@May kelly,

May kelly:

Sex: An Enigmatic Subject?

I want to believe that the moderator did not see this topic to trash it to the romance thread.

Lol, it pervades all areas of human endeavour - politics, romance, tech, . . religion. Everyone has a perspective on the subject, and this one is about the way people view the subject from a spiritual point.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Ok I no wan talk plenty before but now una wan open my nyash.
First of all pilgrim your analysis of that paul's statement is wrong.

Grateful to be humbled by that observation.

Chrisbenogor:

The first part of the statement says "it is good to be unmarried" the second part says "but it is better to be married than to burn with desire". Look carefully the "better" was a comparison between between burning with desire and being married, not with the first part of the sentence at all.

I understand all that, pointed it out, and it is the same thing I have highlighted once again in noting that even verse 38 is not a stand-alone verse. People read from verse 32 down to 37 and then when they come to verse 38, they immediately severe all connections with the preceding verses and treat it like it appears from nowhere and takes the canopy above all else!

Chrisbenogor:

Huxley's analogy was super and to the point this is simple syntax, in the grander scheme of things the statement would mean it would be better than burning with desire, not better than being celibate.

I'm sure you know what it means to weigh a matter in "the grander scheme of things"? This seems like a smooth vibe to claim a syntax in one breath and at that same instance deplore the same syntax in the "grander scheme" of things. I do not mind if you see that verse as a stand-alone verse to arrive at that inference - but to me it would not make any sense to claim it is a "super" by disconnecting it from all other verses while narrowing it down to just one dot! That is not syntax in the "grander scheme", it is rather pre[/b]text under a smooth vibe.

Chrisbenogor:

Pilgrim you twisted those words there and you of all people are taking things out of context.

Thank you again sir - if I did, you misled your ideas on a syntax you already punctured in the "[b]grand scheme of things". If you come back and wipe that idea out of your quote, then I can applaud your musings. As long as you assume a "grand scheme" while hooting for a narrow slant, I'm sorry sir, that would be hard to digest.

Chrisbenogor:

I know you will by instinct want to click on reply and fire away a defence but lets bring in a third party or better still let the statement be verified by an external source, no amount of bending or twisting would change it.

They can bring in a any number of party desired - I'm waiting for those who would "fire away" at making a "grand scheme" as narrow as you applauded and yet be unable to show how you have acknowledged the other verses in this "granbd scheme".

Chrisbenogor:

Huxley was right with his analogy, totally spot on.

No wahala naw. . . we go see as time progresses.

Chrisbenogor:

Your defence of meat and sex does not hold water it is the syntax of the sentence in this particular case we are talking about.

Lol, Chris. . . this is the sort of thing that makes me laugh at people sometimes.

Please for heaven's sake, go back and read slowly - was it pilgrim.1 that made the defence or analogy of "meat"? Did I introduce that at all?

What was my terse reply to huxley's use of the "meat"? Did I not simply and clearly say that it does not apply to this matter? See it again:

["That analogy does not fit into this matter about sex and marriage -
what is the correlation? How do you delineate sexual matters
along the lines of a doctor's reco to eat lean meat?"]

Phew! How come you are tagging me with a defence of "meat" from huxley that was not in my case? I knew that you guys would run into a huge problem with that; and now that you find it miserly, why are you inferring that pilgrim.1 tried to "defend" what she never introduce in the first place? Wetin dey happen, Chris?

Chrisbenogor:

Now about confusing, the tenets of biblical sex does not fit into the reality of what we have today. But I do not want us to muddle issues up first respond to this first.

I don respond. It is a worrisome trend that people just dey boil over this matter O. . that is why since April last year, I said this issue is enigmatic!!

Enjoy.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Lol, were you banging your head on your keyboard or what? I don't remember where I said "you not not take this in isolation" - was that how you demonstrate your incohenrence? Okay, just teasing ya!

There was a typo there.  I meant to say  "you are to take this in isolation . . . ."

pilgrim.1:

Anyway, you still seem bent on going round in circles at this matter; and I'll just humour you a little more. No offence, but huxley, take it slowly and then see the point.

Let's say your analogy of lean meat comes in from the doc. The point is: would the doc's prescription be standing alone or in relation to something? Eating lean mean is by no means the big picture - because that does not apply to everybody, does it? That is precisely the point you raised and what you have been arguing so far in consequence is the direct opposite of your own summisings!

