| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2008 11:42:12 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
In regards to the rest - if the ad violated decency laws in the area it was posted, there you have it. Like someone else said, change the law if it ticks of you off so much.
|
Agree 100% |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 11:42:29 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by mjwood0:
From Miriam Webster, extra-marital implies that a married person is having sex with someone other than their spouse. To many (myself included), this means promiscuous. |
I think you need to look up "promiscuous", not "extra-marital". It is in fact you who are projecting your morality on the very words we use. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 11:43:05 PM · #103 |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 11:44:55 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Extra-marital means neither promiscuous nor unsafe; don't imply such.
|
Originally posted by mjwood0:
Please take your own advice and don't project your views on us who do view extra-marital sex as promiscuous... By stating "You can..." you are telling the original poster that they are capable and should be willing to do so -- clearly not the case.
You see -- for every person who feels one way, another feels the exact opposite. Hence, a thread like this where people are voicing their opinion and prefacing statements with "I think" or "I believe" will never come to any single, shared conclusion. However, a good debate will theoretically benefit all parties -- at least enlightening them to the other sides views. Attacking, or telling people to hold their views back does not accomplish this at all.
We're clearly off topic at this point with regards to the original post. |
Excuse me.
First, don't misinterpret me, project your views at me, then tell me not to correct a basic wrong.
What I stated above is absolutely correct.
Extra-marital means outside the marriage, NOT promiscuous.
If you believe that extar-marital relations are promiscuous, you do not have a command of the English language.
You may believe that it's wrong, and I respect that, I just don't share your view.
But to judge, wrongly, that everyone who has, or will engage in extra-marital relations is promiscuous is ridiculous, not to mention an insult to many good people.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You can choose a partner carefully, think VERY hard about any decision you make, and engage in safe sex if you do make that choice. |
I stated that they "can". I made no such implication or inference that they should.
READ first, and read thoroughly......and know of what you speak. That will make for a more reasonable debate without distorting the facts.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2008 11:52:54 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mjwood0:
From Miriam Webster, extra-marital implies that a married person is having sex with someone other than their spouse. To many (myself included), this means promiscuous. |
I think you need to look up "promiscuous", not "extra-marital". It is in fact you who are projecting your morality on the very words we use. |
I wasn't going to continue down this off-topic discussion, but I think people are getting the wrong idea. I did read all the posts and I did think clearly about what I said.
I will make one assumption -- a married person has sex with their spouse.
That said, extra-marital relations implies that they are also having sex with someone who is not their spouse. Promiscuous means having sex with more than one person. Hence, the person is sleeping with more than one person.
From this logic, I fail to see how extra-marital relations are not, by definition, promiscuous.
I was not judging anyone here. I was simply correcting the mis-information posted. I never even touched on the safety of such relations as you are completely correct in this regard.
If my views offend you, by all means don't read my posts.
Edited to add: This is not casting judgment on those who may be promiscuous. The stigma associated with this word is somewhat problematic. You are 100% correct in saying there are some perfectly wonderful people who happen to fall into this category.
Message edited by author 2008-02-03 23:55:26. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 11:54:34 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by mjwood0:
That said, extra-marital relations implies that they are also having sex with someone who is not their spouse. Promiscuous means having sex with more than one person. Hence, the person is sleeping with more than one person. |
Then you simply didn't read my post: "You would be wrong to call extra-marital sex 'promiscuous' when two unmarried individuals of either the same or the opposite gender engage in it with one another exclusively." |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 11:55:58 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mjwood0:
That said, extra-marital relations implies that they are also having sex with someone who is not their spouse. Promiscuous means having sex with more than one person. Hence, the person is sleeping with more than one person. |
Then you simply didn't read my post: "You would be wrong to call extra-marital sex 'promiscuous' when two unmarried individuals of either the same or the opposite gender engage in it with one another exclusively." |
If neither one is married, it's not extra-marital. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:01:22 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by mjwood0:
If neither one is married, it's not extra-marital. |
Ok, you got me. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:02:27 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by mjwood0:
From Miriam Webster, extra-marital implies that a married person is having sex with someone other than their spouse. To many (myself included), this means promiscuous. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think you need to look up "promiscuous", not "extra-marital". It is in fact you who are projecting your morality on the very words we use. |
I looked up extramarital (NO hyphen in my online dictionary) and it does specifically state that this is relations between at least one married partner and someone not his/her spouse.
But in many cases, this is the only person they're having relations with, and therefore still not qualifying as promiscuous.
