Sex (Yet another split topic)

[Court]

Hell, I'm sure a lot of people would be flattered that they were the primary subject of someone's fantasy.

Shit, I would. Even if it was merely as a "sexual object" and not a person.

Not every action requires active conscious thought. Many small things people do throughout the day are not thought about. I constantly crack my knuckles. Usually, I don't actually think about what I'm doing. I know, it isn't the type of complex action you are probably alluding to, but it is an action nonetheless and should be mentioned.

Good point. I didn't think of that.

I agree with everything you said, Jassman. As a whole, I've noticed that atheists have a much healthier view of sex and "forbidden thoughts" than christians (or any religious followers).

[Court]

I don't think either are wrong. The initial thought and the longer fantasy are both completely harmless to the woman on the street (she isn't even aware it's going on).

That wasn't my point.  YOU are aware of it and it's the YOU that I am concerned with not the other person.  I am not speaking of you directly just in the figurative sense in the story.  Sin begins and ends in the heart not the action was my point.

Okay, I get that. But I think "sin" is a man-made concept used to keep the masses in line, so of course I won't agree that fantasizing is harmful, even to yourself. *Shrug* It's normal, and I've never noticed it harming my relationships with anyone.
If you have to use some willpower to keep yourself from acting out your fantasies, then there's a problem. But a sexual fantasy about a stranger? I don't see the problem, even if you are in a relationship with someone else. You wouldn't even consider actually approaching that stranger, so there's no risk.
I can, however, think of situations where fantasy could harm a relationship. But I think a person should be able to tell for themselves the difference between an innocent fantasy and a harmful one.

[Jassman]

And would the fantasy really make even so much as a ripple in the world? Would it cause me to make different choices with my life or to view the people I come across day to day differently or with any less respect? I doubt it. I doubt it would change a single thing.

[Jassman]

As a whole, I've noticed that atheists have a much healthier view of sex and "forbidden thoughts" than christians (or any religious followers).

I agree. And I should, I'm an atheist.    The Christians would beg to differ though. They see their view as the healthy one...

The "thought crime" subject is a very intriguing one to me. Actually, anything that has to do with the inner workings of the human mind and how it gathers/moves/deletes thoughts and ideas really interests me. My mind is curious as to how it works I guess (what a strange situation if you stop and think about it).

What was interesting was at the last place I worked, when a lot of people's breaks coincided at the same time, we had the "thought crime" debate. It was split right down the religious/non-religious line of whether thoughts could be wrong or not. I don't believe there was a single exception. The religious people wanted to monitor their thoughts extensively and the atheists didn't see anything wrong with merely thinking about something.

[iplaw]

The religious people wanted to monitor their thoughts extensively and the atheists didn't see anything wrong with merely thinking about something.

It's because religious people tend to believe that deliberate (thought I would be specific) actions follow thoughts and never the reverse.  So to stop a stupid or harmful action you deal with the thought that precedes it.  As I stated yesterday, classical Viktor Frankel philosophy.

[Jassman]

It is possible to regulate exactly which thoughts are going to be carried out without killing off thoughts that might be dangerous if acted upon though. I'm not sure how well I can explain it with text, but I'll try.

The Christian idea would be to just kill off any thoughts that could pose a threat or to otherwise cause some kind of sin.

My view is to let thoughts run where they may, distinctly flagging thoughts that are not to be turned into actions but still allowing them to coexist with your "universally acceptable" thoughts in your mind. It allows more freedom I think, and ultimately the "bad" thoughts can be altered and possibly help you to achieve something creative.

Maybe this post sounds like an acid trip to everyone but me, but it is sometimes very difficult changing abstract concepts that only exist in my mind into English words. Sorry if it came out unintelligible.

[Court]

No, I get what you're saying. We are limited by our language, which makes me think of this very interesting discussion I once had in a class about how our thoughts and physical perceptions are limited by linguistics. Anyhow, I digress.

I understand that thoughts often precede action. I don't even disagree with you on it. But if I have a yummy fantasy about the pool boy, I don't think I should actively repress it unless I know something physical will become of it. Surely christians are not so weak-willed as to honestly want to bow to their every random thought? Of course not. You should be able to discern what thoughts are dangerous--as someone said earlier, those that are "plans," instead of mere fantasies. So, if the fantasy is adultery, then that means that you want to physically act out the fantasy, unlike my pool boy thoughts.

[Jassman]

No, I get what you're saying. We are limited by our language, which makes me think of this very interesting discussion I once had in a class about how our thoughts and physical perceptions are limited by linguistics. Anyhow, I digress.