The eating of lean meat is not the more preferred for others who do not need that recommendation! It does not apply to every person who eats meat! If someone is better off eating lean meat, it does not mean therefore that eating lean meat is the better choice for everyone!

It appears we are in debate about two issues here:

1)   The direct meaning of the phrase and
2)   The audience to who it was addressed.

It was in regard to the direct meaning of the phrases that I proposed  the vegetarian/lean meant analogy.

Now, are we agreeing that sentences constructed in this fashion implicitly define a hierarchy of options.

It is good to be a vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, eat only lean meat.
It is good to be teetotal.  But if you enjoy a drink, have only low alcoholic drinks
It is good to the unmarried. But if you cannot resist sexual temptation, get married.

I submit that all three propositions above define a certain hierarchy of options,  as follows;

[table][tr][td]1 Vegetarian [/td][td]1 Teetotal[/td][td]1 Unmarried[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2 Lean meat [/td][td] 2 Low Alcohol only[/td][td]2 Married[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Now, there is no getting away from the fact that these statements, in so far as they are constructed in that way, define such a hierarchy.   Do you agree?

I agree that some context is required to give it is full meaning.  And this is where the issue of the audience comes in.

How can we augment the meaning by adding context and audience?  In the vegetegian and drinking analogy, if your medical condition is such that you would benefit from these recommendation, then these ranking would be even more appropriate.  

Now, this brings me to Verse 35, which you keep refering to.  Here is it in its fully glory;

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Does this define a specific  audience for Paul's injunction?   Is the audience defines elsewhere in the chapter?  In my earlier post,  I asked whether the audience were Pastors, Ministers,  Deacons,  Bishops, etc.   But as usual, you evaded that and gave no answer

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,
This was why I have again and again referred to verse 35 when reading verse 38 - surely that is not hard to see, is it? It becomes hard for you to see it when you ignore the preceding verse and treat verse 38 as a stand-alone verse! Which is not my worry. . . I'm just amused that you who spoke of "syntax" are the first to break that same rule!

If you had read my post with some attention you would have seen that I was not considering 38 in isolation (stand-alone).  This is what I really said;

Verse 38.  This is like a synopsis to the foregoing verses.  It starts with the conclusive conjunction expression "So then . . .".  It basically summaries and ties together the preceeding verses in the following way -  to get married is good, BUT to remain unmarried is EVEN BETTER.

Does the above suggest that I have failed to take into account the preceeding verses?

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,
What does verse 35 point to any differently from what I have highlighted earlier? If you have a problem with that, I am sorry it is not my worry - people naturally have a problem with what they like to ignore; and this is no different. But I had hoped you would help yourself and not be ignoring that verse.

Am afraid, you have not shown who the audience to these injunction was although you keep harping on about verse 35, and how adding the "mystery" audience into the mix modifies the meaning of the text.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,
Ignore the preceding verses again, not so? Dear huxley, all Christians are called to serve the Lord; but not all Christians are called to serve Him in the same capacity. To make this point clear to you, please read 1 Corinthians 12:29-30. As for those addressed in ch. 7:37, it does distinguishes the people there instead of applying that references to all Christians, does it not?

If I grant you that, then who are the Christians whose capacity and commitment devotions requires commitment to celibacy?   I do not see them in most evangelical movements.

I asked the following:

BY the way,   who are people intending to server God as the primary focus of their lives?   Does this not describe every  Christian?   Does a Christian have anything else besides serving God as their main concern?

Was these meant to be Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops,  Saints,  the laity, the ordinary man/woman?  Who really is Paul addressing here.

And your response was;

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,
Read verse 37.

Now, this is Verse 37;

37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.

Does it define who such persons are?     What is the proportions of Christian evangelical celibates whose devotion to serving God is such that they have foregone the union of marriage?  Is it 90%,  70%,  50%,  10%,  2%,  1%, or 0%?

@huxley,

huxley:

There was a typo there. I meant to say "you are to take this in isolation . . . ."

It's not a problem - I knew it was a typo, we all have them, and that was why I only teased you. Just simply says we should not be too forward to allege things against others before we hear them out.

huxley:

It appears we are in debate about two issues here:

1) The direct meaning of the phrase and
2) The audience to who it was addressed.

It was in regard to the direct meaning of the phrases that I proposed the vegetarian/lean meant analogy.

Okay.

huxley:

Now, are we agreeing that sentences constructed in this fashion implicitly define a hierarchy of options.

It is good to be a vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, eat only lean meat.
It is good to be teetotal. But if you enjoy a drink, have only low alcoholic drinks
It is good to the unmarried. But if you cannot resist sexual temptation, get married.

Yes and no.

Yes, if they apply and correlate to the subject we wish to illustrate - and No, if they do not. In which case I noted earlier that the way you had postulated that analogy may be good, but it simply does not bear a correlation to the ubject we're examining. Why was I persuaded so? Because the "hierarchy" was only relative and not absolute.

The case of making a particular verse an "absolute" is what I find problematic. Because if I compromised my stand, huxley, it would throw me off balance when I examine other verses. This was why even though we had been long on 1 Corinthians 7, I kept hinting that verse 38 (IMHO) is not to be treated as a stand-alone verse. In which case, if we kept up arguing back and forth on that verse, we may not get anywhere at all - and the other references to me as a Christian become more of a problem that a tessellation with this passage.

Let me explain just a bit more. Suppose I agreed with you with an "absolute" (rather than "relative" context. Then I look at Hebrews 13:4 - what would I assume? Would it not be that I take that verse as "absolute" over against other references? Part of what that verse says is this: "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. . " Would you be fair to yourself that I take this verse as a standalone and treat it as absolute rather than relative in consonance with the "greater scheme of things"? Could I argue therefore that Hebrews 13:4 puts marriage as honourable above all other relationships? I don't know how many people would agree with that premise - but I find that assumption hard to take in. Why? Because it should be relative and not absolute - meaning that, marriage is not to be viewed as the more preferred to celibacy in other connections.

I don't know if you now get my point?

huxley:

I submit that all three propositions above define a certain hierarchy of options, as follows;

[table][tr][td]1 Vegetarian [/td][td]1 Teetotal[/td][td]1 Unmarried[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2 Lean meat [/td][td] 2 Low Alcohol only[/td][td]2 Married[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Now, there is no getting away from the fact that these statements, in so far as they are constructed in that way, define such a hierarchy. Do you agree?

Yes.

huxley:

I agree that some context is required to give it is full meaning. And this is where the issue of the audience comes in.

Spot on - which was what I have been hooting for all along with such pointers to "stand-alone", "context". . "pre[/b]text", etc. My point has been just as about in the highlight.

huxley:

How can we augment the meaning by adding context and audience? In the vegetegian and drinking analogy, if your medical condition is such that you would benefit from these recommendation, then these ranking would be even more appropriate.

Which again was what I pointed to: that the [b]specific case does not apply to the whole. Initially, I was not inclined to go on about the lean meat analogy, because I felt deeply that it failed to address some fundamental elements in our subject. If I took the case of the "unmarried" and make it a case for the "married", then pretty soon we get boged down into an endless argument on just this note - applying the specific case for the whole.

huxley:

Now, this brings me to Verse 35, which you keep refering to. Here is it in its fully glory;

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Does this define a specific audience for Paul's injunction? Is the audience defines elsewhere in the chapter? In my earlier post, I asked whether the audience were Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops, etc. But as usual, you evaded that and gave no answer

I beg your pardon, sir. The best you could have said here was that you ignored the recommendations I gave of 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 to the effect that not everyone was called to the same capacity of service! How could you have ignored that answer to your specific question about everyone being called to service, and now accusing me of not having answered?

Now, I understand that verse 35 proves an enigma here for you as it does to many people - which was why I did not ask you to jump from verse 35 straight to v. 38 - what happened to the verses inbetween? Was it not even you yourself that distinguished one group of people from the other with "those who" and "those who"? Why make this distinction if there were no distinction between any group of persons there? Even when it seems there is missing link in communication between us on these matters, at least I can say that your distinction was uncalled for if it all meant that no group was distinguished from any other.

In very simple terms, let me put it like this: as in the case of your dichotomy above between the "vegeterian" and "lean meat", please see if verse 36 and 37 are not saying anything of what I have been saying. Please just look at those verses carefully again -

verse 36 - a man who thinks he is acting improperly toward his virgin

verse 37 - a man who stands stedfast in his heart, having no necessity

Certainly, I could not apply their individual cases in a criss-cross manner, could I?

