BS: Are You A Libertine?

Subject: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:38 PM

"Libertine" has come to mean one free from restraint, particularly from social and religious norms and morals. The philosophy gained new-found adherents in the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Britain. Notable among these were the Marquis de Sade and Aleister Crowley. In modern times, libertinism has been associated with Libertarianism (inaccurately), sado-masochism, nihilism, and free love.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:40 PM

I certainly am!.... well, when my wife and my therapist say it's ok...

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:48 PM

Me too - but my wife doesn't know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: number 6
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:52 PM

I think I drank a bottle of it once.

I think I did.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Bert
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 12:26 AM

When I get the chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Peace
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 12:45 AM

Libertine sounds like a word reserved for guys who dress up in women's clothes on Friday nights. "It ain't me babe, no, no, no, it ain't me babe". (No offense to those of you who do.)

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 04:00 AM

Peace, In today's permissive society there are few taboos left. Teenagers are educated in areas of sex that would have shocked and embarrassed many married couples in previous centuries. Fantasies are discussed freely and films become more and more explicit. Premarital sex is virtually the norm. Nowadays, homosexuality, bondage, spanking, group sex and wife-swapping can all be freely discussed in polite society. More concern is registered over someone making a value judgement against such practices than whether or not someone indulges in them.

But one bastion of privacy and shame remains and that is the subject of masturbation. Sperm banks in Australia suffer from a shortage of (paid) donors simply because the Australian male is too bashful to face a receptionist with evidence in his hand that he actually masturbated. Some men find it painful to admit to themselves that they indulge in wanking, much less acknowledge such a practice to their friends, or even to their doctor. Yet paradoxically, masturbation is despised by religious prudes and liberated machos alike. Prudes see it as sinful and machos see it as a sign of weakness; yet both practise it.

Here is the ultimate in sexual hypocrisy. All of the arguments used against Puritanism and double standards in every other area of sexual practice have overlooked the number one offender. While 'self-abuse' as it used to be called, is practised almost universally, it is also done with almost universal shame. It is like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. We all implicitly support the lie that no respectable person would touch themselves 'down there' when what we really need is for an innocent child to speak the truth and say, 'Hey look! The emperor is playing with himself!'

Many people have found it liberating to be able to speak freely about their fantasies, about their sexual preferences and about other practices which were once frowned upon. But how much more liberating it would be if people could overcome the dictates of their biological needs when those dictates interfere with other goals. And that is exactly what masturbation represents. It is the safety valve on the sexual pressure cooker. Masturbation stops us from exploding in unacceptable or inappropriate ways.

I spoke about this situation quite frankly with a fellow minister once, in an effort to get him to realise the positive side of masturbation. He eventually confided to me that in his youth ('Before I became a Christian, of course!') he had gone out on a date with a girl that he greatly respected. He did not want to scare her off by being too forward, so he stopped at a service station and went into the toilet to relieve himself in more ways than one. And, of course, it worked. Yet this same minister still teaches boys in his congregation that they are guilty of a great sin if they indulge in masturbation. Paedophilia, incest, rape, homosexuality, bestiality—all these practices seem to be tolerated more by a church which refuses to speak the liberating truth about masturbation.

The traditional reason given for condemning masturbation within the Christian church is that Jesus Christ taught that it was just as bad to 'look on a woman with lust' as it was to actually commit adultery with her. In other words, the thought was as bad as the deed. So a teaching developed that thinking about sex (which obviously occurs during masturbation) is evil, regardless of whether you ever indulged in the practice you were thinking about, or not. Some tried nobly to suppress all thoughts of sex, only to discover that they resurfaced, often in more bizarre forms than they had exhibited before they were pushed underground. In Arab countries, where many women are covered from head to toe, for example, sexual offences still occur. And the same is true of the most extreme of religious 'holiness' cults.

Covering women's bodies will not take away the God-given, biological urge to have sex. Nor is clothing going to stop the war that rages in the minds of people who feel guilty about having sexual thoughts. Some Amish groups have succeeded in stopping all forms of ejaculation for extended periods of time, only to develop cancer from the rotting semen inside their sex organs. Others have adopted the attitude that, if they are going to fry in hell anyway, they may as well get as much pleasure out of this life as they can before Judgement Day. So a rule aimed at inculcating greater morality has led to greater immorality, both from those who have thrown it out as too hard to follow and from those who have tried their hardest to obey it.

