quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

Edited to add:  For what it's worth (maybe nothing to some), I have nothing against Focus and in fact sometimes I absolutely agree with what he has to say.  It's the way he went about things in this thread that I'm responding to, not that he doesn't see/find/understand someone's expression of sexual sacredness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear
So Focus, if I am reading you correctly, you would dismiss the various aspects of sex magick or the use of sex in the performance of specific rites acceptable to alternative religious beliefs (of which I do have a wealth of documented precedents of this practice) as mere flim flam?  I must ask then, who are you to arbitrate between what some of us consider as sacred and the mainstream?  

I see; it's alright for me to have and express an opinion as long as it's one you approve of?  Lol, good luck with that....
 
Focus.

Quit dodging the bullet I asked two questions::

Question One:
So Focus, if I am reading you correctly, you would dismiss the various aspects of sex magick or the use of sex in the performance of specific rites acceptable to alternative religious beliefs (of which I do have a wealth of documented precedents of this practice) as mere flim flam?

Question Two:
I must ask then, who are you to arbitrate between what some of us consider as sacred and the mainstream? 

Opinions are fine, healthy and oft necessary, but comments slamming or belittling peoples concepts is not fine and unhealthy in my view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50


By all means do or be what you want in private but I don't see why one should be quietly and respectfully tolerant when posturing, pretentious malarky is plastered across a public board.  Absolutely I disagree with that notion!

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

 
Bite me - if anyone can.... 
 
Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

The way "I went about it" is to return contempt for contempt just as I'm willing to return respect for respect - hasn't been too much of the latter here, though.  Ohh, and sometimes I might have a bit of sport when someone posts something I find silly or over-reaching, which is what started this little opera!  I'm really so different to everyone else - other than I'm not nearly so "noble" as to turn the other cheek?

quote:


Bite me - if anyone can.... 
 
Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

Ahh well I guess we can agree to disagree then which is healthy and good enough for me.  Shall I hold you to a two to one series win by Queensland ????  

quote:

ORIGINAL: YourhandMyAss

Focus, I didn't read all the other replies, i saw this one come across the scroll and thought  lets read it.

I think you read to much into a question, I'm not trying to prove anything or take anything you wrote as a general characterization and then hold you accountable to it.

I think you're seeing attempts where nones been made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

The way "I went about it" is to return contempt for contempt just as I'm willing to return respect for respect - hasn't been too much of the latter here, though.  Ohh, and sometimes I might have a bit of sport when someone posts something I find silly or over-reaching, which is what started this little opera!  I'm really so different to everyone else - other than I'm not nearly so "noble" as to turn the other cheek?

Ah.  Well I see where we differ than.  You see the statement "For me it is because sex is so sacred that I am so free with it. " as contemptuous and I (and many others on this thread) do not.  

But like I said, the way you went about it (contempt for contempt) is what I chose to speak to, as it is not how I choose to live my life.  You do, it seems, and that is your prerogative of course, but when you do so publicly it should be no surprise if the public comments on it. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

 
As for "bite me"; well that was more an observation that I have a lot thicker skin than what the opposition were demonstrating....  lol
 
Focus. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
Clearly, your sense of humor is one that only you understand as has been demonstrated by the numerous responses that you have received to your various posts. 
Let me be abundantly clear: If someone chooses to have consentual, informed sex that they hold as sacred with 1 or 1,000+, you nor anyone other than those involved have any right to judge that it is sacred or not.  That is my point.  My qualification had no connotations that degrade, judge, or otherwise seek to impose my beliefs on others with differing ways of expressing themselves through sacred sex as you would suggest. 
I hope that is clear enough.  

And round n round the merry-go-round goes....  <shrugs>  

Anytime you disagree with someone, you're making a judgement call - pure and simple!  Anytime you express a personal opinion, it's the formulation of judgements.  What I find comical in your arguments is that you think people should be better than that (making judgements) and you're convinced that YOU are above that, when the truth is we'd all be mindless drones if we didn't make judgements. 
 
I think you're being a raging hypocrite to say you're all respectful and non judgemental of others and their beliefs blah blah when that's exactly what you're doing (of me) in continuing to debate this "storm in a teacup".
 
If LA (or anyone) posted on a public board that the sky is typically green, the oceans are orange and scratching your arse causes global warming, what are YOU gonna say about that?
A)  That she's crazy or delusional etc.  Ergo, you're making a (*gasp*) judgement.
B)  Get all pious and attack the first person who does point that out while harping on about how you're all respectful and non judgemental of others.  Ergo, you're a hypoctite.
C)  Nothing at all because you don't stand for anything beyond a nauseating belief that anyone has the right to express any nonsense they want, untested or unchallenged, and the rest of us should, apparently, rally around like a bunch of misty eyed group huggers in celebration of their right to do so.
 
