----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 1:01 PM Subject: Re: More hypocrisy on display than skin
> > So those who engage in group encounters are unhealthy? Extended > intimacy partnership groups are unhealthy? People who have sex in order > to enjoy sex -- not to express love, but just for the fun of it -- are > also engaging in unhealthy sexual contact? > > Cite your proofs, please. Well, we could start with the wealth of literature on sexual addictions. You need to remember, my wife is a psychotherapist who has specialized in incest survivors and sexual abuse. > > Sex that is based on power, dominance, determining one's self > > worth by one's sexual marketability, or the use of other people as > > tools > > for self-gratification is unhealthy. > > So two (or more!) consenting adults engaging in SM or bondage are also > performing unhealthy activity? >Prostitution is unhealthy? Yup....a disproportionate number of prostitutes, and strippers for that matter, have been the victim of childhood sexual abuse. Or, do you think its OK for a parent to have sex with their 5 year old girl? Also, if you look at the lives of prostitutes, the working conditions of prostitutes, the probability of their bosses physically abusing them compared to those employed, say, as dental assistants, the rate of drug addiction among prostitutes, the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. The fields of social work, family therapy, abuse prevention, etc. have labeled these as "unhealthy." I'm not sure if you are arguing that prostitutes do not have higher rates of these unhealthy conditions and behaviors or if you are arguing that >For that matter, masturbation's out too? Never said that; doesn't fit my definition. > Again, cite your proofs, please. Out of curiosity, is it that you are unaware of the vast literature on this subject, feel that the literature is wrong?, or have read a different set of literature than I have? When I ask for cites, it usually because I have read the literature in the field under question, and someone has made a broad statement that contradicts the wealth of what I've read....or at the very least has had no support in what I've read. > > Another way of looking at it is seeing how healthy/unhealthy sexual > > relationships affect families. Monogamous sex, that serves as a glue > > in a > > long standing relationship helps to provide a stable environment in > > which > > children grow up. > > So a parenting group must engage in sex in order to remain stable? Or No, but studies on intimacy in marriage indicate that an active sex life between the parents helps with the intimacy and thus promotes a healthy climate in which children are raised. > are you suggesting instead that only monogamous couples are capable of > engaging in healthy sex? (And that, therefore, group parenting is > unhealthy.) You mean like the old communes and the Hari Krishna's? Look at what actually happened to the kids in those communities. I've read several studies on old communes, have seen adults who grew up in communes like the Hari Krishna's talk about the prevalent patterns of abuse there, and do not see them as shining examples. Or, to look at more common occurrences, lets consider blended families. Blended families can work, it's just harder. Literature written by people who advocate the possibility of healthy blended families usually acknowledge that its more work to have a healthy blended family than it is to have a healthy nuclear family....assuming that there are people of good will are involved in both. Extended families are different, of course. > This also implies that a single parent is either performing unhealthy > sex or is providing an unhealthy environment for his/her children. (Or > both.) Is this what you intend to suggest? Well, it is better for children to have both parents in the house in a loving stable relationship than to have an absent parent with the other parent trying to cope by themselves. When divorce does occur, the children tend to do better if the custodial parent (let's assume its the mom as it usually is) sex life is part of a new stable relationship than if a different man comes out of mommy's bedroom every weekend. > > Measuring one's manhood by how many different women one > > has "gotten" or how many children one isn't supporting by these various > > women is not healthy. > > Under whose rules? If you assume that children growing up with a sense of self worth, the ability to form relationships with others, and a solid economic situation is a good thing, then it is simply deducible from observation. If you don't, and don't worry about them, or about the mothers, then I guess you may not see a problem. Or, are you arguing that you see no problem with the social structure in ghettos. It's not just poverty...Zambia has better social structures than ghettos. > > Having an affair with a young women that is much > > closer to one's daughter's age than to one's own is not healthy. > > Based upon what factual, immutable, inarguable criteria? Good for the kids, that sort of thing. For those who don't care for other people...particularly children, I'll admit that my arguments are less than persuasive. I've assumed that you consider that an inherently worthwhile objective, but I admit that was an assumption. If I am wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
