BF2S Forums Sexual Repression Is The Root of All Evil.

I wouldn't say that every sadistic murderer is the spawn of some sort of repressed sexuality, but it could explain some. Why is the world so fucked up and violent? That question doesn't have one answer. It is a number of things, and how they affect and influence people to behave the way they do.

Hurricane wrote:

Can someone condense those last 3 links for me? I've been studying the history of Middle Eastern conflict all day and don't feel like reading long shit now =/

Sure;
screw often, but get the gender match right for a healthy happy you.

Kmarion wrote:

This is why I am and advocate for porn..lol
Some creeps can't get laid so it keeps the world a safer place.

Even twisted, abnormal porn that tempts psychos into trying the real thing?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-08 17:44:53)

The root of ALL evil?

ATG wrote:

LMFAO          Today 18:48:57      +1      Sexual Repression Is The Root of All Evil.      All Hail Thy King of the Liberals. -

HAHAHAHA someone is a noob to the forums. LOL

If repression of these desires is bad and creates evil, what is the alternative?  Bishop started off attracted to little boys and then used porn to feed his thoughts and eventually ended up acting out his sick desires.  In his case, I think repression would have been a better option.  No, I'm not accusing you of advocating letting men touch little boys, so what do you think a viable alternative would be to repression?

Stingray24 wrote:

If repression of these desires is bad and creates evil, what is the alternative?  Bishop started off attracted to little boys and then used porn to feed his thoughts and eventually ended up acting out his sick desires.  In his case, I think repression would have been a better option.  No, I'm not accusing you of advocating letting men touch little boys, so what do you think a viable alternative would be to repression?

I know this was mostly directed at ATG, but I'll wager an option.

I think Bishop and others like him are probably people who were either abused early in life and need counseling, or...  they are people that were not properly exposed to the concept of sex.  Maybe Bishop was someone raised under the idea that sex was so taboo that the pressure itself twisted him.

It's hard to say, but assuming the second possibility, I think it's better to have a rational and realistic conversation about sex with your teens as they grow up.  Maybe if Bishop had discussed something like this with his parents back then, he wouldn't have become so perverse later on.

I think the greatest mistake most parents make in judgment is that it's not always a good thing to treat something as an ultimate taboo.  To shun something like sex in a very harsh way only encourages some kids to rebel against the idea.  It makes more sense to provide a logical argument against a certain behavior.  This is why I condone the DARE program, for example.

DARE gives kids rational reasons not to do drugs like cocaine, because it shows what cocaine does to people.  By the time I finished that program, I was too scared to touch any hard drugs like that.

Sex education is kind of the same idea.  When kids are made aware of all the sexual diseases out there, a lot of them will be too scared to mess around.  It is true that scare tactics aren't exactly the most rational way of going about things, but if they are factual in nature, then I think it's better than the religious alternative -- which is easily shrugged off.

In summary, I really do think most sex offenders are people who weren't raised properly.

Turquoise wrote:

I know this was mostly directed at ATG, but I'll wager an option.

I think Bishop and others like him are probably people who were either abused early in life and need counseling, or...  they are people that were not properly exposed to the concept of sex.  Maybe Bishop was someone raised under the idea that sex was so taboo that the pressure itself twisted him.

It's hard to say, but assuming the second possibility, I think it's better to have a rational and realistic conversation about sex with your teens as they grow up.  Maybe if Bishop had discussed something like this with his parents back then, he wouldn't have become so perverse later on.

I think the greatest mistake most parents make in judgment is that it's not always a good thing to treat something as an ultimate taboo.  To shun something like sex in a very harsh way only encourages some kids to rebel against the idea.  It makes more sense to provide a logical argument against a certain behavior.  This is why I condone the DARE program, for example.

DARE gives kids rational reasons not to do drugs like cocaine, because it shows what cocaine does to people.  By the time I finished that program, I was too scared to touch any hard drugs like that.

Sex education is kind of the same idea.  When kids are made aware of all the sexual diseases out there, a lot of them will be too scared to mess around.  It is true that scare tactics aren't exactly the most rational way of going about things, but if they are factual in nature, then I think it's better than the religious alternative -- which is easily shrugged off.

In summary, I really do think most sex offenders are people who weren't raised properly.

Some good points there, Turquoise.  It's natural to run at full speed toward whatever we're told not to do.  Hence the crazy sex and alcohol abuse at colleges nationwide.  My parents chose not to have any frank discussions with me about sex.  They basically just said, "It's awesome and we're married so we can.  But you're not, so you can't."  Therefore, I learned from school, friends, and porn.  I agree with your stance on sex education and I'm living proof that the religious angle is easily shrugged off, even by the religious.  I'm going to teach my kids my values and make sure they're educated on what they can catch if they don't use protection, and sometimes in spite of protection.  Do I want them to have sex before they get married?  No.  Will they have sex before they're married?  It's likely, so I haven't done my job if I don't prepare them for reality.   

I'm all for everyone doing whatever trips their trigger behind closed doors (except in the instances you outlined), I just don't want to know about it.  The problem comes when a culture is overly accepting when people start bringing their perversity into public for endorsement.  Then what was once "bad" is now good and to do something new and exciting, people start venturing into other areas (eeew) that are still considered taboo to experience a new thrill.

I have always thought the legal rights angle was a huge smokescreen for the real goal of gaining approval of homosexuality by everyone.  I agree with your stance on the FCC.  We all have a channel button on the remote for a reason - if I don't like it, I don't watch it.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This is why I am and advocate for porn..lol
Some creeps can't get laid so it keeps the world a safer place.

Even twisted, abnormal porn that tempts psychos into trying the real thing?

Rape porn (yes, it exists, if you didn't know), in my opinion, offers up a way to relieve some sexual frustration caused by not being able to rape, legally.

Saying that violent porn causes rape is like saying Grand Theft Auto or similar video games cause gang activity and murder. Sure these things glorify the crimes, but (speaking from experience) Grand Theft Auto allows people to vent their anger virtually, instead of "poppin' a cap" in a police officer's face.

Stingray24 wrote:

I've posted this in other threads: if gay couples are worried about being able to make legal and medical decisions for their partner, they need to see a lawyer.  Any couple, "straight" or otherwise, should make their spouse their durable power of attorney and medical POA, too.  Otherwise, you end up with a Terri Schivo type situation.  I don't see a legal need for marriage or civil unions in light of the fact that all couples need those legal documents in place.

I guess my question is this...  Are you saying that these documents already provide the equivalent option of a gay civil union?

Stingray24 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I guess my question is this...  Are you saying that these documents already provide the equivalent option of a gay civil union?

Yes, my position exactly.

Edit: terrible English, oh well, time for bed.

*shrugs* If that's true, then I guess that's an adequate solution to the issue.  My next question would concern how the tax laws would work....  I'm guessing that arrangement would allow two men or two women to file jointly.