I read a statement that, TO ME, was a nonsense and I made light of it.  That's all that happened, but I'm up for it if you wanna keep on upping the ante here.  I rarely agree with LA anyhow but I still think she's a smart girl in general - at the risk of posting yet another judgement of her, indeed, of someone I've never even met.
 
Focus. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Throughout this thread and with various people, you have approached views that differ from yours not with tolerance or curiosity but with patronization and insult.  I genuinely wonder how this serves you as you relate in-person with others. 
You also attempt to play word games at which you are not adept.  I do not indulge this conversation with you out of interest in intellectual discourse as you do not appear willing or able to rise to that occasion but rather I retort because I choose not to abide a bully.  You accused folks of having a 'white knight' complex.  While I don't believe those nations who knight folks do so for females, I'd take the title if offered ; I do have some fabulous armor and I will absolutely stand up against oppression, particularly when it is levelled at me or in an unrighteous manner to which I am privy.  And, for the record, that doesn't, in my opinion, make me so much of a knight as a person of conviction who lives their beliefs. 
To form a judgment is wholly different from being judgmental.  A judgment is a thought, I exercise judgment in various ways everyday.  I do not, however, impose said judgments on others as I perceive you to be doing (As do others, as you have read in the posts that have addressed such), thus I am not judgmental.  I take a very libertarian approach to most things: you respect my rights and don't seek to impose them on me, I'll do the same.  I become judgmental when someone seeks to hurt me and/or mine.  You can not possibly fit that criteria because, quite frankly, you don't even begin to matter to me.  Thus, you have been privy to statements of judgment I have made for and about myself related to sacred sexuality.  This assertion was relevant to the original post regarding sharing with another.  I have responded with strong disagreement to your insults against myself and others and your judgmental attitude, which I have already asserted is an attempt at oppression.  I shall now state, in no uncertain terms, that further offense is taken at your thinking you have even the tiniest justification for or right to call me a hypocrite.  An honorable man would, at this point, nod his head, offer and ask acceptance of his apology for making such an erroneous and offensive statement.  Certainly, one who fancied himself worthy of dominance (Unless he perceives dominance to be bullying and denigration, do you?  You see, I don't fancy humiliation, so what you're doing doesn't get me hot, with the exception of, perhaps, under the collar) would have the fortitude to accept responsibility for his actions.  Do you?  I am many things.  Not all of them good.  I am not a hypocrite and your name-calling does not make it so.  And, disagreement with you does not render one a hypocrite either.  We may speak English somewhat differently due to geographic and cultural differences but I'd urge you to consult good ole Websters' Dictionary and correct your terminological errors. 
Your a, b, c example is frivolous.  You leap from cogent points raised by others to raging dives into emotional lashing out and ludicrous examples, repetitiously evading clearly posed questions or rational statements.  It is quite impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you do that.  In an attempt to lead you back to cogent conversation, though, I'll say that of your choices, I most defend 'c'.  You see, as an American, I am quite attached to The Constitution, that fabulous document foundational to this Great Nation, and one of the rights that those of us who value that document hold dear is Freedom of Speech.  Now, let me tell you what that means to me:  It's easy to agree that someone is deserving of the right to speak freely when they say something with which one agrees.  What's harder (Until you realize that is the very essence of the sentiment) is standing up for the right of the person whose opinion makes you sick to have and state that opinion.  Now, does that freedom of speech give people the right to impose their beliefs on others?  No, it does not.  Does it come without responsibility?  No, it does not.  These are distinctions you either choose to ignore or fail to grasp. 
When I have stated my opinions on the topic at hand and asserted them repetitiously as you appear unwilling or unable to grasp them, I have asserted that my beliefs are right for me.  I have never attempted to impose them on anyone, though I will explain them if someone is interested or, as in the original premise of this post, they are relevant.  Let's be absolutely clear: sex is sacred to me and, as such and as relevant to the original post, sharing with another is not something I take lightly, ever.  I showed respect for Lucky Albatross' somewhat differing manifestation of similar beliefs, being absolutely geniune in that respect.  The same holds true of Bear, whose words and ideals I respect too.  The same is true of everyone who has stated their opinion of what is good, right, and true for themselves while also showing respect for respectfully stated differing opinions.  You see, I don't need to agree with people to respect their stances.  Honoring the right to respectfully disagree is a big step toward tolerance and acceptance.  Also, acknowledging that someone who lives differently than me is not inherently wrong for doing so is important to me. 
Now, take a step back, take a deep breath, and attempt to absorb some of the feedback numerous people have given you on your delivery.  I do not believe, for a moment, that you were 'making light of' anything unless that phrase is equivalent, to you, to 'levelling insult toward', in which case, be honest.  Your accusing myself and others of upping the ante does not make it so.  Dogmatism comes in many forms.  It is different from conviction.  Conviction allows room for respect.  I urge you to explore the concept. 
Davan
