The morality of casual sex

[Bromagia]

Depends on whether he is competent in the current moment. A super confident and assertive person who is, either at that moment or in general, functionally useless is a jackass. A super confident and assertive person with high competence in the current moment is a leader or role model. Think Muhammad Ali. Undeniably skilled and talented and therefore confident and assertive. Compare this to Trump, who is supremely confident in any situation regardless of his actual competence.

'Alpha' is a narrow and loaded word.

I'm talking about the Mohammed Ali types. Or a Dwight D Eisenhower.

Trump is just a tard, a bully and a pervert. Keep in mind too that I don't think that only men should be "assertive." I'm not a fan of submissive and weak willed women, and think our society's gender roles have made our girls weak. And by weak I mean a lack of the fighting spirit. My girlfriend once said she would treat me like a king and I said "just treat me like your boyfriend, and don't consider me the boss. This is a relationship, not a job." I would rather my girlfriend fight with me and bitch at me than go "yes I'll do whatever you say without question or suggestion because you are the man." We need to encourage both men and women to be a little tougher. Not to be kicking ass all the time or to be hitting the gym everyday, but to have resilience and confidence in themselves. Don't be my friend Brendan, who would allow a man to burglarize his home because "violence isn't the answer." And don't ever let anyone say they're automatically just "better than you." Yeah we're all better and worse at some things than others but no one is superior to you as a human being. No one is owed servitude by others. That's what I consider "being an alpha" to be. A balance of being confident and ready to act while still showing respect for other people and showing humility. I hope everyone understands my beliefs on this topic.

While I question the extent to which "gender roles" influence behavior, as opposed to the reverse, I agree that too many people are lacking confidence and assertiveness. I don't mind if someone is deferrential to me in certain situations because I'm more competent but for godsake learn to assert yourselves people. I'm tired of sheepish attitudes. If I have to borderline pester you to get your opinion or convince you that you can do something then you need to get some balls together. Ditto for those who refuse to learn to defend themselves. Being harmless is a sin.

You said something very important at the end. Humility. Humility is a necessary quality for both good leadership and good followership. Not too much, of course, lest you be one of the people I complained about above.

Also, I disagree about working out. You should workout every day or near abouts. Physical weakness is about as detestable as the unwillingness to stand up for oneself.

[Rojava Free State]

I'm talking about the Mohammed Ali types. Or a Dwight D Eisenhower.

Trump is just a tard, a bully and a pervert. Keep in mind too that I don't think that only men should be "assertive." I'm not a fan of submissive and weak willed women, and think our society's gender roles have made our girls weak. And by weak I mean a lack of the fighting spirit. My girlfriend once said she would treat me like a king and I said "just treat me like your boyfriend, and don't consider me the boss. This is a relationship, not a job." I would rather my girlfriend fight with me and bitch at me than go "yes I'll do whatever you say without question or suggestion because you are the man." We need to encourage both men and women to be a little tougher. Not to be kicking ass all the time or to be hitting the gym everyday, but to have resilience and confidence in themselves. Don't be my friend Brendan, who would allow a man to burglarize his home because "violence isn't the answer." And don't ever let anyone say they're automatically just "better than you." Yeah we're all better and worse at some things than others but no one is superior to you as a human being. No one is owed servitude by others. That's what I consider "being an alpha" to be. A balance of being confident and ready to act while still showing respect for other people and showing humility. I hope everyone understands my beliefs on this topic.

While I question the extent to which "gender roles" influence behavior, as opposed to the reverse, I agree that too many people are lacking confidence and assertiveness. I don't mind if someone is deferrential to me in certain situations because I'm more competent but for godsake learn to assert yourselves people. I'm tired of sheepish attitudes. If I have to borderline pester you to get your opinion or convince you that you can do something then you need to get some balls together. Ditto for those who refuse to learn to defend themselves. Being harmless is a sin.

You said something very important at the end. Humility. Humility is a necessary quality for both good leadership and good followership. Not too much, of course, lest you be one of the people I complained about above.

Also, I disagree about working out. You should workout every day or near abouts. Physical weakness is about as detestable as the unwillingness to stand up for oneself.

Physical weakness is subjective though. What one person considers strong another considers weak. I would come across like as weak if I walked into a gym full of powerlifters but if I went to something like comicon, chances are I would be like the hulk compared to alot of those guys. I'm average strength for a Latino American male in his early 20s and don't really stand out in bodily proportions (that's to say I'm not built like your average teenage protagonist in an anime). One place I stand out from others though is mental strength. I can bare pain and survive incidents that would cause serious harm to others. For example, when I was younger me and some friends were exploring an abandoned factory in our area and my friend Josh got lost in the complex. When we went looking for him, I accidentally stepped on a two by four with two nails sticking out the top. The two nails went straight through my right foot, and there was quite a lot of blood. But I didn't give up looking for Josh and spent the next half hour wandering the factory looking for him with the two other guys who came along with us, and we eventually found him downstairs taking a piss. I of course went and got a tetanus shot the next day, but that night after we left the factory, I went home and went to bed after cleaning the wound with some rubbing alcohol.

It isn't like the injury didn't hurt, but I forced myself to keep going because we weren't about to leave that building without someone. Also I didn't wanna cry like a bitch about it or worry anybody. Imo it's better to be average physical strength and resilient than to be a real big guy but also a big baby.

[New haven america]

Not in Catholicism.

Sex preventing or without the intention of conceiving a child is considered lust, even in marriage. And no pulling out either as that would be counted as a "Wasted Seed" which is also considered a sin. (But only appears in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which means that Christians shouldn't be following it, but I've screamed about how organized Christianity doesn't follow it's own teachings enough for the day)

Please don't talk about Catholic doctrine if you don't have the faintest comprehension on what it is.

Please stop trying to claim that you know everything about that and whining whenever someone says something you slightly disagree with.

Thank you.

[New haven america]

Why wouldn't Christians follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy? They still follow the Old Testament, just in a modified form from the Tanakh.

His claim of the nazarene faith ignoring the OT has been repeatedly refuted by various people here.

Except no, that has never happen.

[New haven america]

Not in Catholicism.

Sex preventing or without the intention of conceiving a child is considered lust, even in marriage. And no pulling out either as that would be counted as a "Wasted Seed" which is also considered a sin. (But only appears in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which means that Christians shouldn't be following it, but I've screamed about how organized Christianity doesn't follow it's own teachings enough for the day)

Why wouldn't Christians follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy? They still follow the Old Testament, just in a modified form from the Tanakh.

Because Jesus died on the cross absolving humanity of Original Sin and re-forging The Covenant with God under a new set of rules and philosophical principals called The New Testament and removing responsibility or need to follow The Old Testament.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why wouldn't Christians follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy? They still follow the Old Testament, just in a modified form from the Tanakh.

Because Jesus died on the cross absolving humanity of Original Sin and re-forging The Covenant with God under a new set of rules and philosophical principals called The New Testament and removing responsibility or need to follow The Old Testament.

All sin, not original sin alone. Baptism absolves of original sin, the Crucifixion absolves all sin.

New Covenant, the New Testament is the collection of books and essays.

[Diopolis]

Because Jesus died on the cross absolving humanity of Original Sin and re-forging The Covenant with God under a new set of rules and philosophical principals called The New Testament and removing responsibility or need to follow The Old Testament.

All sin, not original sin alone. Baptism absolves of original sin, the Crucifixion absolves all sin.

New Covenant, the New Testament is the collection of books and essays.

Minor nitpicks that don't actually detract from your point- baptism actually remits all sin committed prior to baptism(although in the case of babies there isn't any) in addition to remitting the stain of original sin. And secondly, the new testament is sometimes used as a synonym for the new covenant, but the usage is idiosyncratic in the context of mainstream theology in any ancient church.
On the other hand, liberal Catholic dissidents tend to love the confusion in terminology.

Please don't talk about Catholic doctrine if you don't have the faintest comprehension on what it is.

Please stop trying to claim that you know everything about that and whining whenever someone says something you slightly disagree with.

Thank you.

He is, actually, right here. Your summation of Catholic doctrine is incorrect.

[Kernen]

Boy I regret being baptized as a larva.

[Upper Nan]

Why wouldn't Christians follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy? They still follow the Old Testament, just in a modified form from the Tanakh.

Because Jesus died on the cross absolving humanity of Original Sin and re-forging The Covenant with God under a new set of rules and philosophical principals called The New Testament and removing responsibility or need to follow The Old Testament.

Do you have a Biblical justification for this claim? I'm aware that Jesus's sacrifice did forge a New Covenant, but I'm unaware of any sect in particular that holds that there's no need or responsibility to follow the OT.

Also, not to be "that guy," but is this line of discussion relevant to this thread? I feel like we're veering more towards Christian Discussion Thread territory, but I'm unsure.

[Ethel mermania]

Because Jesus died on the cross absolving humanity of Original Sin and re-forging The Covenant with God under a new set of rules and philosophical principals called The New Testament and removing responsibility or need to follow The Old Testament.

Do you have a Biblical justification for this claim? I'm aware that Jesus's sacrifice did forge a New Covenant, but I'm unaware of any sect in particular that holds that there's no need or responsibility to follow the OT.

Also, not to be "that guy," but is this line of discussion relevant to this thread? I feel like we're veering more towards Christian Discussion Thread territory, but I'm unsure.

Indeed, I for one never had a deep theological conversation on the meaning of jesus's sacrifice on the cross that lead to casual sex.

[Ethel mermania]

Boy I regret being baptized as a larva.

But now you are a beautiful butterfly.

[Hurdergaryp]

Do you have a Biblical justification for this claim? I'm aware that Jesus's sacrifice did forge a New Covenant, but I'm unaware of any sect in particular that holds that there's no need or responsibility to follow the OT.

Also, not to be "that guy," but is this line of discussion relevant to this thread? I feel like we're veering more towards Christian Discussion Thread territory, but I'm unsure.

Indeed, I for one never had a deep theological conversation on the meaning of jesus's sacrifice on the cross that lead to casual sex.

Well... there's this theory that one of the disciples of Jesus was actually a woman, probably Maria Magdalena. This was later retconned, because the patriarchy tends to do that with prominent female figures. Anyway, the theory also states that Jesus, after being so unimpressed with his tomb that he left the place, left the Holy Land together with Maria Magdelana and started a family elsewhere. Given how there is no mention of marriage, it might be concluded that the only sex Jesus and Mary Magdalena had was casual sex. Scandalous, I know.

[Andsed]

Agreed, and as a corollary: if you don't like casual sex, you do you, and I'm cool with that, too.

(Image)

Because they are the ones who control the culture in which the rest of us have to live.

That is to say, prejudice against asexuals is in large part a creation of the sex-positivity movement.

So your response to prejudice is doing the exact same thing and attack people over a perfectly valid view on sex? Not gonna lie that is pretty damm hypocritical.

[Ethel mermania]

Indeed, I for one never had a deep theological conversation on the meaning of jesus's sacrifice on the cross that lead to casual sex.

Well... there's this theory that one of the disciples of Jesus was actually a woman, probably Maria Magdalena. This was later retconned, because the patriarchy tends to do that with prominent female figures. Anyway, the theory also states that Jesus, after being so unimpressed with his tomb that he left the place, left the Holy Land together with Maria Magdelana and started a family elsewhere. Given how there is no mention of marriage, it might be concluded that the only sex Jesus and Mary Magdalena had was casual sex. Scandalous, I know.

The concept of an unmarried first century rabbi, I would argue is more scandalous. But again while I have in fact had similar conversations with cute unmarried females(pre mrs mermania days), much to my disappointment, it never lead to casual sex.

[Hurdergaryp]

Well... there's this theory that one of the disciples of Jesus was actually a woman, probably Maria Magdalena. This was later retconned, because the patriarchy tends to do that with prominent female figures. Anyway, the theory also states that Jesus, after being so unimpressed with his tomb that he left the place, left the Holy Land together with Maria Magdelana and started a family elsewhere. Given how there is no mention of marriage, it might be concluded that the only sex Jesus and Mary Magdalena had was casual sex. Scandalous, I know.

The concept of an unmarried first century rabbi, I would argue is more scandalous. But again while I have in fact had similar conversations with cute unmarried females(pre mrs mermania days), much to my disappointment, it never lead to casual sex.

Given how Jesus, according to Christian doctrine, is also God, an argument could be made that any carnal intimacy had by Jesus Christ was not casual sex, but causal sex. You know, the whole 'everything happens because God allows it to happen' shtick. Theology is funny like that, hence all those religious wars.

[Ethel mermania]

The concept of an unmarried first century rabbi, I would argue is more scandalous. But again while I have in fact had similar conversations with cute unmarried females(pre mrs mermania days), much to my disappointment, it never lead to casual sex.

Given how Jesus, according to Christian doctrine, is also God, an argument could be made that any carnal intimacy had by Jesus Christ was not casual sex, but causal sex. You know, the whole 'everything happens because God allows it to happen' shtick. Theology is funny like that, hence all those religious wars.

Jesus must have done very well in the single bars, agreed.

[The Alma Mater]

Given how Jesus, according to Christian doctrine, is also God, an argument could be made that any carnal intimacy had by Jesus Christ was not casual sex, but causal sex. You know, the whole 'everything happens because God allows it to happen' shtick. Theology is funny like that, hence all those religious wars.

Jesus must have done very well in the single bars, agreed.

He had collected quite a harem of strong nubile men.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because they are the ones who control the culture in which the rest of us have to live.

That is to say, prejudice against asexuals is in large part a creation of the sex-positivity movement.

So your response to prejudice is doing the exact same thing and attack people over a perfectly valid view on sex? Not gonna lie that is pretty damm hypocritical.

I mean I think it's pretty clear that sex positivity can't be reconciled with the idea that asexuality or sex revulsion are healthy. If you view sex as healthy and natural then people with sex revulsion are inherently unhealthy and unnatural.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Indeed, I for one never had a deep theological conversation on the meaning of jesus's sacrifice on the cross that lead to casual sex.

Well... there's this theory that one of the disciples of Jesus was actually a woman, probably Maria Magdalena. This was later retconned, because the patriarchy tends to do that with prominent female figures. Anyway, the theory also states that Jesus, after being so unimpressed with his tomb that he left the place, left the Holy Land together with Maria Magdelana and started a family elsewhere. Given how there is no mention of marriage, it might be concluded that the only sex Jesus and Mary Magdalena had was casual sex. Scandalous, I know.

That's not a theory lmao it's a movie plot.

[Cekoviu]

So your response to prejudice is doing the exact same thing and attack people over a perfectly valid view on sex? Not gonna lie that is pretty damm hypocritical.

I mean I think it's pretty clear that sex positivity can't be reconciled with the idea that asexuality or sex revulsion are healthy. If you view sex as healthy and natural then people with sex revulsion are inherently unhealthy and unnatural.

many people (correctly) think dairy milk is healthy, that doesn't mean they think people who drink non-dairy milk are inherently unhealthy
that is to say, what (sex/dairy milk) may be healthy to many people (allosexuals/lactose-tolerant people) is not necessarily healthy or beneficial for others (asexuals/lactose intolerant people). some sex-positive people fail to realize this, but others certainly do; it's not a monolith

[Ethel mermania]

Well... there's this theory that one of the disciples of Jesus was actually a woman, probably Maria Magdalena. This was later retconned, because the patriarchy tends to do that with prominent female figures. Anyway, the theory also states that Jesus, after being so unimpressed with his tomb that he left the place, left the Holy Land together with Maria Magdelana and started a family elsewhere. Given how there is no mention of marriage, it might be concluded that the only sex Jesus and Mary Magdalena had was casual sex. Scandalous, I know.

That's not a theory lmao it's a movie plot.

Or a gnostic gospel that the church rejected because it conflicted with what it wanted the history to be, one or the other

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's not a theory lmao it's a movie plot.

Or a gnostic gospel that the church rejected because it conflicted with what it wanted the history to be, one or the other

It wouldn't make sense as a gnostic gospel given that the Gnostics believe Jesus didn't have a body and couldn't have fathered children.

Also Mary Magdalen wasn't retconned from the Bible and actually plays a pretty central role.

[Rojava Free State]

Or a gnostic gospel that the church rejected because it conflicted with what it wanted the history to be, one or the other

It wouldn't make sense as a gnostic gospel given that the Gnostics believe Jesus didn't have a body and couldn't have fathered children.

Also Mary Magdalen wasn't retconned from the Bible and actually plays a pretty central role.

How could he be crucified if he didn't have a body?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean I think it's pretty clear that sex positivity can't be reconciled with the idea that asexuality or sex revulsion are healthy. If you view sex as healthy and natural then people with sex revulsion are inherently unhealthy and unnatural.

many people (correctly) think dairy milk is healthy, that doesn't mean they think people who drink non-dairy milk are inherently unhealthy
that is to say, what (sex/dairy milk) may be healthy to many people (allosexuals/lactose-tolerant people) is not necessarily healthy or beneficial for others (asexuals/lactose intolerant people). some sex-positive people fail to realize this, but others certainly do; it's not a monolith

The bulk do not recognize this and have in fact made it such that sex revulsion is treated as a mental disorder. As I said, it would really be more simple if we were divided from each other such that we could have our own cultures without us having to live up to your cultural standards.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It wouldn't make sense as a gnostic gospel given that the Gnostics believe Jesus didn't have a body and couldn't have fathered children.

Also Mary Magdalen wasn't retconned from the Bible and actually plays a pretty central role.

How could he be crucified if he didn't have a body?

Gnostics don't believe he was.