Fiannan

One would think the intent of the person engaged in an activity would be what matters.

So if they are totally natural (no cosmetics, operations...heck, hippie women, hairy underarms and all) then it's not pornographic I assume. Gee, what brought that on????

Perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone -- promote more physical activity. Obese people generate way more CO2 than thin people, require more food to be produced as well as more gasoline to transport them from point A to point B. If physical activity was promoted then people might walk or ride a bike to work or to pick up something at the store. They get in better shape and use less resources in the long run.

Naked women, one dancing around or grinding corn and the other playing volleyball. One black the other generally white. Any other differences? What, why I refused to have sex prior to marriage (lost a couple of girlfriends over that one) or that I have never cheaten on my wife?

What era were the fashions based on for the movie "Hero"? I think it was the Xin dynasty. Those styles for women were quite nice. However some of the fashion of the Qing dynasty looked appealing as well. The Jane Austin era kinda freaks me out as people didn't bathe all that much in England and wore fabrics that did not allow for much ventilation for the skin. Rashes and other skin infections must have been rampant.

I think a lot depends on what the image is. For instance, what the heck is so damaging about seeing a naked man or woman? Kids have been sneaking peaks at National Geographic for years to see naked native women (seems it has always been acceptable to see naked people who aren't white in such publications). In fact, I remember seeing films in high school where naked African women were shown smashing corn...you get the point, lots of movement. Yet that wasn't porn. So why should seeing a naked white woman playing volleyball be considered porn? When I was a kid the garage my dad got car work done had those early 1970s-style pinups all ver the walls. Yes, these were educational -- at least you got to see what a naked woman looked like. So what? I don't think that it psychologically damaged anyone who saw them. So something a kid sees on a page 3 paper I would not make a fuss over really except to say that it wasn't a good use of time. Now if someone at a young age sees porn featuring adults engaged in sex I do think that can be harmful as much of the porn features group sex and/or same sex relations. I personally think much of the experimentatin in lesbian sex nowadays (it's probably way more common than you think) is due to young women viewing porn that features attractive women engaged in this activity. Perhaps the reason for more interest in threesomes is due to porn giving the idea that this is just a fun activity. Yes, porn is damaging but it's not the anatomy per se that is the problem. Heck, you could show a ballet in the nude and it would not really give a negative message (one Russian Tsar enjoyed this form of entertainment). However, it's when you have people commiting fornication and adultery that it becomes porn. By the way, I am sure any kid knows this but there is no way to prevent porn from coming into a computer. All you have to do to bypass a porn filter is to use a less commonly known language (i.e. Finnish) for searches -- I knew a kid who was an exchange student at my son's school who told all the students the words so they could get around the surf block program. I thought it was hillarious since the surf block would not let you access research on gay marriage, breast cancer or Right to Life so that little jab at authority was amusing. Point is, if your kids (I mean when) wind up on pornographic web sites take the time to discuss issues as they relate to fornication and adultery. If the site is merely nudity then don't freak out or you likely will foster fixation and perhaps even lay the foundation for a fetish.

great film but why do aliens always land in the USA?

I read a story about an LDS businessman in Australia who was encouraging men to donate more. His wife had had a fertility problem but later they had a large family -- he didn't feel it was right for others to have to go without the blessing of children. The "official" stand is that it is discouraged (I suppose watching football on Sunday falls into that sort of thing) but no disciplinary action would be taken against a man or woman donating or a woman receieving IVF treatment or eggs from another woman.

I have heard a lot of things about the gay teens and suicide. I know of at least one circumstance where a school administrator disowned his son for being gay, so I suppose such situations could lead to horrible outcomes (it didn't in this case though). Now as for the situation where someone feels they might be gay. I home taught a woman who was innactive and raising a young teen on her own. Her daughter comes in one day and asks about if it would be okay to date other females. The mother merely sat down with her and discussed the issue and asked what her long-range goals were. Once they established she wanted to get married and have children the conventional way the mother asked why she would want to complicate things by getting into relationships with members of the same gender. Simple, yes, but it was effective. I would assume that if a young woman came from a liberal background she might decide to experiment and (after dating both genders) would just choose which person she preferred. The problem here, as I stated earlier, is that there is such an acceptance of "anything goes" that she might find a woman she gets along with so well that she chooses to stay with her. Then there is the more conservative approach, the woman might feel that any attraction is horrific and sinful. Most will probably repress such thoughts and never act on them except perhaps in fantasy. However, a few of the others might feel their secret is so dark and loathsome they lable themselves as having some "same gender attraction" problem and then eventually fall away from any religion that is negative towards the gay lifestyle and gravitate to homosexuality. The best solution, I believe, is the one followed by the woman I mentioned with her daughter. Since getting involved in same-gender relationships will only cause iner turmoil in the long run, and will always in some way define a person, then it's probably best to aim towards not acting on these impulses. However, one should recongize that all people are bi-potential and the feelings and attractions are quite normal.

