Searching \ for '[OT] What I did on my summer vacation' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=what+did+summer
Search entire site for: 'What I did on my summer vacation'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] What I did on my summer vacation'
2005\10\05@112701 by David Van Horn

picon face

Well, this might be TOO OT for the piclist, but then again, we is all of
us human beings. We all work hard, but there is more to life than
microcontrollers.
So, I'd like to share this with you, in the hopes that it might help
you.

http://www.hai.org

My wife and I did their level 1 workshop in August, and it was a
life-changing experience.  I can share more details, but I'd prefer to
do that in private mail, as this is the piclist, after all.




2005\10\05@140746 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
It's good to talk about sex, sex education, loving relationships and all
that stuff.

PIC engineers need lov'n too! And more than that, people with logical,
problem solving types of minds should be aware and try to solve some of the
sexually related problems that face the world today.

Believe it or not, there is a section on the massmind.org site for posts,
articles, etc.. About sex. I would recommend that you post this link there.
http://www.massmind.org/techref/other/xes

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\10\05@152701 by David Van Horn

picon face
> It's good to talk about sex, sex education, loving relationships and
all that stuff.

Ok, I just wasn't sure if that was OK, not a lot of traffic on this
topic.


> PIC engineers need lov'n too! And more than that, people with logical,
> problem solving types of minds should be aware and try to solve some
of
> the sexually related problems that face the world today.

Now there's a true Gordian knot.
In my little community, we just made INTERNATIONAL news, because there's
a swing club operating in what used to be a school! (horrors!)
Actually, it used to be the Gym, which is kind of ironic when you know
what the original meaning of Gymnasium is.
Then it was a bingo hall, and a union hall..

Our local "religious leaders" have vowed to get it shut down.
For the interested, the debate can be read in the forums section of
http://www.thestarpress.com

Simple logic would suggest that children get early and accurate
information, and informed guidance, and that we de-stigmatize the whole
thing.
Which will happen about the time we get permanent colonies on Neptune.




2005\10\05@190512 by Jinx

face picon face
> Actually, it used to be the Gym, which is kind of ironic when
> you know what the original meaning of Gymnasium is

> Then it was a bingo hall, and a union hall..

Bingo ! - union

;-) What next - a warehouse for shag carpet ?

2005\10\05@193803 by David Van Horn

picon face
> > Actually, it used to be the Gym, which is kind of ironic when
> > you know what the original meaning of Gymnasium is
>
> > Then it was a bingo hall, and a union hall..
>
> Bingo ! - union
>
> ;-) What next - a warehouse for shag carpet ?

Google "Muncie School Swinger"  It's about 2 miles from me.

The part that concerns me most, is that people around here want it shut
down, and when you follow their logic, it all ends up as "because it's
agin' my religion".

The police record shows only one call, EVER, and that was last week
after the story broke. A noise nuisance call which the officers reported
as unsubstantiated.   Yup, they are certainly bringing in the crime.




2005\10\05@201821 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> Simple logic would suggest that children get early and
> accurate information, and informed guidance, and that we
> de-stigmatize the whole thing.
> Which will happen about the time we get permanent colonies on Neptune.

I have a real concern for our children and the mixed, sick, and unhealthy
messages they get from media, extremist religious leaders, and ads, ads,
ads...

To heck with AIDS, Ads are the biggest problem in the world. Look at the
number of impressions of half naked women vs half naked men that you see
just passing out of your local grocery store and ask yourself what message
that gives your daughter? I have nothing against half nakedness (or fully
clothed...ness... ) but what does my daughter see as her value in the world?
Is she worth something because she is smart, strong willed (boy, let me tell
you) and a hard worker? Or does she feel that she is only worth something
because she is pretty?

Did you know that Khols was selling a padded and underwired training bra for
little girls!
<www.shoplocal.com/shoplocal/default.aspx?action=detailbroadreach&pre
tailerid=-99848&listingid=-2096471761> Still has a link to it. Made by the
fine people of SO... brand "so real. so right" So sick...

Now, that is just WRONG. It isn't being offered any more and hopefully that
was because no-one was willing to buy it for their kid. I take it as proof
that the people are not the sick ones... it's the corporations who need to
find a reason to sell something. Let me explain:

A while back I was watching a thing on Hugh Heifner, not one of my heroes,
but still an interesting person. As he has an obvious preference for blonds,
he was asked if it were true that "blonds have more fun" and his comment was
that originally, that was said in order to sell hair bleaching products, but
now it really seemed to be the case.

It seemed to me that this is a truly profound statement. Someone in the ad
industry needed to sell bleach. What better way than to convince all the
brunettes that they were missing out? Over time, when a dark haired lovely
felt she wasn't getting enough attention, she would "go blonde" as a signal
that she was "more fun." And so, girls who wanted to be "more fun" became
blondes. A self fulfilling prophecy.

Could it be that most makeup sold today is sold for the same reason? Instead
of a verbal message, the advertisers have somehow managed to flood the media
with images of younger and younger women, leading to a paranoia of ageing
that has driven women to buy products that make them look younger and
younger until now they are trying to look like 9 year olds?

There has to be some way to help stop this.

---
James.


2005\10\05@204647 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Well spoken. Truth makes no difference whatever; if they don't have a
market they
create one out of thin air.

The story of how hemp rope became replaced by nylon rope by a smear
campaign that
involved DuPont Plastics in the 1930s is an awesome story of fraud, lies
and deception at
a level that is still distorted today. DuPont falsely  attacked the hemp
rope industry by
linking marijuana smoking to the hemp rope industry, despite the fact
that the two plants
are not identical (but they ARE from the same family). Now, hemp is now
illegal worldwide,
because people think the plants are identical- they are not. They are
identical in the same
way that a poppy seed roll at the grocery is identical to the opium poppy.

Another is the way SUVs were marketed. Nobody needs an SUV, unless you
live deeply
in the countryside without a road to connect your property to the
outside world. Now those
things just add a LOT of cost. Some people I know are putting their SUVs
up for sale, and
others are just putting them up on blocks.

--Bob

James Newtons Massmind wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
spam_OUTattachTakeThisOuTspamengineer.cotse.net .
1-866-263-5745 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2005\10\05@204658 by David Van Horn

picon face
> I have a real concern for our children and the mixed, sick, and
unhealthy
> messages they get from media, extremist religious leaders, and ads,
ads,
> ads...

