njlauren
Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
my quote was 'the religious', not all 'religious people', use the right words,
Yes, you said "the religious"--with no qualification whatsoever. That means all religious people, massed together and tarred with the same broad brush. It's exactly parallel to talking about "the blacks" or "the Jews" or what-have-you.
quote:
and in the context of what I was saying, it was not a broad based smeer.
Of course it was. You made a broad-brush smear against billions of people. And now, instead of having the decency to own and apologize for your bigotry, you're trying to spin it.
quote:
As far as telling vanilla people, apparently a lot more of them are open minded than religious people, given that 50 shades of gray sold something like 60 million copies,
Unless Amazon and Barnes & Noble queried customers about their beliefs, we have no idea whether religious or nonreligious people bought the book. Indeed, given that 83 percent of Americans claim a religious affiliation (source), it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the buyers included some religious folks as well.
quote:
and based on people who know about me and my proclivities, I can tell you that run of the mill vanilla people are a lot less shocked than the religious groups I am talking about.
How often have you disclosed your proclivities to "religious groups"?
quote:
BTW, I could just as easily accuse you of promoting false stereotypes,
And they are . . . ? If you find posts of mine that promote stereotypes, I'd appreciate your bringing them to my attention.
You can argue all the semantics you want, but when people talk about 'the religious', they often mean what I was talking about, not people who proclaim faith, but rather those who are way into it. In other posts I made clear what I was talking about, and if you read my other posts, you will realize what I was talking about when I said religious. What you are doing is trying to pick a fight, probably because that is how you get your rocks off, and be my guest, because I won't play that game. When I said religious, I meant those who go to church every sunday, who accept the whole enchilada without question, especially when it comes to sexuality, I doubt very much you would find an orthodox Catholic on here, because according t church teaching, BD/SM is an abomination, it is objectification, it is about lust, any number of things. I think those without faith or those antagonistic to faith are on a board such as this in larger numbers than people with faith for the very reason that people of faith can struggle with BD/SM, because even liberal faiths have trouble with it (again, the only faith tradition that generally has fewer problems with it are neo pagan/wiccan faiths).
I didnt' smear all people of faith, and to be honest, take a look at the world of those billions of people, and then come back and with a straight face tell me that religious faith in much of those people's lives isn't sex negative....it is only within the past couple of generations in the US where sex has come out from under the rock it was buried under, it wasn't all that many years ago that an unmarried couple caught having sex in a hotel could be arrested for fornication (ask Frank Sinatra, he was busted in NJ in the late 30's for just that), a magazine was shut down because it had an ad for a book about family planning......it was only about 40 years ago that the RC published an encyclical for the first time admitting that sex was at the foundation of a strong marriage, and this was the mid 70's.....and the struggles with planned parenthood, sex education and that of gays speaks louder than anything I can say about religion and sexuality
BTW, with sex and Catholicism, 80% of Catholics think the church is just as stupid as I do. My point was that religious teachings on sexuality are still lagging behind many of their members, and when it comes to BD/SM, even liberal churches have a problem with it, if for varying reasons. To give you an idea of how stupid it can be, the pastor of a very liberal church I belonged to said that churches would have trouble with the B's (bisexuals), because of the teachings on monogamy......which is pretty idiotic, because that assumes that someone who is bisexual isn't going to be monogamous...
What I personally am bigoted against is religion that tries to regulate sexuality in medieval or stupid ways that fly in the face of who human beings are. Human sexuality and emotions are complex, and reducing sexuality, even as a loving act, to procreation is literally lowering us to the level of animals; human beings can express love, they can express caring, through a variety of lovemaking techniques, they can do it when married or not, and the religious teachings try and reduce this to simply making babies, which is asinine, and also contradictory, since few or no other animals have the complexity we do.
|
RE: Could an aetheist do this? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread