After reading criticisms of my blog on sexuality, I’m a bit dumbfounded. Thanks for the biology lesson, MisterE, but I’m not an idiot. I understand that sex is a natural (and wonderful) urge. I wasn’t asking for clarification of this fact. The point I made is this: Without sex an individual will still live. Sex isn’t essential for survival in terms of the individual.
“I don’t know if Billy’s ever had an orgasm before, but it’s one hell of an experience.”
Someone as smart as you really shouldn’t revert to such pseudo-humor. It’s really unnecessary and it’s a bit disgusting.
I love how you treat those who have differing opinions as though they are intellectually inferior – something I have criticized you for numerous times before, yet you still continue to do it. I’ve read many books; in fact, I’m a Rhodes Scholar nominee and a Clark Fellow. In short, I’m educated and I understand the intricacies that underlie the hearts and minds of America’s young generation.
My post was an effort to convey the fact that sex should be had in the right context – but I didn’t tell anyone that they “had” to adhere to that, rather I presented the fact that we are designed to be emotionally-attached (and yes, sex is a part of that). But thanks for the lesson.
So aside from being confused as to why you think I believe that sex isn’t a natural urge, I’m a little offset at your continued jabs at people of faith. You really need to cool it. Not only is it discriminatory, but also it’s unnecessary. So divorce and adultery disprove God or an intricate plan He may have for bringing lives together? Hmm…incorrect, but intriguing nonetheless that you make such grand statements.
We could have a long-winded theological discussion on the religious tenants you’ve ignored in making this sweeping statement –
But, doing so would be a waste of my time and yours. You don’t seem very interested in learning others’ perspectives, only touting your own. And this is simply irreprehensible and untrue:
"The great emotional ties to sex comes from society, not our urges or purpose. We naturally care for our children, but if we were to have multiple children with multiple wives, we wouldn’t care for them any differently than the others."
Wait, what? No, that’s incoherent…and wrong-headed; great emotional ties and sex are deeply connected. I’m not even sure I need to justify this with an explanation. Anyone who has had sex or who has spoken with others before or after having sex knows how true this is. It’s sad and scary that sex would be so far separated from emotion. Is this really what our society is coming to?
“…and you’ve shown us that you don’t understand biology at all.”
You’re right, MisterE; you’re the only person, in the world in fact, who has any education at all. And since you’ve been so judgmental, let me say this (and only this). You claim that your experimentation was good and healthy – that it made you who you are – well that’s disconcerting. You’ve openly admitted that sex is devoid of emotion. If your experiences led you to that place, than you’ve totally proven my point: encouraging young people to simply experiment whenever and with whoever they want ruins the true emotion and heart of what sex and love truly mean (not to mention what such a lifestyle can do to self-worth and self-esteem).
That’s probably the saddest part of your opposition – aside from the fact that your contentions are completely off base. But allow me to be a "liberal" for a moment by admitting that I respect (something that you should learn more about) your difference of opinion.