You remember the hooraw from Janet Jackson's three second exposure on
TV?
Can't have an uncovered breast in the middle of that non-stop festival
of sex, violence, and beer...

:-P




2005\10\05@205449 by David Van Horn

picon face
> There has to be some way to help stop this.

Without volatilizing this discussion too much, I think the root problem
is Jewish/Christian/Muslim tradition.  The idea that sex is evil isn't
unique to them, but they are the driving force behind the way we hide
it, lie about it, and stigmatize it...

Unfortunately, the idea of following your religion and letting others
follow it or not, has not had much support.

Why can't more religious people take an example from the Amish?
They practice their faith, and it's certainly not easy, but they don't
try to drag me into their faith.  



2005\10\05@211217 by marcel

flavicon
face

I don't actually think sex is evil in judaism and islam. (this is based on
information in a "Human Sexuality" course at San Jose State University, CA,
USA) I don't believe I remember enough details to argue this effectively, but
there were a number of instances where certain sexual practices were
explicitly allowed by secondary religious texts in either of the two
religions. And even in the old testament, there's a good amount of what by
modern american standards would be considered filth. So really, I don't think
it's any of those religions in particular, but more those that interpret them
falsely and are too arrogant to doubt themselves, or worse yet, viciously
preach what they believe as "truth".

"David Van Horn" <.....dvanhornKILLspamspam@spam@microbrix.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2005\10\05@214001 by David Van Horn

picon face
> I don't actually think sex is evil in judaism and islam. (this is
based on information in a "Human Sexuality" course at San Jose State
University, CA, USA) I don't believe I remember enough details to argue
this effectively, but there were a number of instances where certain
sexual practices were explicitly allowed by secondary religious texts in
either of the two religions. And even in the old testament, there's a
good amount of what by modern american standards would be considered
filth. So really, I don't think it's any of those religions in
particular, but more those that interpret them falsely and are too
arrogant to doubt themselves, or worse yet, viciously preach what they
believe as "truth".

I'd agree with that.  http://www.libchrist.com has some interesting info on
that.
I'm not a Christian, and I haven't bothered to go through all of it, but
it certainly seems that Puritanism was an aftermarket accessory.

Here's more detailed info on hai, it's kind of hard to find from their
main page. http://www.libchrist.com/background/hai.html  
My writeup on hai is at the bottom of this page.


I'll say this in short, if the world had more haifolk, it would be a
nicer place. Not that haifolk are perfect by any means, but certainly
they are significantly deconfused. :)





2005\10\05@214127 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
I really do think there is more greed than religion that causes these
distorted views of what we should or shouldn't do.
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/ads.htm

You know what really sucks? Being the owner of a list where we don't allow
religious discussions and having this really great story on your web site
about a guy named HANK that you just are dying to post....

On a totally unrelated subject, I did some work on the search engine on the
site... It goes really fast for some known search phrases.

*Cough* Hank *cough*

And finally, David, please don't post on religious subjects; you know the
rules...

Tisk, tisk... People these days.

---
James "Hank" Newton, massmind.org Knowledge Archiver
jamesspamKILLspammassmind.org 1-619-652-0593 fax:1-208-279-8767
All the engineering secrets worth knowing:
http://techref.massmind.org What do YOU know?

"Hank"



> {Original Message removed}

2005\10\05@220024 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
www.acme.com/jef/religion_sex/     Chart of Religious stances on
various sexual issues.

I think the Baptists have let up on the female clergy issue...  And I think
the Methodists have lightened up on a few issues as well... Could be wrong.


---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\10\05@220250 by David Van Horn

picon face
> And finally, David, please don't post on religious subjects; you know
the
> rules...

Well, how else to talk about that aspect?
IMHO, that's the root of the problem.



2005\10\05@225259 by Jinx

face picon face
> And finally, David, please don't post on religious subjects; you
> know the rules...

Do spoonerisms count ?

Best one I've heard for a long while - David Letterman's stage
manager Biff Henderson in Times Square accidentally called
the celebration of the advent of 5766 the "Newish Jew Year"

Much hilarity ensued

(yes, Letterman did make the joke about still putting 5765 on
his cheques)

2005\10\06@015818 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Without volatilizing this discussion too much, I think the
> root problem is Jewish/Christian/Muslim tradition.

I think the fact that the problem surfaces in all three religions (or
rather: among followers wof these three religions) strongly suggests
that the root problem is not one of these religions (or even religion
itself) but a common factor. I would vote for fact that their followers
are all human.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\10\06@041631 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Dave said:

> .. this might be TOO OT for the piclist ... but there is more to
> life than
> microcontrollers. So, I'd like to share this ..

> My wife and I did their level 1 workshop in August, and it was a
> life-changing experience.  I can share more details, but I'd prefer
> to
> do that in private mail, as this is the piclist, after all.

> http://www.hai.org

Looks interesting.
But your subject line* immediately made me realise that a visit to
Mote Prime (or even its environs) would be even more fun.
Liable to place quite some strain on even a very stable marital
relationship though (prolonged close contact / cramped spaces, high G,
lots of hurry up and wait, jump shock - quite apart from future shock
and the uncertain survival prospects. But if you get through all that
it may be even more effective as H.A.I. Alas, I suspect I couldn't
persuade my wife to go, even if the opportunity ever did arise. It's a
long way to the nearest tramline :-(.


       RM


*
"What I did on my Summer Vacation"
Kevin Renner
Empire Press.
ESBN unknown.
(Declassified 3371)




2005\10\06@043146 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> To heck with AIDS, Ads are the biggest problem in the world.

Have you looked at the stats for Africa of late - for AIDS and
probably for ads as well. I suspect that overall the AIDS is "winning"
there.

{Quote hidden}

We seem to have moved on here to trying to find ways to
surreptitiously include penile erection in ads. I'm not sure what the
point is - I would have thought that it largely targets at a minimum
the sexually informed adult and probably only a subset of them with a
tendency towards having "dirty minds" to see the hidden suggestions.
Apparently I'm one such as I seem to see them more than most people.
These are quite real purposeful inclusions and not 'just' the fevered
imaginations of a wowserish mind :-). I'm sad that our society must be
found to be valuing this sort of thing for it to be worth advertising
men's time doing it. And that the necessary trend in society when such
things become unprotestable against is towards more but more blatant
versions of the same. At the moment it's only the aware adults who are
targeted but the children's time will come. I guess it's a softening
up exercise.