The mistake is that people confuse 'thinking about sex' with 'lust.' Lust is actually wanting to do something that you know is wrong. There are plenty of people who lust these days. And it is not limited sexual matters. Let's say, for example, that you like pizza. You don't feel guilty about this, do you? But if the only way you can get one is to steal it from your neighbour, then fulfilling your desire could mean doing something that you know is wrong (i.e., stealing). You can desire the pizza all you want, and even (if you like, for the fun of it) fantasise about stealing it; but if the bottom line is that you would not actually do it (because you know it is wrong), then you have not sinned. But if you could get away with stealing it and held back simply because you were afraid of being caught, then you are spiritually guilty of the act of robbery, whether or not you ever got up enough courage to actually do it. You have 'lusted' after the pizza, by wanting it more than you want to do what is right. But the pizza (i.e., the thing you desired), is not wrong in itself.

Applying this to sex, the sin is not in desiring sex (since that is as universal as the desire for food), nor is it in fantasising about sex. The sin is in wanting to actually perform a sexual act that you know is wrong, and then refraining from doing it only out of fear about what people would think of you or what they would do to you if they found out. Being sexually aroused by a rape scene in a movie (or a detailed description of one in a book) is not the same as actually wanting to rape someone. If you felt the scene was tempting you to rape someone, then masturbating to relieve these desires is the best way to overcome the temptation and to stop yourself from actually raping someone. Masturbation is the universally legitimate way to satisfy your sexual appetite without indulging in something else which may not be legitimate. If there was more masturbation, there would be a lot less incest, fewer rapes, less infidelity in marriage and a lot less frustrated and guilt-ridden men and women.

Instead of trying to stop people from masturbating, the church should be encouraging them to do so, thus leaving them free to choose (without the overriding pressure of sperm build-up for males) not to do those things that God has forbidden. Much of this has relevance to females as well. Many marriages would be happier if wives weren't so riddled with feelings of guilt about their own sexual needs.

There is a popular myth that people cannot live without sex that suggests that God is unreasonable to expect people to remain faithful in marriage, chaste outside of marriage and single if the first marriage fails. But people can live without having sex with another person and to do so does not require some impossible level of self-control. Living without sexual pleasure and release is, however, a different story. And because the church has fostered the myth that people can, through sheer willpower, become asexual, it must take some responsibility for the sexual permissiveness, high incidence of divorce and remarriage, and the backlash against God that has resulted from this lie in today's world.

In conclusion, we should ask ourselves: Was Jesus fully human? If so, did he have wet dreams? (For, if men don't masturbate, then sooner or later, semen will come out through 'nocturnal emissions.') And if this happened to Jesus, would he have had thoughts about sex at the moment of ejaculation? The obvious answer is 'Yes.' For ejaculation itself is sex. And if Jesus was without sin, then thoughts about sex (and ejaculations outside of marriage) must not be any more sinful than eating or going to the toilet. It is only cultural brainwashing that has taught us otherwise.

As a sexually frustrated, religiously uptight youth I used to look forward to wet dreams, because it was the one time when I was free to indulge in activities and thoughts which were forbidden to me in the daytime. And yet even these were marred by the fear that the dream might not be just a dream. How much better to consciously choose to fantasise (and masturbate) while awake. For me, this became a guilt-free option only when I discovered that there was absolutely nothing forbidding it in scripture.

One of the cleverest ways the church has ever found to control the masses has been to make masturbation a sin. The consequence has been that the most dishonest (i.e., the ones who try to give the impression that they don't masturbate) are looked on as being the most holy, while more honest believers are made to feel guilty and in need of absolution from these hypocrites. Anyone interested in a genuine revival of sexual morality and sincere faith should consider the possibility that the first step in that direction might be to enlighten the masses to their right (and perhaps even their responsibility) to masturbate. At the same time, those who suffer from guilt because of the secular myth that real men don't wank need to stand up to that lie as well. The result will be a happier, healthier society for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 04:21 AM

I'm not I'm an atheist.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 08:58 AM

Of course! I'm a librarian!

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Becca72
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 09:16 AM

Do whatever you want, Guest, just please wash your hands afterward...

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 09:27 AM

And don't scare the horses and the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 09:29 AM

Sailed on her once, but she was too fast and free fer me, mates.

;-) Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: GUEST,mack/misophist
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 11:24 AM

As a youth, I aspired to it. Now that I'm old, I've given up.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 11:30 AM

We are the Liberteenies, happy girls and boys...

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 12:55 PM

I think 'guest' may be preaching to the converted.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 01:00 PM

I'm a Conservatine -- that's someone who makes free with jams and jellies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Peace
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 01:39 PM

"Sperm banks in Australia suffer from a shortage of (paid) donors simply because the Australian male is too bashful to face a receptionist with evidence in his hand that he actually masturbated."

I know that stuff Guest. The thesis isn't a new one.