But verse 38 is where the problem is - and you're persuaded that there is the big picture as to be preferrable above all other types of relationship, No? Please correct me if I'm misreading you on that.

But if I run no risks of misreading you on that note, then this is what I had asked for: we cannot stay on the verse 38 and treat it like a stand-alone (or "absolute" case above all other relationships. If I bend to your persuasions on that verse to make celibacy more preferrable over all types of relationships, then what happens when I read other texts that treat marriage with a higher hierarchy in practical Church life? Taking only that verse, I may be misled to think that it surpasses all other relationships - and that seems to be the case if and only if I ignore what the other references are saying. It then becomes clear that the analogy in yours between the vegetarian and lean meat was indeed a wasted effort.

Now, the "synopsis" you drew for verse 38 stands vacant. I'm sorry, but while you claim that it is a synopsis, it actually stands in your body of argument as a vacant inference. If we say "so then. . ", on what basis and to what object are we drawing that inference? Are we saying that "so then, in all types of relationships, celibacy is the more preferred to marriage"? If that is what you're saying, could you please show me where you got that idea from.

Cheers.

@pilgrim
My dear, allow me to digress a bit, I am not really in the habit of quote and destroy personally I think it takes away the general message the person is trying to convey to me and if I get hung up that the person made a typo then I miss the whole issue totally.
For someone who does not like things taken out of context and things misinterpreted I think you do a fair share of misrepresenting views, I did not study English language, was never a super student at it but I try to bring my fair share to the table in fact I have repeatedly said I am at awe with your diction but what I try to convey to you is a whole Idea and if you take apart my statements for the sake of bringing them down then you miss the whole issue.
Let me point the first thing out to you, I said

Your defence of meat and sex does not hold water it is the syntax of the sentence in this particular case we are talking about.

I meant in not so many words that your reply

That analogy does not fit into this matter about sex and marriage

did not hold water because the analogy did make a lot of sense, the issue at hand was the syntax and which is reflected in the statement

it is the syntax of the sentence in this particular case we are talking about.
I hope that settles that.

Now next were the words

the grander scheme of things

which I used while again trying to drive home a general idea, what you managed to miss( intentionally or not ) were the words that followed it, and this is why I tried to point out that you twisted those words and could easily confuse a reader. The full statement was,

Huxley's analogy was super and to the point this is simple syntax, in the grander scheme of things the statement would mean it would be better than burning with desire, not better than being celibate.

How did you miss the part in red and just incase someone else is reading it what statement did I mean,

First of all pilgrim your analysis of that paul's statement is wrong.

I went further ahead to talk about the statement I meant

The first part of the statement says "it is good to be unmarried" the second part says "but it is better to be married than to burn with desire". Look carefully the "better" was a comparison between between burning with desire and being married, not with the first part of the sentence at all.

My dear you are totally misrepresenting what I said and I hate having to point it out because it takes precious time away from the issues at hand and we have not even got to the second part!

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

@pilgrim
My dear, allow me to digress a bit, I am not really in the habit of quote and destroy personally I think it takes away the general message the person is trying to convey to me and if I get hung up that the person made a typo then I miss the whole issue totally.
For someone who does not like things taken out of context and things misinterpreted I think you do a fair share of misrepresenting views, I did not study English language, was never a super student at it but I try to bring my fair share to the table in fact I have repeatedly said I am at awe with your diction but what I try to convey to you is a whole Idea and if you take apart my statements for the sake of bringing them down then you miss the whole issue.

I think you missed the whole point. Actually. It's not my style to quote and destroy, but if you feel that way my apologies. As in my reply to huxley's, I noted the typo - we all have them; so I'll just leave it at that.

Chrisbenogor:

Let me point the first thing out to you, I said
I meant in not so many words that your replydid not hold water because the analogy did make a lot of sense, the issue at hand was the syntax and which is reflected in the statement

Chris dear, that analogy was not mine - so why would I be wasting time "defending" what was not mine in the first place? if you keep reading my terse reply to that as a "defence", you make more of an issue where there is none - and that's why the problem is endless.