Over the last month there's been a billboard by a major Auckland
motorway with a short sentence that every adult is certain is
referring to a 3 person sex session. That gets well down towards the
bottom of the teenage years in most cases and below that in too many.
Once they can do that with about fear of reprisal we are ready for
explicitly targeting children.

I'd like our society as a whole to make a position statement on such
things rather than letting things slowly slide into the abyss. I think
that even very 'free-thinking' people are liable to not really want
sexual suggestiveness openly displayed on billboards. Maybe I'm wrong.



       Russell McMahon



2005\10\06@055657 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Once they can do that with about fear of reprisal we are ready for
> explicitly targeting children.
>
"Barbie" was bad enough.  Now there's "Bratz", too.

BillW

2005\10\06@082948 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> There has to be some way to help stop this.

The arduous way of thinking for yourself, getting to know your emotions and
a lot of Zen... :)

Gerhard

2005\10\06@084531 by David Van Horn

picon face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

followers
> are all human.

They share the same root traditions.
If it were a human thing, then the Pagans, Hindus and Polynesians
wouldn't have gone the way they did.


2005\10\06@084628 by alan smith

picon face
......whats a vacation????  Had to look that word up......

               
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

2005\10\06@084712 by David Van Horn

picon face
> Looks interesting.
> But your subject line* immediately made me realise that a visit to
> Mote Prime (or even its environs) would be even more fun.
> Liable to place quite some strain on even a very stable marital
> relationship though (prolonged close contact / cramped spaces, high G,
> lots of hurry up and wait, jump shock - quite apart from future shock
> and the uncertain survival prospects. But if you get through all that
> it may be even more effective as H.A.I. Alas, I suspect I couldn't
> persuade my wife to go, even if the opportunity ever did arise. It's a
> long way to the nearest tramline :-(.

There is that, but don't be afraid to contact them and show interest.
New workshops and groups can form anywhere.


2005\10\06@094203 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> They share the same root traditions.
> If it were a human thing, then the Pagans, Hindus and Polynesians
> wouldn't have gone the way they did.

I am not familiar with the others, but have you heared how (some) Hindus
treat women? (hint: H2SO4 is quite popular). And for instance Chinese
don't share much with the 'book religions', but ages of woman feet have
been mistreated.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2005\10\06@101552 by David Van Horn

picon face
> I am not familiar with the others, but have you heared how (some)
Hindus
> treat women? (hint: H2SO4 is quite popular). And for instance Chinese
> don't share much with the 'book religions', but ages of woman feet
have
> been mistreated.

Well, I was specifically thinking of how they view sex.

Treatment of women is certainly an issue.  The idea that another human
being is less worthy than you, or isn't truly "human", is obscene.




2005\10\06@104115 by Madhu Annapragada

picon face
The urban middle and upper classes are catching up to women's rights over
there but the women still have to literally scream and demand for what
should be their rights to equal treatment. The vast rural population exists
in a different era I am afraid; there is hope yet, strong feminist movements
in the last decade, an educated (not schooled mind you, educated) men
(albeit a minority still) who are standing with the women's rights advocates
and more open debate...miles to go before we get there though

Regards
Madhu Annapragada

{Original Message removed}

2005\10\06@104451 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Well, I was specifically thinking of how they view sex.

H2SO4 is their response to 'unallowed' sex, or to refusal of sex. (note:
this is a fact for *some* hindus. I definitely don't want to say
anything bad about hindus in general. if I want to state anything it is
that every aspect of human stupidity seems to be about evenly
distributed over all human groups, including all groups I belong to.)

> Treatment of women is certainly an issue.  The idea that another human
> being is less worthy than you, or isn't truly "human", is obscene.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\10\06@110830 by Madhu Annapragada

picon face
-----Original Message-----
>H2SO4 is their response to 'unallowed' sex, or to refusal of sex. (note:
>this is a fact for *some* hindus. I definitely don't want to say
>anything bad about hindus in general. if I want to state anything it is
>that every aspect of human stupidity seems to be about evenly
>distributed over all human groups, including all groups I belong to.)

Oh yes..we do have our share of fanatic extremists; the question of what
aspects of religion  corrupt a soul to such depravity has kept me and my dad
engaged in long fruitless late night conversations when we get together..
Regards
Madhu Annapragada

2005\10\06@115057 by David Van Horn

picon face
> Oh yes..we do have our share of fanatic extremists; the question of
what
> aspects of religion  corrupt a soul to such depravity has kept me and
my
> dad engaged in long fruitless late night conversations when we get
> together..
> Regards
> Madhu Annapragada

I think some people are truly broken in that way. They are unable to see
people of class X as real people. Some go even further, and they don't
see that anyone matters except themselves.  I'm sure there's medical
terms for this.

Then we get to the people who have been taught that others of class X
are less human or not human.  These are people who are salvageable, but
have been led astray.  I do NOT believe that this is natural at all.
Watch children play, especially in the 1-2 year old range where it will
have been difficult to teach them racism or anything like that.

We all have pain in our past, caused by other people and events. It's
easy to transfer that to class X.  I'd done some of that, and I wasn't
aware of it. It becomes like a blind spot. It's there, but you can't see
it without help.  HAI is about pulling up those issues, and dealing with
them. Sometimes it's as simple as seeing it and saying "well that's
stupid" and moving on. Other times it's really gut-wrenchingly
traumatic. Ask me how I know. (privately)




2005\10\06@120733 by David Van Horn

picon face
> H2SO4 is their response to 'unallowed' sex, or to refusal of sex.
(note:
> this is a fact for *some* hindus.


That speaks to the concept that one person can "own" another, by
marriage or any other means.  This is a concept with which I do NOT
agree.
The concept of adultery is, at its core, a property crime.



2005\10\06@122520 by David P Harris

picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:

> On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> Once they can do that with about fear of reprisal we are ready for
>> explicitly targeting children.
>>
> "Barbie" was bad enough.  Now there's "Bratz", too.

Whoa, I wasn't aware of Bratz -- bad news.

David


2005\10\06@123515 by olin piclist

face picon face
David Van Horn wrote:
> The concept of adultery is, at its core, a property crime.

That may be how it's presented in some belief systems, but the roots are far
more straight forward and biological.  When you look at it strictly in a
Darwinian way, it makes perfect sense why adultery is considered a serious
offence.  Its interesting to note that in this context adultery by a woman
is a more serious threat to the man than adultery by a man is to the woman,
and the pervailing attitudes roughly reflect that.  For a man the problem is
loss of success for his genes, for a woman it is a likely loss in resources.
Biologically we are all still cavemen, and laws and morality can't stray too
far from the basic underlying reality.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\10\06@124511 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 6, 2005, at 9:25 AM, David P Harris wrote:

>> "Barbie" was bad enough.  Now there's "Bratz", too.
>
> Whoa, I wasn't aware of Bratz -- bad news.

Yeah.  I generally find the Barbie complaints a bit whiny; we have
the Barbie Bookclub books, and several of the movies, and they're
not so bad; perhaps Matel has added enough backstory to make up for
their doll's ridiculous proportions.  And it's mostly standardized
fantasy stuff, anyway...

BRATZ, otoh, definitely seem to glorify a lifestyle I don't find
very worthy of glorification.  The worst of american stereotypes.
Sigh.  Daughters.  (OTOH, don't get me started on my baccy-chewing
would-be-baseball-player stepson, either...)

BillW

2005\10\06@125120 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:00 PM, James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> I think the Baptists have let up on the female clergy issue

One has to be careful about painting a religion as BROAD as
"Baptist" with a single brush.  In any religion there seems
to be a lot of variation in the details of belief and practice.

Ob joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge about to jump. I ran over and said: ‘Stop. Don’t do it!’
‘Why shouldn’t I?’ he asked.
‘Well, there’s so much to live for!’
‘Like what?’
‘Are you religious?’
He said, ‘Yes.’
‘Me too,’ I said, ‘Are you Christian, Buddhist, Jewish….??’
‘Christian.’
‘Me too!! Are you Catholic or Protestant??’
[can you see where this is going…????]
‘Protestant.’
‘Me too, are you Episcopalian or Baptist?’
‘Baptist.’
‘Wow!!! Me too!! Are you Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of the Lord??’
‘Baptist Church of God.’
‘Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God??’
‘Reformed Baptist Church of God.’
‘Me too!! Are you reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?’
He said, ‘Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915.’
I said, ‘Die, heretic scum,’ and pushed him off.

2005\10\06@130357 by David Van Horn

picon face

> Biologically we are all still cavemen, and laws and morality can't
stray
> too far from the basic underlying reality.

Agreed, but we CAN think beyond that.

As long as we are talking strictly recreational sex, and taking
precautions against STDs, how does it harm me for my partner to have sex
with someone else?

There's also a whole realm of enjoyment that does not involve sex per
se, and of course none of that biological imperative should apply there
either.



2005\10\06@135014 by Kevin

flavicon
face
> As long as we are talking strictly recreational sex, and taking
> precautions against STDs, how does it harm me for my partner to have sex
> with someone else?

Ok, so now we need [PIC],[EE],[OT], and [SWINGER] tags for
piclist posts :)

2005\10\06@135815 by olin piclist

face picon face
David Van Horn wrote:
>> Biologically we are all still cavemen, and laws and morality can't
>> stray too far from the basic underlying reality.
>
> Agreed, but we CAN think beyond that.
>
> As long as we are talking strictly recreational sex, and taking
> precautions against STDs, how does it harm me for my partner to have
> sex with someone else?

I wasn't saying anything about good or bad, right or wrong, only explaining
that there is a very solid underlying scientific reason for our prevailing
attitude against adultery.  We did not evolve in a world where there was
safe sex or sex not likely to lead to reproduction.  The underlying
biological forces that have shaped our attitude patterns (to the extent that
the genome can) could not have taken safe sex into account.  To put it
another way, we are all much more likely to be descended from those guys
that did care if their women had sex with other men.  Of course they weren't
always successful, so we are all also partially descencded from those guys
that had sex with other women whenever they could get away with it, and from
women who occasionally had sex with other guys and then tried to hide that
fact as best as possible.  Sound familiar?  It's us because it's the
behavior that proved most successful over time.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\10\06@140748 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Oh yes..we do have our share of fanatic extremists; the question of
> what
> aspects of religion  corrupt a soul to such depravity has

IMHO it is not the religion which corrupts the soul (most religions are
initially very idealistic, peacefull, etc) but rather the other way
round: the soul finds aspects in the religion (any religion will do) to
legitimate its corrupted side. And soon (often within 1 generation) the
religion itself is corrupted, or at least intermingled with what its
founder(s) hated most.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\10\06@141658 by David Van Horn

picon face


> Ok, so now we need [PIC],[EE],[OT], and [SWINGER] tags for
> piclist posts :)

OT covers it.  This topic is running with James's approval



2005\10\06@143816 by David Van Horn

picon face


> Of course they weren't always successful, so we are all also
> partially descencded from those guys that had sex with other
> women whenever they could get away with it, and from
> women who occasionally had sex with other guys and then tried to hide
that
> fact as best as possible.  Sound familiar?  It's us because it's the
> behavior that proved most successful over time.

Genetic algorithms indeed!  I'm rewriting my program.

Yes, I'm sure that's the case.  Same reason that my body is always
begging me to overeat.

But, if we are to be more than animals, we need to think beyond that.




2005\10\06@144215 by David Van Horn

picon face
> IMHO it is not the religion which corrupts the soul (most religions
are
> initially very idealistic, peacefull, etc) but rather the other way
> round: the soul finds aspects in the religion (any religion will do)
to
> legitimate its corrupted side. And soon (often within 1 generation)
the
> religion itself is corrupted, or at least intermingled with what its
> founder(s) hated most.

I'd agree with that.
Most every religion I've looked at has the same core beliefs, in that
one should be nice to other people, live and let live, etc.  
Then the other stuff gets piled on, and that eminently abusable
structure sucks in an abusive leader, and there you are.

That's one reason I'm really liking HAI. It's about as non-abusable a
structure as you could imagine.  Level four sounds particularly
interesting: "Integrating Sexuality and Spirituality"





2005\10\06@144259 by Kevin

flavicon
face

> > Ok, so now we need [PIC],[EE],[OT], and [SWINGER] tags for
> > piclist posts :)
>
> OT covers it.  This topic is running with James's approval

I know, just making a small joke. Apparently, it was not a
good joke :)  I'll just keep reading from now on.

~Kevin

2005\10\06@151653 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> IMHO it is not the religion which corrupts the soul (most
> religions are initially very idealistic, peacefull, etc) but
> rather the other way
> round: the soul finds aspects in the religion (any religion
> will do) to legitimate its corrupted side. And soon (often
> within 1 generation) the religion itself is corrupted, or at
> least intermingled with what its
> founder(s) hated most.
>
> Wouter van Ooijen


Worth repeating. Same thing applies to laws, constitutions, mission
statements, ethical guidelines, and anything else like that.