What I was primarily referring to was PRE-marital relations, which I believe was the jist of the disagreement when the word promiscuous was being bandied about interchangeably.....which it is emphatically not.
pre·mar·i·tal (prç-mâr'ĭ-tl) Pronunciation Key
adj. Taking place or existing before marriage.
pro·mis·cu·ous /prəˈmɪskyuəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-mis-kyoo-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.
2. consisting of parts, elements, or individuals of different kinds brought together without order.
3. indiscriminate; without discrimination.
4. casual; irregular; haphazard.
Quite a difference and clearly not interchangeable.
I will stand by your right to not believe in or condone relations outside the sanctity of marriage, but if you try to tell me that I or my wife were promiscuous when we had a completely monogamous relationship for the five years before we were married, you're just wrong.
mo·nog·a·my (mə-nŏg'ə-mç) Pronunciation Key n.
The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
If you want to maintain credibility in a debate, make sure you know of what you speak and be careful not to confuse, or substitute, opinions for facts.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:02:52 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mjwood0:
If neither one is married, it's not extra-marital. |
Ok, you got me. ;-) |
;-) |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:15:53 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by mjwood0:
That said, extra-marital relations implies that they are also having sex with someone who is not their spouse. Promiscuous means having sex with more than one person. Hence, the person is sleeping with more than one person. |
You're cherry picking.....this is the rest of the definition from YOUR link.
pro·mis·cu·ous
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin promiscuus, from pro- forth + miscçre to mix — more at pro-, mix
Date: 1601
1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
3 : not restricted to one sexual partner
4 : casual irregular
Note the use of the word "Indiscriminate".
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:33:32 AM · #112 |
| Man, if Dr. Phil shows up to mediate, I am so canceling my membership.... I can't stand that guy... |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 12:53:43 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm not trying to be harsh, but I believe that I am wholly responsible for my daughter's outlook and perspective in life, and asking someone else to cater to her isn't reasonable. She has most probably experienced more at her age than many young women, but that goes for the good as well as the bad. Children need guidance and direction, but they also need to see the real world, and to know how to deal with the INEVITABLE shock to their sensibilities....and to have you there to lean on when this happens. |
Not that it's relevant, but my daughter is 25 and more disgusted by current advertising trends than I am (and still a virgin, btw). SHE was definitely not sheltered, or raised to be a prude.
But I still don't feel that anything goes, or should.
And for us, religious beliefs do not enter into it.
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 00:55:16. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:15:16 AM · #114 |
The thing I find intriguing about these discussions is that the more liberal of us look at those photos and see some kids in jeans and one of them needs to hitch his up...meh. The people that find them offensive, usually on religiously moral grounds can read all sorts of sexual/deviant/perverted behaviour into the same shots. It's interesting that the people that always seem to see sex where there is none are those that oughtn't be thinking about sex at all.
Btw I showed the shot to my 17 year old and asked her what it was about, she said "jeans" she couldn't find anything sexual about and she doesn't seem to have been traumatized by it. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:37:06 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I hate to tell you guys, but Sex would NOT sell if it weren't taboo... in the end, it's really the fault of the right wing that it's used as a device to "tempt" the young.
If it were allowed to become just a natural part of life rather than something that is "off-limits" it would not have the appeal that it has. |
Well then the ads would feature topless people running along side donkeys. :P
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:46:59 AM · #116 |
I'm assuming this ad was shown because they other probably broke the newspaper's own rules for publishable pictures. I don't particularly find the butt crack over the top. I do, however, think these guys are a bit old for the innocent skinny dipping experience at the water hole. At least I don't remember looking like that when those things were on my own mind...
I'm talking about A&F in general and what I'm guessing the other ad looks like. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 01:59:13 AM · #117 |
Would the conversation be any different if the floor to ceiling posters looked like this (shots from the catalogue)?:
(not work safe)
Innocent Skinny Dipping
PJ Party!
Promiscuity? Not here!
The best darn Christmas present ever!
So once again, the buns shot isn't that big a deal, but I'm guessing that's not the shot that got them busted... |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 02:00:31 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I hate to tell you guys, but Sex would NOT sell if it weren't taboo... in the end, it's really the fault of the right wing that it's used as a device to "tempt" the young.
If it were allowed to become just a natural part of life rather than something that is "off-limits" it would not have the appeal that it has. |
Well then the ads would feature topless people running along side donkeys. :P |
How I long for donkey ads....did I just type that...nm. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 02:35:07 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
I think the fact that this is a 'controversy' at all illustrates completely how confused we are as a society about sex and sexuality.
And I would probably clap if I ever saw a photo of a vagina as big as a VW. There's a special stigma about vaginas in our society and educational system that a giganto photo might help solve. Hey, now! Maybe I have an exhibit idea... maybe a long hallway of giganto vaginas... hmmmm! |
Do it!
Warning: If you're at all prudish about vaginas, the functions of, frank discussions of and their place in art just don't read this post m'kay!
One of the girls in my Folio class had been diagnosed with uterine cancer, she knew that she would probably have to have a hysterectomy but having a child is a very important part of her role as a woman in her culture and the thought of losing her uterus made her feel less than a woman. So to celebrate her role as a woman and to honour herself she did a series of images of her vagina during her menses, she overlaid them with whatever flower was in bloom that month to mark the passing months and the changing seasons. They were stunningly beautiful images, really I wish I could show you, they were respectful and lovely. Unfortunately I didn't get to see them finished but the plan was to print them at poster size, they must have been amazing. So yes I applaud any effort by an artist to show women respectfully and honestly. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 03:30:12 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can hear about 5 million 14-year-olds calling you an idiot right about now... ;) |
That is until they view my portfolio and realize I should be canonized. :-D
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 07:57:22 AM · #121 |
I don't see why those images DrAchoo has posted are bad at all (also, how can they be NSFW when they're from A&F catalogs?). I take more issue with the waif-like size 0 images of the women. All the men look buffed and healthy, but the women look like young girls not women. That's a lot more distasteful and I'd want to spend my time and effort fighting that battle, not over the nudity and very weakly implied sexuality.
Has anyone mentioned Victoria's Secret yet? That's 100% soft porn but there isn't a single heterosexual male reading this who doesn't find it appealing, or rather who isn't posting about the effect it has on our kids.
N
Message edited by author 2008-02-04 10:34:50. |
|
|
|
02/04/2008 08:14:00 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by ryand:
first off, I think it is supposed to be saved for marriage |
Butt cracks? I'm confused. |
Read the post that I quoted please rather than taking it out of context. He said sex was natural, normal and healthy. We were outside of the subject of butt cracks.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mjwood0:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Extra-marital means neither promiscuous nor unsafe; don't imply such. |
Please take your own advice and don't project your views on us who do view extra-marital sex as promiscuous... |
It is not a "view", it is a fact. You would be wrong to call extra-marital sex "promiscuous" when two unmarried individuals of either the same or the opposite gender engage in it with one another exclusively. |
I'm going to call you out here and this is the last thing I'm going to post in this thread, because no one is actually debating with me. This is absolutely ridiculous for you to claim your side as fact, yet I'm not allowed to even state my viewpoint, such as when  NikonJeb said to me "Don't project your fundamentalist mores on us especially when you make an outrageous statement based on a complete lack of care and selection in a partner or a behavior." Ya'lls views are every bit as much simply based on what you believe, don't even try and claim it as fact when you are telling us not to debate.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
OMG, some buttcrack!! Call out that National Guard!!!! Circle the wagons!! Praise Jesus! Smite the Sinners!!
Oh wait, it's just the plumber... |
Don't make fun of my God.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 09:32:13 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It is not a "view", it is a fact. You would be wrong to call extra-marital sex "promiscuous" when two unmarried individuals of either the same or the opposite gender engage in it with one another exclusively. |
Originally posted by ryand:
I'm going to call you out here and this is the last thing I'm going to post in this thread, because no one is actually debating with me. This is absolutely ridiculous for you to claim your side as fact, yet I'm not allowed to even state my viewpoint, such as when NikonJeb said to me "Don't project your fundamentalist mores on us especially when you make an outrageous statement based on a complete lack of care and selection in a partner or a behavior." Ya'lls views are every bit as much simply based on what you believe, don't even try and claim it as fact when you are telling us not to debate. |
You cannot redefine a word to suit your viewpoint.
Premarital and/or extramarital are NOT the same thing as promiscuous.
That IS fact.
Just because you may not agree or like it doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 09:45:59 AM · #124 |
Save it for the Anus challenge buddy !
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by David Newland:
To be offended by the human form is to be offended of yourself. |
I'm happy I have a well functioning anus, but I don't think you want to see it... ;) |
|
|
|
|
02/04/2008 09:48:00 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You're cherry picking.....this is the rest of the definition from YOUR link.
pro·mis·cu·ous
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin promiscuus, from pro- forth + miscçre to mix — more at pro-, mix
Date: 1601
1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
3 : not restricted to one sexual partner
4 : casual irregular
Note the use of the word "Indiscriminate". |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You cannot redefine a word to suit your viewpoint.
Premarital and/or extramarital are NOT the same thing as promiscuous.
That IS fact.
|
No.. You cannot redefine a word to suit your viewpoint.
You also cannot conveniently choose to ignore one definition of a word because it's not helping your cause. See definition 3 above.
I'm with RyanD on this one -- I'm dropping out of this thread before it goes even further down hill. |
|