Chrisbenogor:

it is the syntax of the sentence in this particular case we are talking about.
I hope that settles that.

Okay, if you say so.

Chrisbenogor:

Now next were the words
which I used while again trying to drive home a general idea, what you managed to miss( intentionally or not ) were the words that followed it, and this is why I tried to point out that you twisted those words and could easily confuse a reader. The full statement was,

At least when you read my reply of late to huxley, you see why I didn't miss anything. My only question now is when you take the schema at the end of the discussion on that specific passage, what then happens when we go to other references - which is the point I'm trying to make. I have not read either you or huxley give a good answer to that, but I didn't come back bending your necks to it or dismissing all else you have said. I prefer to discuss an issue, not dismiss any argument out of hand.

Chrisbenogor:

How did you miss the part in red and just incase someone else is reading it what statement did I mean,

I didn't miss it - and I could quote you a ton of a page of what you guys have chosen to miss in mine since we entered this discussion. How could you be applying just one statement and trying to make that singular verse as the standard for the "greater scheme of things'? What you should note here is that while you're zoning in on that particular verse, I don't have a problem with that. But to make that singular verse the cap of all that the chapter addressed on relationships, I think you guys need to calm down and wonder at your choice of words.

Chrisbenogor:

I went further ahead to talk about the statement I meant

My dear you are totally misrepresenting what I said and I hate having to point it out because it takes precious time away from the issues at hand and we have not even got to the second part!

Thank you for the compliments. I think we should just leave it at that and get on with other matters on the subject. What do ya say?

Cheers.

I think we should, just please note I was only addressing that statement not the whole of what you were saying and my grand scheme did not include the whole paragraph was just analyzing the statement, if you notice I did not really make any contribution about it because I really cannot place context and all that other stuff into it, I was just pointing out that statement, pardon me if it made the real big picture more obscure, na pidgin we dey speak for our house before

Yep lets move on.

The Abrahamic antipathy towards sex and all things feminine goes back to traditions Jewish customs as given in the old testament. For a start, the OT treats women essentially as second-class citizens first by considering their natural biological functionings as dirty and filthy:

1) A woman is considered unclean during her periods. Everything she comes into contact with while she is "unclean" also becomes unclean

2) Birth of a female child requires nearly twice as much a period of cleansing as for a male child

3) Women are rarely the beneficiary of the family inheritance.

4) It is very soft on the sexual abuse of females. In some cases requiring the female victim to become married to the rapist


Christianity was only a marginal improvement on the lot of the female sex. It is no surprise given that it is founded on the partriachal Judaic system. Although Jesus would have had female friends, none of his apostles were women. Thus women are not seen as having a pivotal role to play in the early Jesus movement.

In fact, the apostle Paul goes as far as banishing women from speaking in church. 1 Cor 11 is a prepared recipe for discrimination to the female sex. Thanfully, this is largely ignore by most Christians.

However, in the mid to late first century some more influential women became to appear in the movement, but the rise of women was again suppress by Catholicism and the establishment of more formal church structures with the adoption of Christianity as the main religion of the Roman Empire.

With women having been marginalised and downtrodden yet again, it was time they started to be treated yet again as property and worse still sexual property. This attitude pervades most Christian communities today, albeit not quite as bad as in the days of yore.


Young women and men are told it is sinful to have sexual thoughts and lust. In this atmosphere most are unable to learn about the mechanics, subtleties and soft sides of sex. Sex, like any other human activity does not come naturally - it most be practiced and learned to get better at it and enjoy it. Some people have been damage irreparably from their early indoctrination that it is a dirty and sinful thing (Granted this is not all due to religion). In fact, I know of some Christian women who cannot even bring themselve to say a word like masturbate because it evoke feelings of quilt and sin.

The sexual problems amongst evengelicals in American is no better than the ordinary public. In fact, it appears to be worse. Christian evengelical don't watch any less porn, don't masturbate any less, are no more faithful to their partners, etc.

In fact the rate of divorce amongst Christians is worse than amonsgt declared atheists, according to the Barna Group, a leading Christians researching organisation. (Admittedly other Christians have challenge this research).

@huxley,

huxley:

Christianity was only a marginal improvement on the lot of the female sex.