In the end, "all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
nothing"

And so my statement that there must be something we can do to make sure kids
(and adults) have a positive message of self worth that is not related only
to sexual advertising.

I believe that we must stand up and say that:

1. Girls have worth based in more than sex. We need to point out and decry
images in the media that portray females as only objects of sex. Not that
sex is bad, but that it is not the only thing girls can aspire to. Boys have
worth beyond how many times they have scored and given the media blast of
sexual images, they may need some help keeping in their pants. Or at least
out of someone else's pants...

2. That there are a lot of variations in what people fine pleasure in and no
one way of enjoying yourself is wrong as long as it doesn't damage anyone.
E.g. Masturbation, safe sex, same sex, swinging, whips and chains, sucking
on toes, or what ever your fetish happens to be is ok as long as it happens
between consenting adults and doesn't leave any marks. Or at least no
/lasting/ marks...

3. On the other hand, if someone is trying to get you to do something you
don't want to do, we need to be willing to listen, take it seriously, and
take appropriate action. That includes getting people who have problems to
help and not just taking them out and shooting them. No matter how much we
might want to...

---
James.


2005\10\06@152439 by David Van Horn

picon face

> I know, just making a small joke. Apparently, it was not a
> good joke :)  I'll just keep reading from now on.

No problem.  But just so we're clear here, HAI isn't about swinging. I
wouldn't want to give the wrong impression.

I don't have a conceptual problem with swinging. I wouldn't presume to
make that judgment for someone else, and I wouldn't judge them because
of their choice.



2005\10\06@152836 by John Ferrell

face picon face
A few observations:
If this is the way you want raise your children, it is OK with me. However,
it is not OK with the prevailing laws in most areas. That could become a
real problem to you and yours.

The age level of starting sexual activity is getting pretty young in some
areas. Are you OK with this?

Eliminating laws concerning morality or other victimless crimes has always
seemed to be a good idea to me but I admit I have not spent a lot of time
thinking about the consequences of that action. Have you?

Until Martin Luther came along the Christian faith considered prostitution a
necessity. It was felt that unfulfilled lust was unhealthy for the male.
Some people still support this notion. I have no personal position on the
issue.

Would you consider marrying someone you met at a one of these singles
events? Are you OK with it if your daughter does? If marriage is optional,
whose responsibility are the unexpected children? I hope they don't become
my responsibility but I am concerned about their welfare.

There is no such thing as "Free Love" or a "Free Lunch". There are always
consequences.

Whatever you choose to do with your own lives is OK with me but it quits
being OK when it starts interfering with my life.

I find the subject fascinating as I did when I first read of it in "Brave
New World" (Huxley, I think) 50 years ago!

I will be eagerly following the thread, but not likely looking to change my
ways.
John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US


{Original Message removed}

2005\10\06@153819 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> To put it another way, we are
> all much more likely to be descended from those guys that did
> care if their women had sex with other men.  Of course they
> weren't always successful, so we are all also partially
> descencded from those guys that had sex with other women
> whenever they could get away with it, and from women who
> occasionally had sex with other guys and then tried to hide
> that fact as best as possible.  Sound familiar?  It's us
> because it's the behavior that proved most successful over time.

Exactly right.

There are actually specific advantages to the female who cheats on her mate.

There was a study about this, but I cant' find it right now.. I think it was
in Discover magazine.

In general, having an affair increased her possible options for support
while at the same time allowing her to pick up better genetic material than
she would normally rate and raising the resulting offspring with the support
of her existing husband.

1. If the husband died or left her, she could claim paternity of the man she
cheated with and have some chance of his supporting her.

2. Since the man she cheated with is unlikely to have to support her, he is
more likely to have sex with her, and therefore she can attract a higher
level of man than she could marry.

3. Even if the husband hangs around and raises his cuckold child, there is
some chance that she will be able to tap the actual father for support in
times of need. E.g. "Remember our love child? He needs tuition, braces, an
operation.. Will you help?"

Of course all that depends on deceiving the husband. Technology makes that
harder.

Also, the husbands who manage to spread their seed around a bit have a
chance to increase their genetic line without incurring the same cost that
results in a direct marriage.

I think that is one reason why wife swapping happens. It may be a sort of
unspoken agreement that the men will help each other out with the raising of
the kids down the road.

On the other hand, genetics are only half the picture. Raising the kids is
at least the other half. Based on how hard kids have been to raise in my
family, the number of behavioral and mental issues that must be overcome, I
would have no hope for my seed in anything other than a totally committed
family. I know how hard I was to raise. I don't screw around at least in
part because I wouldn't wish my demon spawn on anyone else. <grin>

Other writings on this subject:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020806192700/http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/p
romiscuity.html>

---
James.


2005\10\06@155624 by David Van Horn

picon face
> 3. On the other hand, if someone is trying to get you to do something
you
> don't want to do, we need to be willing to listen, take it seriously,
and
> take appropriate action. That includes getting people who have
problems to
> help and not just taking them out and shooting them. No matter how
much we
> might want to...

Agreed completely on 1 and 2, and don't get me started on high school
kids killed or crippled so we can win "the big game"...

But, on this one, I'm not so sure what you mean.



2005\10\06@163505 by w d myrick

picon face
Kevin, thanks for your statement

Derward



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin" <kbenspamspam_OUTuniversal.dca.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <@spam@piclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [OT] What I did on my summer vacation


> > As long as we are talking strictly recreational sex, and taking
> > precautions against STDs, how does it harm me for my partner to have sex
> > with someone else?
>
> Ok, so now we need [PIC],[EE],[OT], and [SWINGER] tags for
> piclist posts :)
>
> --

2005\10\06@172559 by David Van Horn

picon face
> I think that is one reason why wife swapping happens. It may be a sort
of
> unspoken agreement that the men will help each other out with the
raising
> of the kids down the road.

Sounds closer to polyamory to me.




2005\10\06@173256 by David Van Horn

picon face
> A few observations:
> If this is the way you want raise your children, it is OK with me.
> However,
> it is not OK with the prevailing laws in most areas. That could become
a
> real problem to you and yours.

?? I was speaking of being tolerant of others. I would think that this
OUGHT to be ok with the law at least.