As to the sperm bank: My cousin works in a fertility clinic. Last year at Easter someone hid all the eggs.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM

well this thread is intellectual masturbation.
the word joy is a euphemism for masturbation. as in the tunes soldiers joy and last nights joy. so i suppose logically masturbation is joyful.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 03:55 PM

Casanova was a librarian. That should tell you something.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 03:58 PM

What should it tell us, Good Rapaire? Hmmmm?

However, do not conclude from this post, good readers, that Rapaire is a libertine. He is not. He is however an Ovaltine. He believes in the unlicensed and uninhibited exercise of almost-roundness.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 04:10 PM

How has masturbation come into this thread ? Seems a good topic for a thread.Sorry, only pulling your thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 04:16 PM

Not too many posters of the female persuasion on this thread - I wonder why?

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 04:39 PM

Libertines

a new Saltine cracker in the shape of the Liberty Bell.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 05:05 PM

Masturbation can help relieve stress and relieve menstrual cramps.
Help for insomnia (i.e. when a person is having trouble falling asleep)
Stimulate the immune system to help build up resistance to common infections. Release mood elevating hormones reduce embarrassing spontaneous feelings for someone you work with or a friends partner.
Reduce the number of unwanted wet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: GUEST,Joe_F
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 10:16 PM

Wanking is fine, but fucking you can actually meet people.

--- Joe Fineman    [e-mail]

||: You need two out of three: altitude, airspeed, and a brain. :||

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 10:47 PM

Joe,

You crack me up dude. 'Most every time!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 04:12 AM

Masturbating is only having sex with your best friend.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 05:53 AM

No... I'm a Virgo.














But I'm willing to be retrained....

Says it all really.....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: JennieG
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 08:14 AM

Is a libertine one who dances the libertango?

Oh.....I see.......

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 08:24 AM

Critics of homosexuality want the existing ban on recognition of committed partnerships to be continued, and also the exclusion of homosexuals from the clergy. Advocates of homosexuals wish these restrictions to be removed, and of course they do not wish to see any equivalent restrictions on heterosexuals. This is an asymmetrical situation, one side wishing to restrict the other by force of law while accepting no such restrictions on themselves, which in any case are not proposed. It is a classic relationship between oppressors and oppressed.

The attitude of aversion to homosexuality is a common one. Sexuality may be associated with bodily functions and smut in some people's minds, but this is a coincidental matter without any significance. All bodily functions, including excretory, are normal, necessary and healthy, as is sexuality. It may seem to be 'common sense' that homosexuality is wrong, but common sense alone is not a good guide to anything. It is common sense that the sun goes round the earth.

Critics of homosexuality do not like being called homophobes. The word simply means a dislike of homosexuality and this exactly describes their situation. But it has deeper roots. Some people who are attracted to others of the same sex find that this causes them great anxiety, which they externalise and blame on other people. In the church, some celibate priests have a homosexual orientation, which they repress, but they condemn homosexuality in other people.1 Other innate minority characteristics, such as left-handedness or ginger hair, do not cause comparable anxiety or scapegoating.

Clearly it is not the case that all homosexuals are saints and all heterosexuals are sinners. In trying to understand the world, Aristotle said that we should 'carve nature at the joints', meaning that we should look for the intrinsic divisions. In regard to ethics and morals the natural divisions are the presence or absence of love, patience, kindness, courtesy, generosity, forgiveness, truthfulness, and courage.2 These virtues occur equally in homosexuals as in heterosexuals. In statistical parlance homosexuality is not a significant discriminant, ie a group of homosexuals is just as likely to be moral as a group of heterosexuals. In particular, paedophilia is no more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. The evidence that it is, presented by the Christian Institute, the Daily Mail and the Sun, is no more than 'conjecture presented as fact' in the words of the Press Complaints Commission which has investigated this.

One argument against homosexuality is that it is not natural. True, male and female fit together in a way that is natural and leads to procreation of children, and this is clearly right and proper. But we then get the implied syllogism:

   1. Sexual union between men and women leads to procreation of children
   2. Procreation of children is good
   3. Sexual union between same-sex couples does not lead to procreation of children, therefore
   4. Sexual union between same-sex couples is not good.

The fallacy of course lies in the overlapping categories; procreation is not the only good thing. It is the Roman Catholic Church that regards this lack of childbearing as a criticism of homosexuals. It needs to be positively stated that it is false logic.

There is also the question of inheritance and the 'gay gene'. The distribution of homosexuality in families is strongly suggestive of inheritance through a small number of genes of partial effect, as for other innate characteristics such as height and skin colour. No specific link of a particular gene has been made to sexuality, but very few such links have been discovered at all. It is the settled view of the psychological and psychiatric professions world-wide that sexual orientation is fixed at birth or very soon after, and long before puberty.3,4 Any attempt by these professionals to try to change a person's sexuality against their client's wishes would be likely to lead to disciplinary action by their regulatory bodies. The reputable medical and related journals no longer discuss the pros and cons of sexual orientation, regarding such discussion as irrelevant discrimination on a par with racial discrimination.

It is of course true that some prominent people have changed their views about sexuality because of a better understanding of the Bible. Among them are eminent evangelical scholars such as the late Michael Vasey. And among Bible translators there is a widespread view that in the New Testament, the two Greek words that have been translated as homosexual may mean 'loose living' or 'prostitute'. The Revised English Bible is a mainstream published Bible, ratified by representatives of all the Christian denominations in the United Kingdom, written under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in this the word homosexual has been omitted from St Paul's letters altogether. The story of Sodom is not about sexuality; this leaves only the references to sexuality in the codes of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The meaning of these codes may have been clear at the time they were written. But to us they are a confused mix of values relating to morality, religious practices, nationalist characteristics of Israel, and primitive ideas about purity and health.5 One such concept was of the pure forms of a man and a woman. This led to the prohibition of shaving in men, to avoid looking like a woman; also of cross-dressing, and of same-sex relationships. Other requirements of purity included the types of animals and fish that could be eaten, which excluded shellfish; and purity of dress, which excluded any garments made with more than one type of yarn. Under the moral code there are strong and repeated injunctions against usury; so much so that Christian moneylenders were unusual for many centuries.

It is extraordinary that there are people who ignore these Biblical prohibitions, except for the one about homosexuality. They shave, wear polycotton shirts, eat prawn cocktails and take out mortgages without any qualm, but criticise homosexuals because of the Bible. There is a name for this, and it is hypocrisy. Even if homosexuality were the only thing criticised in the Bible, we would have to take into account that the true nature of sexuality as a fixed characteristic has been understood for less than a hundred years, so could not have been known by the writers of the Bible. Furthermore, overpopulation of the planet is now such that by not having children, homosexuals are doing a service, which again is a situation radically different from that in Biblical times. And we should not forget our protestant heritage, which has always taught that the Bible alone is not sacrosanct, and should be seen in relation to tradition and the Holy Spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 09:26 AM

Ever think that the "Gay Gene" is nature's way of saying 'stop overpopulating my planet!'?

And as for "Other innate minority characteristics, such as left-handedness or ginger hair, do not cause comparable anxiety or scapegoating."... Guess you've never had to put up with teasing and being singled out simply because you use a different hand to write with.... It's only fairly recently that lefthanders were allowed to be left handed. In the 1970's I had a teacher who insisted I write things "properly" - i.e., with my right hand. Of course, he then whinged because he couldn't read a thing I wrote, but he wasn't considered wrong or a bully; it was my fault for being strongly left handed.

Whilst touring with a group of 30+ people, through several European countries, all of us with oddly shaped luggage and instrument cases, only one was ever stopped and searched. Only one person in a group of over 30, and he was a red head.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 09:49 AM

As laudable as guest's remarks are, they're on a thread guaranteed to generate light repartee. I hope he/she is keeping a copy of the notes for future publication somewhere as letters to the editor or other places that run thoughtful remarks on important subjects.

I had a friend who, in hindsight, had many libertine characteristics. He was a very unhappy man, and took his own life a few years ago.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 07:12 PM

In the course of an otherwise thoughtful post, GUEST (or one of them) told us that:

Some Amish groups have succeeded in stopping all forms of ejaculation for extended periods of time, only to develop cancer from the rotting semen inside their sex organs.

Uhhhh, well, (s)he also said that:

(For, if men don't masturbate, then sooner or later, semen will come out through 'nocturnal emissions.')

So how would "Some Amish groups" accomplish stopping all forms of ejaculation?

Sounds like urban legend to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 09:04 PM

GUEST (the same or another one) told us:

Critics of homosexuality do not like being called homophobes. The word simply means a dislike of homosexuality

Huh-uh. A (whatever)phobe is one who has a phobia agains (whatever).

According to my dictionary, a phobia is "a morbid fear or hatred" of something. Usually it's assumed to be a pathological state.

This is far from mere "dislike". q.e.d.

Dave Oesterreich, (a non-homophobe who doesn't like homosexuality.)

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 08:57 PM

Uncle Dave O, that is precisely what I was going to point out. Guest can't have it both ways.

Incidentally this is a singularly repulsive way of thinking: "...only to develop cancer from the rotting semen inside their sex organs." Say Whut? You mean, the semen hung up somewhere on the way?

Aside from Nature's way of releasing overload, most Amish men/boys are/were farmers. They know all about what animals do. If you know Amishmen, you'll know they are an earthy lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Are You A Libertine?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 09:05 PM

I didn't read that far down in Guest's remarks or I probably would have balked at a bit of that stuff. Definitely sounds like (rural!) urban legend material.