I've had a conversation about that subject and one about my theories on how the mind probably functions with a good friend. It was absolutely fascinating. I think it lasted almost 4 hours (due to a few too many beers I think). I'd like to have many more discussions about that (it helps to form a more objective view by being allowed to peer into other peoples' minds once in awhile), but it seems that most people I know aren't interested in conversations as deep as the ones I crave.

I understand that thoughts often precede action. I don't even disagree with you on it. But if I have a yummy fantasy about the pool boy, I don't think I should actively repress it unless I know something physical will become of it.

Yeah, I think we do have the same opinion with this. I don't think thought repression is a good idea either.

Surely christians are not so weak-willed as to honestly want to bow to their every random thought? Of course not. You should be able to discern what thoughts are dangerous--as someone said earlier, those that are "plans," instead of mere fantasies. So, if the fantasy is adultery, then that means that you want to physically act out the fantasy, unlike my pool boy thoughts.

I don't think the Christians really believe that free thought is as dangerous as they say it is. It just becomes another "Look what kind of monster I would be if I didn't have Jesus in my life!" Most of them don't give themselves enough credit. They see themselves as horrible, sinful beings that constantly need guidance. I see them as decent people who attribute all of their positives to a man in the sky and all of their negatives to themselves.

[Court]

I'd like to have many more discussions about that (it helps to form a more objective view by being allowed to peer into other peoples' minds once in awhile), but it seems that most people I know aren't interested in conversations as deep as the ones I crave.

Ugh, me too. The only person I can have conversations like that with is my best friend/boyfriend. But we don't live close to each other, so all of our conversations are via AIM.

I see them as decent people who attribute all of their positives to a man in the sky and all of their negatives to themselves.

This is certainly true. I did the same thing when I was a christian, myself. It gives you a very screwed up self-concept.

[Jassman]

Ugh, me too. The only person I can have conversations like that with is my best friend/boyfriend. But we don't live close to each other, so all of our conversations are via AIM.

Yeah, it's funny that everytime me and one of my friends hang out we start hitting all the touchy subjects *bang* *bang* one after another and no one else wants to touch our conversations with a ten foot pole. Religion, politics, morality, race/sex societal double standards... all the big ones. Then after it's all over, someone comes over and starts talking about something trivial like "favorite foods" and it seems so pointless by comparison.

It feels like about the difference between a blizzard and a sauna when you go directly from "Does God exist?" to "What pizza franchise makes the best pizza?", haha...

Still, I feel I don't have nearly enough opportunities for "real" conversation. This is where internet forums come in I guess.

[Court]

I know what you mean. I feel like I'm always trying to open the bag of worms, so to speak, on these forums. I want to talk about the controversial, taboo things, the things that matter. I don't get to do it that much in real life.

[iplaw]

The reason I choose not to debate topics like this very often is as soon as more than 3 join in it spins into oblivion and down a thousand rabbit trails, especially if christians and atheists are involved as they are coming from radically different places philosophically.  I feel that discussions about these topics are better served in a one on one setting.  It gets too confusing when multiple people are involved in the conversation.

[Court]

Well, you can always just pull us back to the topic at hand. (I'm waiting for someone to do that, actually. I'd like more response on this thread.) I personally like it with more than two people, because on topics like this more than two perspectives is better. It provides for a much better discussion.

[Eowyn]

[color=#] [/color] Several years ago when I was a catholic christian, I began suffering from severe RA in my hips and knees.  I would have horrible flares that would make it very difficult for me to walk/stand/sit comfortably. During these flares I would spend a lot time in bed in pain. These times were incredibly painful, frustrating, and left me with a lot of depression.  One of the only things that would lift my spirits/make the pain less perceivable was masturbation.  And I would put myself in a guilty hell over doing it because I saw myself as a nice christian girl who shouldn't do such things.  During this painful time, I would also pray(in tongues, no less) for hours and hours to God for him to aleviate my pain/heal me and to please forgive me for my masturbation.  Well the healing never happened because as we all know, sky daddy doesn't heal even amputees.  Years later, I am still suffering from RA.  But the good that came from being bedridden like that was that I began to question what kind of "real" god would allow me to be in that type of pain and then frown on what I did to relieve my pain.  From there, I began questioning all aspects of my faith from why are there so many discrepancies in the Bible to are we really drinking Jesus's blood during communion.  I am now a nonbeliever and have never been happier.

[Asmodean Prime]

sad.