(Who would be glad to elucidate the long-term history and various manifestations of sacred sexuality throughout the ages if you'd like to learn from rather than judge others)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Throughout this thread and with various people, you have approached views that differ from yours not with tolerance or curiosity but with patronization and insult.  I genuinely wonder how this serves you as you relate in-person with others. 
You also attempt to play word games at which you are not adept.  I do not indulge this conversation with you out of interest in intellectual discourse as you do not appear willing or able to rise to that occasion but rather I retort because I choose not to abide a bully.  You accused folks of having a 'white knight' complex.  While I don't believe those nations who knight folks do so for females, I'd take the title if offered ; I do have some fabulous armor and I will absolutely stand up against oppression, particularly when it is levelled at me or in an unrighteous manner to which I am privy.  And, for the record, that doesn't, in my opinion, make me so much of a knight as a person of conviction who lives their beliefs. 
To form a judgment is wholly different from being judgmental.  A judgment is a thought, I exercise judgment in various ways everyday.  I do not, however, impose said judgments on others as I perceive you to be doing (As do others, as you have read in the posts that have addressed such), thus I am not judgmental.  I take a very libertarian approach to most things: you respect my rights and don't seek to impose them on me, I'll do the same.  I become judgmental when someone seeks to hurt me and/or mine.  You can not possibly fit that criteria because, quite frankly, you don't even begin to matter to me.  Thus, you have been privy to statements of judgment I have made for and about myself related to sacred sexuality.  This assertion was relevant to the original post regarding sharing with another.  I have responded with strong disagreement to your insults against myself and others and your judgmental attitude, which I have already asserted is an attempt at oppression.  I shall now state, in no uncertain terms, that further offense is taken at your thinking you have even the tiniest justification for or right to call me a hypocrite.  An honorable man would, at this point, nod his head, offer and ask acceptance of his apology for making such an erroneous and offensive statement.  Certainly, one who fancied himself worthy of dominance (Unless he perceives dominance to be bullying and denigration, do you?  You see, I don't fancy humiliation, so what you're doing doesn't get me hot, with the exception of, perhaps, under the collar) would have the fortitude to accept responsibility for his actions.  Do you?  I am many things.  Not all of them good.  I am not a hypocrite and your name-calling does not make it so.  And, disagreement with you does not render one a hypocrite either.  We may speak English somewhat differently due to geographic and cultural differences but I'd urge you to consult good ole Websters' Dictionary and correct your terminological errors. 
Your a, b, c example is frivolous.  You leap from cogent points raised by others to raging dives into emotional lashing out and ludicrous examples, repetitiously evading clearly posed questions or rational statements.  It is quite impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you do that.  In an attempt to lead you back to cogent conversation, though, I'll say that of your choices, I most defend 'c'.  You see, as an American, I am quite attached to The Constitution, that fabulous document foundational to this Great Nation, and one of the rights that those of us who value that document hold dear is Freedom of Speech.  Now, let me tell you what that means to me:  It's easy to agree that someone is deserving of the right to speak freely when they say something with which one agrees.  What's harder (Until you realize that is the very essence of the sentiment) is standing up for the right of the person whose opinion makes you sick to have and state that opinion.  Now, does that freedom of speech give people the right to impose their beliefs on others?  No, it does not.  Does it come without responsibility?  No, it does not.  These are distinctions you either choose to ignore or fail to grasp. 
When I have stated my opinions on the topic at hand and asserted them repetitiously as you appear unwilling or unable to grasp them, I have asserted that my beliefs are right for me.  I have never attempted to impose them on anyone, though I will explain them if someone is interested or, as in the original premise of this post, they are relevant.  Let's be absolutely clear: sex is sacred to me and, as such and as relevant to the original post, sharing with another is not something I take lightly, ever.  I showed respect for Lucky Albatross' somewhat differing manifestation of similar beliefs, being absolutely geniune in that respect.  The same holds true of Bear, whose words and ideals I respect too.  The same is true of everyone who has stated their opinion of what is good, right, and true for themselves while also showing respect for respectfully stated differing opinions.  You see, I don't need to agree with people to respect their stances.  Honoring the right to respectfully disagree is a big step toward tolerance and acceptance.  Also, acknowledging that someone who lives differently than me is not inherently wrong for doing so is important to me. 
Now, take a step back, take a deep breath, and attempt to absorb some of the feedback numerous people have given you on your delivery.  I do not believe, for a moment, that you were 'making light of' anything unless that phrase is equivalent, to you, to 'levelling insult toward', in which case, be honest.  Your accusing myself and others of upping the ante does not make it so.  Dogmatism comes in many forms.  It is different from conviction.  Conviction allows room for respect.  I urge you to explore the concept. 
Davan
(Who would be glad to elucidate the long-term history and various manifestations of sacred sexuality throughout the ages if you'd like to learn from rather than judge others)