Lol, were you trying to impress your choir? So sing to them: how does atheism improve on the lot of female sex?

huxley:

In fact the rate of divorce amongst Christians is worse than amonsgt declared atheists, according to the Barna Group, a leading Christians researching organisation. (Admittedly other Christians have challenge this research).

You seem to revel in news like this. . . the only problem you may have to explain to yourself is why even atheists divorce at all. It is not a matter of whose divorce rate is higher - it is a question of honestly examining your own heart before pointing fingers at others.

Pilgrim.1, hank you very much for that resource - Porn again christian.
I truly appreciate i.
cheers.

mbulela:

Pilgrim.1, hank you very much for that resource - Porn again christian.
I truly appreciate i.
cheers.

Glad you benefited. Many blessings to you.

it is obvious that my keyboard is allergic to the letter T.
apologies for the typo.

pilgrim.1:

You seem to revel in news like this. . . the only problem you may have to explain to yourself is why even atheists divorce at all. It is not a matter of whose divorce rate is higher - it is a question of honestly examining your own heart before pointing fingers at others.

Unlike the religions, atheism has nothing to say about how one should lead one's life.   So failure of atheist marriages cannot be put on the doors of atheism.

The same cannot be said of religions.  All religions prescribe a certain code of behaviour. So if religionists fall short of the desired behaviour, it could be down to one or more of the following;

1)  A failure or deficiency in the religionist
2)  Unfairness and unrealistic nature of the code
3)  Both of the above.

Nearly all Christians say the pledge "What God has put together, let no man put asunder"  when they tie the knot.  Essentially, they dedicate their union to God, in the company of their families and friends.  So given that these marriage were dedicated to God, why would God let them to fail?

@huxley,

huxley:

Unlike the religions, atheism has nothing to say about how one should lead one's life.

If atheists have nothing to say about how anyone lives, they should as well stop trying to define it for others.

huxley:

So failure of atheist marriages cannot be put on the doors of atheism.

Sad. Where then do you put them?

huxley:

The same cannot be said of religions. All religions prescribe a certain code of behaviour. So if religionists fall short of the desired behaviour, it could be down to one or more of the following;

1) A failure or deficiency in the religionist
2) Unfairness and unrealistic nature of the code
3) Both of the above.

Lol, who was recommending "One Atheist's Creed"? Are you changing your mind already about that atheist's creed as well?

huxley:

Nearly all Christians say the pledge "What God has put together, let no man put asunder" when they tie the knot. Essentially, they dedicate their union to God, in the company of their families and friends. So given that these marriage were dedicated to God, why would God let them to fail?

God does not force people who make vows and decide to break them. On the other hand, that atheists who pretend to make no moral claim should be disturbed about how others live, is simply a laugh.

pilgrim.1:

For the V[/b]ery [b]R[/b]eligious ([b]VR): can you have a healthy and open discussion about sex without feelings of repulsion? What are the limits of an 'open and honest' discussion about the subject that would invite your interest in such a discussion?

For the N[/b]ot-[b]S[/b]o-[b]R[/b]eligious ([b]NSR): are there parameters of a sex discussion (such as the question of morality) that are of concern to you; or you would rather have a 'free-for-all, no-bars-hold, anything-permissible' kind of discussion?

For the N[/b]on-[b]R[/b]eligious ([b]NR): do you share the perspective of the NSR; or you simply wouldn't care less whichever way the debate runs?

let me correct this, not sure if the typos are/were intentional or the result of discomfort with the subject matter:

For the Very Religious VR): can you have a healthy and open discussion about sex without feelings of repulsion? What are the limits of an 'open and honest' discussion about the subject that would invite your interest in such a discussion?

as long as sex is discussed within the appropriate context and parameters, i think it should be ok to talk about it.

repulsion is rather a strong word, you might have meant discomfort, like i stated before.


when you say repulsion, it sounds like the priest in chocolat who ended up practically swimming in the stuff due to too much repression.

For the Not-So-Religious (NSR): are there parameters of a sex discussion (such as the question of morality) that are of concern to you; or you would rather have a 'free-for-all, no-bars-hold, anything-permissible' kind of discussion?

parameters should be applied.

For the Non-Religious (NR): do you share the perspective of the NSR; or you simply wouldn't care less whichever way the debate runs?

i dont think they care much, they have their own rules and bylaws.