> The age level of starting sexual activity is getting pretty young in
some
> areas. Are you OK with this?

Not exactly, but in a lot of ways, it ends up as "do you want them to do
it with protection, and at home, or without it, and in the back seat of
a car or whatever?"   If you stipulate that it's inevitable, then option
B looks a lot healthier to me.


> Eliminating laws concerning morality or other victimless crimes has
always
> seemed to be a good idea to me but I admit I have not spent a lot of
time
> thinking about the consequences of that action. Have you?

Each would have to be considered individually, of course.

> Would you consider marrying someone you met at a one of these singles
> events? Are you OK with it if your daughter does? If marriage is
optional,
> whose responsibility are the unexpected children? I hope they don't
become
> my responsibility but I am concerned about their welfare.

You seem to be putting me in a position that I'm not in.
HAI isn't "one of those singles events" if I understand you correctly.



2005\10\06@183733 by David Van Horn

picon face
> Not exactly, but in a lot of ways, it ends up as "do you want them to
do
> it with protection, and at home, or without it, and in the back seat
of
> a car or whatever?"   If you stipulate that it's inevitable, then
option
> B looks a lot healthier to me.


ARRGGHH... A.. A... A..



2005\10\06@184329 by John Nall

picon face
David Van Horn wrote:

>>I think that is one reason why wife swapping happens.
>>
Well, I did not intend to get involved in all this, although I think it
does no harm to discuss such issues. (I am now beginning to see what
buttons one can push with James in order to have a free slate.  :-)

That said, however, let me add my two cents.  I was a graduate student
in the mid-sixties, and my wife was an undergraduate.  So of course we
were both involved in what was later termed the "sexual revolution."  I
was older, having done seven years in the army, and we had both had been
married before.  As with perhaps all graduate students, I had a full
social calendar, and my wife shared in that. We had many friends, and
because of the "revolution" many our friends were experimenting with
different arrangements.  So let an old guy just give his thoughts on
this. :-)

My wife and I were talking about those days just the other day (although
it was just though sheer coincidence -- we celebrated our 38th
aniversary -- and so so were talking about all the different couples we
had known).  Not one --  not even one --  of the couples that we had
known who opted for open marriage arrangements had a succesful
marriage!  My major was mathematics, and so I do not presume to try and
issue any sort of grandiose sociological statement from that.  But there
is the data, for what it is worth.  In every case an essential bond was
destroyed, IMHO.

John

2005\10\06@184947 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Biologically we are all still cavemen, and laws and morality can't
> > stray too far from the basic underlying reality.

> Agreed, but we CAN think beyond that.

> As long as we are talking strictly recreational sex, and taking
> precautions against STDs, how does it harm me for my partner to have
> sex
> with someone else?

> There's also a whole realm of enjoyment that does not involve sex
> per
> se, and of course none of that biological imperative should apply
> there
> either.

and others ....

Lots of good stuff on this thread.
But also lots of misunderstanding on how humans "really" work.
Despite how people may think I think  [ :-) ] I understand well enough
the drives and motivations that make people want what they say in this
area to be true. One can visualise a world where pleasure was
universally given and received in all its many forms without stigma,
adverse consequence or "penalty". But no amount of visualisation and
no amount of trying to make it so is going to make it happen in the
world we live in. Most people participating in this discussion will
know at heart well enough how the human mind works, or more properly,
how incredibly hard it is to try and "make" people behave rationally,
well, logically, consistently, ... .

It's a 'fact' that what to an alien observer might seem incredibly
minor things, can have life-long effects on people. eg Viewed entirely
mechanically a non-consensual rape which does not result in physical
pain or damage or disease or pregnancy is little more than an
inconvenience. Simply an occupying of some time which may otherwise
have been used differently, and maybe the need to have a shower to
restore a level of cleanliness one is accustomed to. Such an event
might be seen as being caught in a traffic jam for half an hour or so,
or maybe stuck in a lift while a serviceman comes. In practice we all
know the reality is all too often very very (very ....) different.
Even the most painless and physically consequence free of rapes can
and often does leave a life long effect on a life. Even lesser
encounters involving sexuality and compulsion (even without any
physical contact) can have similar effects.

While we may wish that people so affected would 'get over it' / 'pull
themselves together' / 'put it behind them and get on with life' / ...
the reality is that achieving this often proves difficult or
impossible.

Now all that is only complementary to Olin's sensible words and may
not appear to speak directly to the point raised above by Dave. But
the inescapable (unfortunately perhaps) reality is that sexuality and
its interrelationship with our perceptions of self is embedded in our
psyches to an extent that is inescapable in the majority of people.
And those for who this is less the case, often enough have other
'problems'.

Whether the drive to and stability of monogamous relationships is via
Olin's caveman / genetic-selection mechanism, long term social
structure instilled, God given or other is not an essential point.
(Those potential components are not mutually exclusive and some
combination of those and other things can be posited).

Dave asks

> As long as we are talking strictly recreational sex, and taking
> precautions against STDs, how does it harm me for my partner to have
> sex
> with someone else?

and that's an excellent question. A good way of looking at the
question is to ask it slightly differently. eg

   "We observe that even if we are talking about strictly
recreational sex,
   and take precautions against STDs etc, that in the vast majority
of
   cases the result is that it harms relationships and damages
peoples lives
   if their partners have sex with someone else. Why does this
happen,
   what are the mechanisms, and can we 'fix' this?"

If we deny that in most cases this causes "damage" then there is no
further point to the discussion. (All with this perspective should
contact Dave offlist and .. :-) ). If we note the truth of this it may
be useful to delve into the relationships between personal happiness,
societal success, monogamous relationships, nuclear families, open
sexuality, longevity of a 'civilisation'/empire/... etc. The
conclusions which are drawn vary widely - arguably far more widely
than the data allows ;-) - as each observer tends to attempt to
overlay their worldview on what is seen. As I am also not immune to
doing this the best I can do is to say that it seems to me that,
regardless of why:

- 'Free love' may well work for some but not for all and that it has a
net damaging effect on people involved. Individuals who move freely
and happily from partner to partner may in some cases be better off by
some measures but this is achieved at a cost to others and overall the
effect is negative.

- Societies based on "Traditional" family structures (and tradition
varies widely with cultures but we all understand well enough the
general norms and bounds implied) tend to produce more successful
societies. Define success in any way that makes sense to you and works
in practice long term. 'Success' may be defined in idealistic terms
(eg everyone is really happy always) but realisability is a problem.

