While I have actively not taken part in any sexual activity for an extremely extensive period of time, I can’t really say I dissapprove of sex. I think that sex is fine, it’s good work out, and it’s something that two people who love each other should practice as part of their romance. Given not the key to it, but something that is definately part of it.
You can argue the reasoning behind people’s motives for sex, and I could mostly agree with them. But you have to take into accountability that there are those people out there that practice it without the sake of ego.
You also have to understand that the birthing process isn’t an extension of ego. In fact the birth of a child can very well be the bayne of the parent’s existance. Not the child mind you, but the mistake the two made when they decided “Hey.. us together make less than 12$ a year!! let’s make babies!!” While a child can also bring happiness. The idea that two people can bring and aid life into this world is possibly one of the greatest experiences any one person can have. This is of course speaking idealistically, and this isn’t an ideal world. Though understand there are people that are trying.
I think maybe you shouldn’t make the same mistake I make in almost every ranty lj entry I make. There are no absolutes in this world, and of all things, sex is definately not one of them.
You’re right on all points. It just seems so tempting to follow the crowd and take an absolute stance on something/anything.
Like the political blogs, which meander into sectors of the writer’s psyche which I’m probably better off not coming across in the first place (mind you, that’s in both directions).
Of course, the fringes who advocate absolute stances are much more interesting to watch than the actual politicians, who (no matter what they say at the moment) are all products of the status quo simply by participating in the process (which is of the status quo’s creation), even if they’re members of the Libertarian Party. But the politicians, who shift and flip-flop as many times as they need to in order to retain their seat, are often much more sane about themselves and others (even those with whom they may disagree and even oppose in debate or on the ballot), and are much less likely to say stupid crap in public and mean what they say (yes, even Cynthia “Poofyhead” McKinney. She changes just as much as George Wallace, post-assassination attempt).
Is this anti-sex stance a bit rash? Is it knee-jerk reactionism to all the universally-pervasive sexpolitik? Pretty much.
But absolutes are so tempting, they satisfy our need for black-and-white borders set in concrete, for security against the unstable. Yet, when it all comes down, those borders are only distortions, and the security is breached.
I guess that’s the big irony about it. Security promises protection, but makes you fragile and weak, while Instability promises nothing, but makes you tough and strong.
Which one should I take? Which one would you take?
While I have actively not taken part in any sexual activity for an extremely extensive period of time, I can’t really say I dissapprove of sex. I think that sex is fine, it’s good work out, and it’s something that two people who love each other should practice as part of their romance. Given not the key to it, but something that is definately part of it.
You can argue the reasoning behind people’s motives for sex, and I could mostly agree with them. But you have to take into accountability that there are those people out there that practice it without the sake of ego.
You also have to understand that the birthing process isn’t an extension of ego. In fact the birth of a child can very well be the bayne of the parent’s existance. Not the child mind you, but the mistake the two made when they decided “Hey.. us together make less than 12$ a year!! let’s make babies!!” While a child can also bring happiness. The idea that two people can bring and aid life into this world is possibly one of the greatest experiences any one person can have. This is of course speaking idealistically, and this isn’t an ideal world. Though understand there are people that are trying.
I think maybe you shouldn’t make the same mistake I make in almost every ranty lj entry I make. There are no absolutes in this world, and of all things, sex is definately not one of them.
You’re right on all points. It just seems so tempting to follow the crowd and take an absolute stance on something/anything.
Like the political blogs, which meander into sectors of the writer’s psyche which I’m probably better off not coming across in the first place (mind you, that’s in both directions).
Of course, the fringes who advocate absolute stances are much more interesting to watch than the actual politicians, who (no matter what they say at the moment) are all products of the status quo simply by participating in the process (which is of the status quo’s creation), even if they’re members of the Libertarian Party. But the politicians, who shift and flip-flop as many times as they need to in order to retain their seat, are often much more sane about themselves and others (even those with whom they may disagree and even oppose in debate or on the ballot), and are much less likely to say stupid crap in public and mean what they say (yes, even Cynthia “Poofyhead” McKinney. She changes just as much as George Wallace, post-assassination attempt).
Is this anti-sex stance a bit rash? Is it knee-jerk reactionism to all the universally-pervasive sexpolitik? Pretty much.
But absolutes are so tempting, they satisfy our need for black-and-white borders set in concrete, for security against the unstable. Yet, when it all comes down, those borders are only distortions, and the security is breached.
I guess that’s the big irony about it. Security promises protection, but makes you fragile and weak, while Instability promises nothing, but makes you tough and strong.
Which one should I take? Which one would you take?
As always, I’m confused.
the grey area is fun and has cookies.