Amen to that.

Not sure on this one. Maybe it's like if you give junior 5 dollars to get a Big Mac menu when he's with friends, but that day MC had a half off sale, then shoudl junior give back the difference? I would side with the notion he can keep it since the object ws that he get dinner with his friends that evening. Whatever the case here I would not loose sleep over it. The scouts in question did all the legwork and they turned the money in that covered the candy. So what?

Perhaps if people had a more comprehensive understading of sexuality and attraction they would not "question" their sexuality. However, the danger of such understanding would be, perhaps, more experimentation...who knows? The other day an attactive young friend of mine vsited me at work. We were talking about personality tests and I mentioned Epstein's sexual orientation test. She wanted to take it so I logged her in and left her a few moments. When she was finished she scored a 4 with a range of 6 (0 is total heterosexuality while 12 would be total homosexuality). We were in a joking mood but she asked me to interpret. I said with that score she would probably not find a long-term sexual relationship with another woman satisfying but she would be open to having sex with females occasionally. Note, I was trying to be humorous here. Yet she looked at me and smiled and said "Wow, that is exactly the way I feel!". When I mentioned this to my wife (mutual friend) she said "Oh, so she's bi-sexual." to which I merely said that if that makes a woman bi-sexual then most women I know are bi. The thing is, there is a danger of seeing everything in a black or white manner. Most women, and many men, can become psychologically and/or physically attracted to members of the same sex. Ironicaly, when women look up porn they often, at least the ones I have talked to, look up porn that often features same-sex female scenes. And most women seem to refer seeing a nude female body than a male. Sadly, if women feel that if they might desire a woman (physically or emotionally) today's world says they must be lesbians which is hardly the case. The danger is, as one sees in much of northern Europe, that if they do understand this they will often experiment just for fun. However, others put more meaning into this and wind up questioning their sexuality and going beyond experimentation. Truly a hard one to call as to what we should tell young people.

Please tell me you kept wearing it.

The power of socialized medicine is far greater -- especially in the example I used. At least in the US you can have choices and the mindset in a capitalistic system will lend to more freedom at the individual level. In some European nations you are restricted by law as to what kind of person gets fertility treatment (some ban single women but not lesbian couples for instance). Of course, wealthy women can always travel to the USA or to some other nation that doesn't have such strict policies but they have to pay for the ability to choose. Many British couples travel to Spain and the clinics there advertise in the Polish and Russian immigrant communities for doners for these British couples. This is caused by government policies that hurt people in the longrun in the name of helping them.

Okay, I know I have discussed things dealing with science and reporduction in the past but this is something that perfectly illustrates the dangers of socialized medicine and more government control over choices. I was recently talking with a man involved in reproductive technologies in a country that controls artificial insemination and egg transfer to the point that people can only get such treatments from government hospitals, not individual clinics. I have a strong interest in these issues so I asked about the psychological evaluations that people have to go through both to give genetic material as well as receive it. Now while he did not state official policy I asked about how strict these evaluations are. I then pointed out that that I had two friends who have a eugenic mindset and if they could donate under curent laws in his country. One friend feels she would like to marry someone who would match her exceptional genetic and mental capabilities. The other feels that society should dictate who does and doesn't fit certain genetic qualifications for reproduction. And before someone dismisses them as being Nazies, they aren't (one is far from being white). So I asked if someone came in to donate and said they were doing it to make sure there were more babies born with great genes like theirs would they be accepted. He was unsure but he even questioned if they would be given IVF treatment if the interviewer found they had these ideas. Again, he was not the evaluator but the mere fact he was unsure indicated something kinda scary to me. So what if someone has exceptional health and intellect and feels they would like to donate egg or sperm so there would be more babies out there with such traits? And then, what if someone might tell their views (let's say their husband is sterile and they want a certain type of male donater) and the interviewer might question whether they should even get treatment to become a parent? That illustrates why centralized planning in medical issues is a bad idea. Currently in the USA people have choice as to who gives them their baby if they seek IVF or egg donation. If you want an Iranian Muslim with dark hair and green eyes who is good at soccer and mathematics then you'll probably find someone who fits that -- just as you will probably find a red headed or blonde graduate of BYU who served a mission and who is into track and field -- and majored in biology. Also, since many fertility clinics brag about the health and education of doners there is obviously a eugenic component to the business. My personal opinion? Let the market decide -- if someone wants to choose a certain person, or if a man or woman wants to donate for eugenic reasons, so be it. Centralized medicine is dangerous whether you seek fertility treatment, alternative medicine or even want to use vitamine suppliments. Better to examine teh costs to choice prior to being lulled into giving up choice.