- Consequences, responsibilities and freedoms are unavoidably
inter-related. Any society or group who majors too much at one extreme
will languish.

- People are incredibly complex and fragile. While we would perhaps
wish it were otherwise, it's not.

- Relationships are a significant part of "who we are" be they strong
and long term or transient or almost non-existent. Trying to do things
without accounting for this courts disaster (and it's a willing
suitor).

- People work best when trained to appreciate and manifest self
discipline / self control /  self management and to appreciate that
there are interrelated boundaries, consequences, responsibilities etc
in every situation and that 'if it feels good, do it' is all too often
not what will maximise a fulfilling and productive life, like it or
nor on any given occasion. Long term gain and satisfaction will
usually need to take captive short term desires. Children need to  be
'taught', "controlled" (that one will cause reaction), set boundaries,
disciplined, guided, educated (brainwashed?)(give me a child to the
age of ...), in order that they may be able to take over where you
leave off and manage themselves in a way that makes their life
satisfying. Failure to instil self-management skills in your children
is a parenting failure. [[[Some children are more instillable than
others - that's how people are ;-) ]]]. Note that this isn't saying
that people should be brought up to be boring. "normal",
don;t-stand-out-in-a-crowd'ers.  I'd favour quite the opposite.

- My body, and part of my brain which I haven't managed to beat sense
into yet, find Dave's premise attractive, (as long as its his partner
he's talking about and not mine). The part of my brain which has
learned its lesson knows that its a non starter.

- More ....

That should be enough for now though :-)


       Russell McMahon






2005\10\06@190213 by David Van Horn

picon face
> Not one --  not even one --  of the couples that we had
> known who opted for open marriage arrangements had a succesful
> marriage!  My major was mathematics, and so I do not presume to try
and
> issue any sort of grandiose sociological statement from that.  But
there
> is the data, for what it is worth.  In every case an essential bond
was
> destroyed, IMHO.

It doesn't surprise me that this is harder to make work than monogamy.
Basically, a trio would likely be at least twice the problems of a pair,
plus some.  

I wonder though what the relative stats are? TONS of monogamous
relationships fail, but that doesn't raise any eyebrows.  

But I know it's possible. I know people who have made it work long term.

I'm sure it's not for everyone.

Hell, almost all conventional marriages end in death or divorce.  

:)



2005\10\06@190958 by John Nall

picon face
David Van Horn wrote:

>
>But I know it's possible. I know people who have made it work long term.
>
>I'm sure it's not for everyone.
>
>Hell, almost all conventional marriages end in death or divorce.  
>  
>

What in the ever-loving blue-eyed world do you tell people who are
fixing to jump off a cliff, convinced they can fly (although to date no
one has succeeded in doing so)?  Have a nice trip?

John

2005\10\06@191545 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> > 3. On the other hand, if someone is trying to get you to do
> something
> you
> > don't want to do, we need to be willing to listen, take it
> seriously,
> and
> > take appropriate action. That includes getting people who have
> problems to
> > help and not just taking them out and shooting them. No matter how
> much we
> > might want to...
>
> Agreed completely on 1 and 2, and don't get me started on
> high school kids killed or crippled so we can win "the big game"...
>
> But, on this one, I'm not so sure what you mean.


I'm trying to address rape, non-consensual sex, stalking, pedophilia and
other issues where someone is trying to force something on someone else.

The force-ee needs to be taken seriously, not ignored, and appropriate
action taken. But not without proof, not were the accused is destroyed in
the public eye before a full investigation and a fair trial.

The force-er needs to be treated fairly as well. If it turns out to be my
daughter that was raped, I'll have a difficult time doing that. But it is
the right thing to do. Innocent until proven guilty. The police should NOT
state why someone is being investigated until they have solid proof of a
crime. People who can't seem to find pleasure without forcing others need to
be first, held back from doing it again, and second, provided with effective
treatment.

---
James.


2005\10\06@192230 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> >>I think that is one reason why wife swapping happens.
> >>
> Well, I did not intend to get involved in all this, although
> I think it does no harm to discuss such issues. (I am now
> beginning to see what buttons one can push with James in
> order to have a free slate.  :-)

Statements of fact, not ones that are unknowable. Stay away from religion
and politics because these are, in many way, unknowable. No messages of hate
or intolerance.

Of course all of that is colored to some degree by my own personal opinions,
but I really try not to let that in.

And don't cause an uproar. I'm expecting this thread to "flame out" any
minute now.

{Quote hidden}

I totally agree. If you want to have someone around in your old age who
really knows you and loves you, don't mess around. Not a moral judgment,
just following the statistics.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
KILLspamjamesnewtonKILLspamspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com


2005\10\06@193923 by John Nall

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

>
>>L I totally agree. If you want to have someone around in your old age who
>really knows you and loves you, don't mess around. Not a moral judgment,
>just following the statistics.
>  
>

No, I don't think that a moral judgment enters into it.  But when a man
trusts a woman, in every respect, and that trust is reciprocated in
every way, then it seems to me, in my own ignorant way, that trust just
forges a bond that transcends the wrinkles that appear, and the hair
that turns gray, and the gait that stumbles from time to time. But
perhaps every generation has to learn that anew, who knows?  :-)

John

2005\10\06@194342 by James Newton

flavicon
face
If you don't like it, unsub from [OT]

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
RemoveMEjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com




> {Original Message removed}

2005\10\06@194406 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
David Van Horn wrote:

> The concept of adultery is, at its core, a property crime.

For me the core difference is whether it is open or not. In that sense, the
better term is "betrayal". Just having sex with somebody else is not
necessarily betrayal; lying about it is. And that's a different story...

Gerhard

2005\10\06@194830 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
www.massmind.org/techref/other/lovers.htm has a section on advice
before getting married... And other stuff for lovers.

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\10\06@194901 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Of course all that depends on deceiving the husband.

I didn't really see anything here that depends on /deceiving/ the husband.
It depends on having sex with someone else... I think these are two
different things.

Gerhard

2005\10\06@195222 by John Nall

picon face
James Newton wrote:

>If you don't like it, unsub from [OT]
>  
>
Good for you, James!  If I ever get up that way, I will buy you a beer,
if you will accept it  What is that old saying?  "I don't agree with
what he says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."  (Or
something like that, anyway.  :-)

John

2005\10\06@195844 by David Van Horn

picon face
> One can visualise a world where pleasure was
> universally given and received in all its many forms without stigma,
> adverse consequence or "penalty". But no amount of visualisation and
> no amount of trying to make it so is going to make it happen in the
> world we live in.

