--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_y..., "IceBurgh69" <Iceburgh69_at_s...> wrote:
> I belong to a religion where sex is worship, God drinks beer with
you, etc.
> I'm not going to go out of my way to show my kids an issue of
Playboy, but
> if my kids find them, we'll talk about sexuality, sensuality, etc.
I'm not
> going to expose them to it deliberately, but I'm not going to say
that it's
> a bad thing either. I was exposed to sex rather early, and while it
did
> cause me a few problems (being exposed to it is one thing, trying it
out
> when you're 6-7 years old with someone the same age/gender or both
as you is
> quite another), I am still a virgin (no penetration happened). I was
exposed
> to a lot of things when I was young: violence, hate, sex, etc. None
of it
> was deliberate, but I had to work around things. I'm still a violent
person
> who's desperately trying not to be, and it has nothing to do with
sexual
> repression. I still view sex as a form of worship. I can't think of
anything
> more beautiful, satisfying, or practical as a form of worship. Why
is it
> that the organized religions can't seem to figure this out? I can
never
> understand this? In the story of Adam and Eve, how is it that their
nudeness
> was shameful? THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE THERE! Just them and God, and
God didn't
> care, otherwise he'd've given them clothes in the first place!
THAT's why
> sex is considered evil and a sin. Because to be nude is shameful.
News
> flash! You're nude when you take a bath or shower, you're nude when
you're
> born! Was nudity an issue when you're 3 hours old? Does it make a
> difference? Hell no! And people ask me why I don't follow an
organized
> religion. Inconsistencies, contradictions, even with God it seems.
In the
> Old Testament, he punished people left and right. In the new, he's a
> forgiving, loving god. Now, when "sexual deviancy" (I'm talking
pedophilia,
> necrophilia, etc) is much higher than it was in Sodom and Gamora, he
does
> nothing. These are my own beliefs, though. If they cause you to
question,
> fine. If not, fine. If they cause you to flame, take it off-list, my
email's
> in the header. I like what I believe in, which is rather common
sense
> anyway.
>
> Live to love, love to live. I apologize for the rant, but it seems
that the
> flood-gates have opened. Censorship is a controversial issue, and
I'm of the
> firm opinion of "If you don't like it, stop looking."
>
> SeaWolvn1
>
> -----------------------------
>
> I don't think censorship is a good idea either. So many people have
been
> conditioned to react strongly to exposed naughty bits that it's both
> ridiculous and horribly sad. In my view teaching children that
sexuality
> and even sensuality is shameful is emotional violence against
children
> with longer lasting effects than most other types of abuse. The
fact is
> that many people, and especially people who consider themselves
religious,
> have been conditioned to believe that genitals are a shameful
thing and
> that explicit art is inherently dirty.
>
> When it is suppressed sexuality tends to come out in far more
violent ways.
> If you look at societies that suppress sexuality the most you'll
see
> that they are also the most violent. The US is a good example of
that.
> It's a society where, as was said earlier in this thread, extreme
violence
> is far more acceptable than simple sexuality or even nudity. Groups
come
> out to protest and use political pressure to push adult shops into
the
> very worst neighborhoods to 'keep them in their place'. The
Attorney
> General, John Ashcroft spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover
the
> aluminum nipple of a deco statue because it offended the religious
> sensibilities he is trying to impose on the entire country
(unsuccessfully
> in Oregon). It is a country that in the past imposed puritanical
ideas on
> other countries like Japan after WWII. It is also a country which
> projects the needs of the corporations it serves by military force
and the
> overthrow of democratic governments (the war over oil in Afganistan,
the
> failed overthrow in Venezuela, and the impending invasion of Iraq
being
> good examples). The expression of natural sexuality is considered a
> serious a problem while killing civilians for the sake of cheap oil
is no
> big deal. That's really fucked up.
>
> Above all children must be kept ignorant at all costs, which is
seriously
> fucking up the next generation. At least now with the internet and
the
> thankfully pitiful state of filtering software they can't be
prevented
> from exploring as easily as was once possible.
>
> Jim's art is beautiful and his realistic genitals are a major part
of that
> beauty. Personally I see temporarily veiling the explicit nature of
art
> as a necessary evil if it might encourage people to be more open
minded
> about art. In the case of this very beautiful picture the spectre
of
> zoophilia might also be seen to be implied, which brings out an
especially
> virulent brand of wrath in many people.
>
> If Jim objects I'll hard delete everything, burn my hard drive, etc.
:)
> That's also why why I suggested the other work that might be more
> acceptable to people who are likely to be freaked by evil exposed
nipples
> and realistic genitalia.
>
> Sorry about the rant.
>
> I very much approve also. I would never join any religious
organization
> whose members would object to his art or to sexuality in general,
furry or
> not. To do otherwise is to use doublethink for the sake of
acceptance,
> IMO.
Concerning your statement about why Religion views nudity and Sex as
evil. I find that the best answer is that it is a way for a religion
to control its members and others by claiming that it is a sinful act
and should be ashamed of. Other then that there is no true reason why
sex or nudity should be viewed as evil or sinful because it is not.
and now i'm experiencing a strong sense of deja Vu. *shakes head a bit
and tries to re-orient himself*
Rial276
Received on Wed May 01 2002 - 00:38:58 CDT