Fiannan
-
Posts
1795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Fiannan
-
-
one being how they live their life, in no way do they fit the media version of "sexy", and intended to educate.... the other probably having received plastic surgery for the purpose of fitting an unrealistic media version of sexy engaging in activities intended to arouse sexual desire.
So if they are totally natural (no cosmetics, operations...heck, hippie women, hairy underarms and all) then it's not pornographic I assume.
a person doesn't have to break the law of chastity to be obsessed with or have a skewed view of sexuality
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.
-
do you really not see the difference in women playing volleyball and a national geographic?
Naked women, one dancing around or grinding corn and the other playing volleyball. One black the other generally white. Any other differences?
that explains a lot....
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.
-
ok will probably be alone on an LDS board but seem to remember my class mates and I indulged in anything vaguely pornographic or graphic basically anything that someone got their hands on, at about 10 or 11 it has no need to be made into such a big deal in thier lives and by doing so people have insured they don;t forget it, because my Mum taught me anything I was exposed to then was no big deal. I doubt my kids will make it to their teen years without at least a brief peak at Page 3 of a national newspaper. What is important to me is its no big deal and they grow into chaste adults, and can come to me for advice
Teaching your children so they know what sex is and what chastity is early in their life is in my opinion best way to help them say no and or move on from this sort of thing that has happened in schools since Ancient Greece
-Charley
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 cannot give any advice on this except that this girl needs to know she is loved UNconditionally. It worries me that so many gay teens commit suicide. That would be my first concern.
Now I am sure we have some people on here with experience in the department who can offer more wisdom.
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.
-
Loss of choice is the primary danger. It is sad that so many see the loss of responsibility and freedom as only a minor problem.
-a-train
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.
-
I remember years ago I moved from a small branch where I had a really nice denim suit.
I loved that suit and would wear it to church all the time and when I went out to "nice" places and occasions.
Well as I said, I moved from that area to a ward in New Mexico where the bishop took me aside and told me I must get a "nice" suit to wear to church.
My denim was not appropriate.
I think in many cases it depends on the norms of the area and the local bishop.
As some have pointed out and as I look around from place to place I have found what is accepted in some ares is not so much in others.
Bro. Rudick
Please tell me you kept wearing it.
-
It's quite possible that the current system for paying for health care, using insurance companies and HMOs, actually restricts consumer choice more than a system with government oversight would (depending on how it's run). The only way to have complete control over one's health care is both to pay for it oneself and to have no regulation of the health care industry (such as no FDA, etc.). For the first to happen, we'd all have to be rich, and the second part would be downright dangerous.
HEP
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.
-
That's not my premise. I believe that a society flourishes when the family is allowed to be whatever it wants to be (but, that doesn't work in our system because it's high stress and the parents are too busy at their monotonous job to be much of a parent most of the time).
I'm asking YOU and everyone else what you think of it.
*sigh*
I think the stress thing is over-rated. The birthrates of Germany and Russia were higher during WW2 than they are today -- and what could be more stressful than having your country invaded?
I believe that we could look to Romans chapter 1 to get an idea of what comes first...decadence or the family falling. In this part of the Bible it seems that first you have pride, then people choose to make God into whatever image justifies that pride, then comes not wanting to settle down and raise families then comes the whole perversion thing and then the people die. Both in ancient Rome and Greece one finds that the ruling class did indeed follow this path and eventually were replaced (genetically and culturally) by peoples who had previously been conquered. Does this work in American society? Well, Brigham Young observed that the upper classes of New England (blue blooded Brits) were turning away from family life and practicing birth control (kids kinda get in the way of materialism) and they were being replaced by the "servant" class who immigrated to the US and believed i having children (Irish, Germans, etc.). Interesting that the largest ethnic groups in the US today are those of Irish and German descent.
Yet today the northern and central European population is being replaced by the African and Hispanic population. This means there will be a cultural shift but it remains to be seen if this will affect what we identify with American culture in a couple of generations.
In short, to blame homosexuality and bisexuality on the downfall of a culture is unwarrented. These lifestyles are indicative of turning away from traditional values which generally implies materialism and pride which will lead to less reproduction.
-
I suppose if people don't want sex or nudity in films they could try to develop a taste for Bollywood productions. The worse you will get there is exposed tummies.
And John, isn't "Bikini Beach Club" on display at the Clinton Presidential Library?
-
If you don't like movies with nudity, then why are you watching them?
Good point. And unless I am mistaken there's a lot less nudity in Hollywood films today than 20 years ago.
-
Generally nudity and sex are not necessary to promote a plot. Yet sometimes it may be. For instance, a lot of people complained about the mini series a fews years back called Chaca Zulu -- the actresses went topless because when the movie was set women did not wear tops in this African tribe.
I am reviewing a book a person I know is working on. It's a pretty good book and I hope he is successful in getting it published but it depicts two teenage girls who are seriel murderers. The plot is strong and certainly psychologically sound in character development but it does involve some horrendous, maybe even disturbing, murder scenes as well as a bi-sexual undercurrent (yet no sex scenes are described as the author is LDS). Now if by some remote chance this book were made into a film someday it would have to include nudity and extreme violence but then again how else could one adequately portray the world of a team of seriel killers?