Oh my; someone's defense mechanism is showing - and it IS so much more eloquent than your earlier "I think you have your head up your ass on this one".  (Though I'm sure you didn't mean that in any kind of judgemental way). 
 
And looky here; despite the mammoth content, it's one of your rare posts you didn't hafta come back and edit. I do believe the aroma of an off site project is in the air?  LOl, no wonder you haven't been about the last day or so....  C'mon, spill - 4 hours to compose?  6?  More?  I don't have your Frasier-esque way with words but I can do sophistry, too.... 
 
And who knows, I may even read all of it one day - maybe when your MO isn't nearly so transparent.  But hey, I've read the first paragraph and browsed the second (I've got the gist) and I'll admit anyone who can write this is obviously quite an intelligent person.  Too bad you're not so smart with it - you seriously think I'm as green as my preferred font colour?  Seems a little obsessive but I really do appreciate the undoubted effort you've put into this.
 
<chuckles on outa here>
 
Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

G’day Davan,
One point I’m going to toss in and I’m not referring specifically to Focus because I don’t know the bloke other then here where we oft take somewhat friendly pot shots at each other and as he agrees, we mostly agree to disagree.  It is common place here in Australia for people to deliberately try to tear down the work of others especially if that target person appears to be on a better social or academic level as those who would tear down. I cop it regularly in other places partly due to my preference of the English language as I was taught it and my love for the way of speaking or writing of both the Victorian and Edwardian periods. It makes people uncomfortable but as I commented in a post in another site, I will not lower my standards and sink into “Pub language” . You find this too when people have personal experience way outside the “Norm” as far as most of the masses understand and thus must be false..  Such attacks or mocking of such folk is referred here as Tall Poppy Syndrome where the average Aussie seems to need to cut them down to their mediocre standard.  Sadly I have watched in my life time Australia sink from the Smart land where Mateship and  “Giving a fair go” were the norm to a society youth driven where instant gratification and asocial level is at best mediocre.

Just some thoughts ….

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

G’day Davan,
One point I’m going to toss in and I’m not referring specifically to Focus because I don’t know the bloke other then here where we oft take somewhat friendly pot shots at each other and as he agrees, we mostly agree to disagree.  It is common place here in Australia for people to deliberately try to tear down the work of others especially if that target person appears to be on a better social or academic level as those who would tear down. I cop it regularly in other p[laces partly due to my preference of the English language as I was taught it and my love for the way of speaking or writing of both the Victorian and Edwardian periods. It makes people uncomfortable but as I commented in a post in another site, I will not lower my standards and sink into “Pub language” . You find this too when people have personal experience way outside the “Norm” as far as most of the masses understand and thus must be false..  Such attacks or mocking of such folk is referred here as Tall Poppy Syndrome where the average Aussie seems to need to cut them down to their mediocre standard.  Sadly I have watched in my life time Australia sink from the Smart land where Mateship and  “Giving a fair go” were the norm to a society youth driven where instant gratification and asocial level is at best mediocre.

Just some thoughts ….

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysliloneds

every man, over the age of thirty-five, that i have ever discussed sharing me sexually has all told me the same thing...

if they can't guarantee i'll be safe from harm, they won't do it, and because of such, it will never happen, as we don't always know when someone will cross the line, and generally speaking, when someone does cross that line it's because they've lost self-control, which means it will be difficult, at best, for him to control them as well, no matter how big and mean he is or can be.

the ones that have no problem with sharing me sexually, are the ones i found, that don't really give a rats ass about me and how it will effect me or us in the end, and generally speaking, it's the guys who are younger and need to get a couple of their porn-reading fantasies out of their head, but that's just the way it's worked out for me.