Re: No shit....(said very dryly)
Submitted by GCFBoi on December 19 2000 22:16:04
In reply to No shit....(said very dryly) submitted by Sprite on December 19 2000 00:03:34
|
I agree with you again, Sprite. (Please see the post I am about to make above: "Fire and Sunlight") Please, everyone, think about the pendulum swing. A pendulum can swing left, and right, or be in the middle. Now, let's pretend that "sex" is the pendulum itself. If the pendulum is in the middle, then it is doing nothing. This is like sex in the abstract. It IS morally neutral. Sex, as an abstract concept, is just as morally neutral as any other abstraction. It is merely a physical potentiality that exists in the human body and psyche. Sex may be thought about, but it doesn't take on a moral context until it is actually DONE with someone. If the pendulum swings left, let's say that is LUST. That is when sex is used wrongly. Webster's dictionary defines lust as "a sexual desire of a violent, self-indulgent character". So lust is when one person uses sex like a weapon, to satisfy their own desires, while hurting the other person. Now OF COURSE boys are deeply damaged when they are used as sex objects, and I'm sure it happens to them all the time, and it is VERY, VERY wrong. If the pendulum swings right, that is LOVE. Love is when sex is used to show another person, "I love you." When sex is used in this way, it becomes a tool, a tool to express love. This can only happen if the love is PRESENT there, in the relationship, first, before the sex is even considered. (If anyone wants to know how I define LOVE, just read 1 Cor. 13). TRUE LOVE WAITS. If a boy doesn't want to have sex, it should never be done to him. Plain and simple. Follow the hippocratic rule: "Do no harm". (I was a math major in college, so I tend to think in very platonic terms about things. That is why I consider the difference between abstractions and real things to be so important.) |
Follow ups: