure why you believe that consenting individuals engaging in group encounters (swingers activity?) or casual sex are somehow victims of incest or molestation, or why you think they're sex addicts.
Your wife's expertise really doesn't answer my questions, either; nor does it qualify as a citation of source material.
It seems abundantly clear to me that you have associated sex (the types of which you disapprove, at any rate) with pernicious deeds -- I listed two activities (group sex, casual sex) in which many very well balanced adults have participated in various venues since the beginning of recorded history, and you more or less instantly made the leap between such healthy, consenting behavior and several unfortunate circumstances that might or might not contribute to maladjusted sexual mores.
Sex that is based on power, dominance, determining one's self worth by one's sexual marketability, or the use of other people as tools for self-gratification is unhealthy.
So two (or more!) consenting adults engaging in SM or bondage are also performing unhealthy activity?
Prostitution is unhealthy?
Yup....a disproportionate number of prostitutes, and strippers for that
matter, have been the victim of childhood sexual abuse. Or, do you think
its OK for a parent to have sex with their 5 year old girl?
As pointed out by Dave, you're going rather egregiously ad hominem here. I won't even bother responding to your outrageous demi-accusing question.
As to the "disproportionate number" -- to the extent that people have poor self-images, you will almost always find those people engaged in self-destructive behavior. I submit that it is social opprobrium which is truly at fault when prostitutes have low self-image issues and so on. In the US we consider prostitutes to be "fallen women" (it is even this stigma that was attached to Mary Magdalene by the early Catholic church in order to minimize her importance to the canonical gospels); in other cultures, in other places and times, this was not the case.
As an example of the celebration of sexuality as a healthy expression of human joy, I can specifically point to India's famous Kama Sutra. It seems extremely unlikely to me that a book would have been produced for study and so on if sex were considered a terrible thing, or if its practice were genuinely bad for the participants.
In other words, I really strongly suspect you've got a heavy dose of cultural bias; and on top of that I think you've been further convinced that all forms of sex (save a few of which you approve) are a priori bad and/or performed only be people whom you believe to be unhealthy in some significant way.
For that matter, masturbation's out too?
Never said that; doesn't fit my definition.
That was meant to be a little wry. It is a form of self-gratification -- sex for the simple pleasure of it with no long-term commitment implied. Technically it's homosexuality. It seems to me a very short leap from considering casual sex bad to considering masturbation bad as well.
Again, cite your proofs, please.
Out of curiosity, is it that you are unaware of the vast literature on this
subject, feel that the literature is wrong?, or have read a different set
of literature than I have?
I believe the literature to which you refer is deeply rooted in a cultural presupposition. However, apart from the web sites you sent (thanks; I'll look them over), I haven't seen cite references. I produce them when asked to do so. Why didn't you until someone else asked for the same thing?
Another way of looking at it is seeing how healthy/unhealthy sexual relationships affect families. Monogamous sex, that serves as a glue in a long standing relationship helps to provide a stable environment in which children grow up.
So a parenting group must engage in sex in order to remain stable? Or
No, but studies on intimacy in marriage indicate that an active sex life
between the parents helps with the intimacy and thus promotes a healthy
climate in which children are raised.
But there you've got a "fine line" problem -- how much sex is too much? Furthermore, I think you might have a correlation/causation misinterpretation here. IOW, is it an active sex life that helps with intimacy, or is it instead a *symptom* of that intimacy? (Or -- most probably -- both?)
The point is that a blanket assertion that sex in a marriage is necessary, or even healthy, is simply not true.
are you suggesting instead that only monogamous couples are capable of engaging in healthy sex? (And that, therefore, group parenting is unhealthy.)
You mean like the old communes and the Hari Krishna's?
No.
Or, to look at more common occurrences, lets consider blended families.
Blended families can work, it's just harder. Literature written by people
who advocate the possibility of healthy blended families usually
acknowledge that its more work to have a healthy blended family than it is
to have a healthy nuclear family....assuming that there are people of good
will are involved in both. Extended families are different, of course.
Again, cite the literature. Are these studies done only in nations that assume monogamous couples? How much social bias it at play when we talk about how hard/easy it is for a blended family to maintain a good stable environment?
This also implies that a single parent is either performing unhealthy sex or is providing an unhealthy environment for his/her children. (Or both.) Is this what you intend to suggest?
Well, it is better for children to have both parents in the house in a loving stable relationship than to have an absent parent with the other parent trying to cope by themselves.
Better by whose definition? What if one of the parents is abusive?
It is *not* "better" in all cases for a child to have two parents.
When divorce does occur, the
children tend to do better if the custodial parent (let's assume its the
mom as it usually is) sex life is part of a new stable relationship than if
a different man comes out of mommy's bedroom every weekend.
Have you looked at why that might or might not be the case?
Measuring one's manhood by how many different women one
has "gotten" or how many children one isn't supporting by these various
women is not healthy.
Under whose rules?
If you assume that children growing up with a sense of self worth, the
ability to form relationships with others, and a solid economic situation
is a good thing, then it is simply deducible from observation.
Under, again, whose rules? You are once more declaring absolutes when in truth you're dealing with "facts" that are very, very socially relative.
If you
don't, and don't worry about them, or about the mothers, then I guess you
may not see a problem.
I don't know why you seem to think I don't care about kids, or parents, or why you seem to think I advocate incest or molestation, but I'll tell you it's pretty g*ddamned offensive. At least when you claim I "insulted" you I can honestly say I didn't intend to.
Or, are you arguing that you see no problem with the social structure in ghettos.
Are you seriously suggesting that the problems in ghettoes are brought about by sex?
Having an affair with a young women that is much closer to one's daughter's age than to one's own is not healthy.
Based upon what factual, immutable, inarguable criteria?
Good for the kids, that sort of thing. For those who don't care for other
people...particularly children, I'll admit that my arguments are less than
persuasive. I've assumed that you consider that an inherently worthwhile
objective, but I admit that was an assumption. If I am wrong, I'll be
happy to be corrected.
No, but when you go ad hominem like this (third time in one "argument"), it's very hard to assume you have actual facts on your side. This is little more than hand-waving in an attempt to discredit my "character" -- that is, you're trying to paint me as a heartless villain who's pro-child rape so you can assert my opinions do not matter.
The problem is that I am not such a villain, and to a very large degree all you've managed to produce is a load of gas. That you stoop to such tactics says a great deal about the value not of my arguments, but of yours.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