Now here's an intereesting question for people to ponder, if someone non-LDS were to make a movie about the Book of Mormon (and try to represent it in what appears to be historically acurate dress for many of the cultures) should an LDS woman who might choose to have a part in which she were to go topless get reprimanded? What if someone were to have the guts to make a movie about the Arab slave traders who used to raid Europe and a part included a slave auction of European women in some Middel Eastern marketplace?
Some films might require some nudity but I think most do not.
-
I was recently talking with one of my best friends when we spent time together at a conference in China the other day. She told me she is pretty much engaged and that she was looking forward to the next several years of having a couple of kids.
She knows I have 4 young daughters and she commented that I would have my hands full once they were teens (she felt sons are easier to raise for some reason). Then we talked about what the proper way of raising a child today would be. She also mentioned that she had talked with a lot of teens (she works with young people 18 - 20ish in Europe and socializes generally with under-25 people) and that some of the girls have claimed to her that in their age groups (in Scandinavia and Britain) about 30% have had intimate relations with a member of the same sex, almost half would if the conditions were right and only around 15-20% would find the idea totally out of bounds. Of course, this is anctedotal evidence but there are surveys that have shown such behaviors are really fashionable right now -- even in much of the USA. And of course drinking is the norm there -- then again, it's pretty common in the USA with teens/younger adults as well.
So what do you think is the best way to raise a kid to avoid rebellion and experimentation -- especially girls? I was pretty flexible with my sons and they have turned out really well (except refusing to consider missions) but in a few years it will be daughters. I mean, I have seen cases where parents have been really strict and their child is super conservative yet when they get into college they go the opposite way -- they get a rush over the first drinking party then before you know it they are sleeping with guys (gals), going bizarre in beliefs and eventually becomming much more decadent than the girls who were what they themselves called the "tramps" back in high school. The irony is that many of the wild ones in high school seem to mellow out by college and become conservative.
So what is the solution? I really think it's a huge mistake to be permissive and let your kids do whatever they please. Yet might it be even more dangerous to raise a sheltered child who, once they taste of the fruit of rebellion, they go all the way to experience everything they feel they missed out on in high school?
The middle ground sounds great but what do people have as suggestions?
-
It's not always of themselves...that's the problem. Sometimes it's done in cruelty to other teens. When that's the case, it's not flirting. It's child pornography.
By the way, wasn't Vermont the first state to legalize same-sex marriage?
If someone takes a pic of someone without their permission and forwards it then that can be dealt with through already-existing laws dealing with harassment and intimidation.
The laws are so dumb now that technically a gal could have been skinnydipping with friends when she was 15, had a picture taken in which she is the only person shown, put it in her journal for what she did in 2004 and then, now that she is 19 (adult), accidentelly drops her diary while moving into her college dorm in front of a cop and, upon him seeing the photo, she can be arrested for possession of child pornography even though the pic (of a 15 year old) is of her!
-
Vermont Lawmakers Look To Legalize Teen 'Sexting' - wcbstv.com
Hopefully this will be done in Vermaont and that states across America will follow the lead. While I think that what these teens are doing is unwise and may even be morally wrong -- depending on what their intentions are I shudder at the idea that there are young teens being arrested throughout the US and being charged with the production, possession and distribution of child porn just because they take a naked picture of themselves and send it to a friend via a cell phone.
-
I would also think a picture of a grandparent or something. Someone older who has gained wisdom.
Great idea...and perhaps add a few children gathered around with a look of intent attention as he or she shares wisdom.:)
-
It's a question of focus: Do you focus on the clothing? Or do you focus on the person?
Is modesty a clothing-based principle? Or is it modesty a being-based principle? Which comes first? If you teach modest clothing, will whole-modesty then follow? Or if you teach whole-modesty, will modest clothing then follow?
That's a tough one...some of the most modests people I have ever known were nudists.
-
I'm a bit confused. When we talked about this on another thread...you "appeared" appalled that 4 kids in the US were arrested for just the same thing.
Apples and oranges. There is a HUGE difference between an adult possessing or creating porn featuring little kids for the perverse consumption of some adults. The teens who take pics of themselves to share with a boyfriend or girlfriend and are merely nudes (in a non-erotic context) are not perverts in any sense of the word.
And if we say owning or creating child porn involves owning or showing (in any medium) pictures of persons under the age of 18 (even if YOU are the one featured in the pic and it's in your possession) then I strongly urge people to burn all baby and toddler pics they have which the subject is nude as well as destroying any pictures of themselves that were taken prior to their 18th. birthday since, under the STRICT interpretation of many such laws, you too could be hauled in by the storm troopers for being guilty of violating laws against child porn.
Context is everything!
Porn too close to home
in General Discussion
Posted
One would think the intent of the person engaged in an activity would be what matters.