Would it happen in my lifetime? No.
John Lennon thought it was possible to happen eventually.
Jesus apparently thought so.
I'm inclined to agree.
(While not a Christian, I think the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus
was a real person, and in many ways an outstanding teacher.)


> Even lesser
> encounters involving sexuality and compulsion (even without any
> physical contact) can have similar effects.

In fact, three of the folk at our L1 were dealing with serious issues
from rape, and one had been raped three times.  You wouldn't believe the
changes I saw in people over the course of that weekend.  I was told
before we went that a weekend there is like a year in therapy, and I
would probably agree with that.  I wish I could detail this further,
because it is a very powerful story, but you'll just have to take my
word for it.  I was there, I saw it, I have no reason to lie to you.  I
remain in contact with these people, and as far as time has allowed us
to tell, this was not a transient phenomenon.

> While we may wish that people so affected would 'get over it' / 'pull
> themselves together' / 'put it behind them and get on with life' / ...
> the reality is that achieving this often proves difficult or
> impossible.

Not possible for all certainly, but certainly possible for some/most.

I'm sorry that the agreement that I made prohibits me from disclosing
everything that I saw there, but I also understand that without that
security, what I saw would not have been possible.  I don't think you
can have those gains without that level of trust and openness.


> Whether the drive to and stability of monogamous relationships is via
> Olin's caveman / genetic-selection mechanism, long term social
> structure instilled, God given or other is not an essential point.
> (Those potential components are not mutually exclusive and some
> combination of those and other things can be posited).

I may not be presenting my side clearly enough.
I'm not advocating swinging, but I AM advocating that those who don't
should be at least minimally tolerant of those who do.  Same for other
lifestyle choices, religions, colors, etc.

>     "We observe that even if we are talking about strictly
> recreational sex, and take precautions against STDs etc, that in the
> vast majority of cases the result is that it harms relationships and
> damages peoples lives if their partners have sex with someone else.

Where do "we" observe this?  I've done a fair bit of reading on this
recently, and talked to a few people who swing, and they can point to
peer reviewed studies by reputable universities that suggest otherwise.
http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm

The claim was also made that swinging promotes disease, but the CDC
seems to disagree.


> If we deny that in most cases this causes "damage" then there is no
> further point to the discussion. (All with this perspective should
> contact Dave offlist and .. :-) ).

I'm not sure what's being alluded to here, but I think I object.


> - 'Free love' may well work for some but not for all and that it has a
> net damaging effect on people involved. Individuals who move freely
> and happily from partner to partner may in some cases be better off by
> some measures but this is achieved at a cost to others and overall the
> effect is negative.

Polynesian society seems to have done pretty well with this model, up
until the arrival of the Europeans, of course.

> - Consequences, responsibilities and freedoms are unavoidably
> inter-related. Any society or group who majors too much at one extreme
> will languish.

True.

> - People are incredibly complex and fragile. While we would perhaps
> wish it were otherwise, it's not.

True, and I have a new appreciation for that.
I was broken in ways I did not suspect, and by events that I would not
have thought. But at least in my case, the repair was mostly done in the
realization that these things were happening.

> - Relationships are a significant part of "who we are" be they strong
> and long term or transient or almost non-existent. Trying to do things
> without accounting for this courts disaster (and it's a willing
> suitor).

Certainly.  In the end, it's all about relationships. Everything else is
window-dressing.

> - People work best when trained to appreciate and manifest self
> discipline / self control /  self management and to appreciate that
> there are interrelated boundaries, consequences, responsibilities etc

Certainly

> in every situation and that 'if it feels good, do it' is all too often
> not what will maximise a fulfilling and productive life, like it or
> nor on any given occasion.

Do you think that this is what I'm advocating?

{Quote hidden}

Complete agreement here.

> - My body, and part of my brain which I haven't managed to beat sense
> into yet, find Dave's premise attractive, (as long as its his partner
> he's talking about and not mine). The part of my brain which has
> learned its lesson knows that its a non starter.

I'm sorry that your experiences have been so negative.

There's a community of people, larger than the piclist by far, who would
disagree with you.


2005\10\06@195853 by David Van Horn

picon face
> >Hell, almost all conventional marriages end in death or divorce.
> >
>
> What in the ever-loving blue-eyed world do you tell people who are
> fixing to jump off a cliff, convinced they can fly (although to date
no
> one has succeeded in doing so)?  Have a nice trip?

???  



2005\10\06@200614 by David Van Horn

picon face
> I'm trying to address rape, non-consensual sex, stalking, pedophilia
and
> other issues where someone is trying to force something on someone
else.

Ah! A subject close to my heart, my older daughter was date-raped last
year.

> The force-ee needs to be taken seriously, not ignored, and appropriate
> action taken. But not without proof, not were the accused is destroyed
in
> the public eye before a full investigation and a fair trial.

The local prosecutor refuses to prosecute, apparently her injuries to
the extent of needing internal surgery could all be explained by "rough
sex". According to our local defense attorneys, it would appear that
every woman in town is into "rough sex". Forensic evidence was
collected, and the guy admits that they had sex.. Still not enough to
prosecute. I guess you need a team of unassailable witnesses and a video
from three different angles.

> The force-er needs to be treated fairly as well. If it turns out to be
my
> daughter that was raped, I'll have a difficult time doing that. But it
is
> the right thing to do. Innocent until proven guilty. The police should
NOT
> state why someone is being investigated until they have solid proof of
a
> crime. People who can't seem to find pleasure without forcing others
need
> to be first, held back from doing it again, and second, provided with
> effective treatment.

Let me tell you, when your daughter arrives home with blood pouring out,
it's pretty difficult to maintain an even keel.

I would recuse myself from judgment, but I think it's possible that this
guy is one of the "permanently broken" types I spoke of earlier.



2005\10\06@200837 by David Van Horn

picon face
> For me the core difference is whether it is open or not. In that
sense,
> the
> better term is "betrayal". Just having sex with somebody else is not
> necessarily betrayal; lying about it is. And that's a different
story...


Yup, I'd agree with that.  My wife prohibits me from having sex with
other people, and I will not cross that boundary.   But I don't see how
I can (or why I should) apply that to anyone else.



2005\10\06@201029 by David Van Horn

picon face

Yikes. I didn't mean to kick a hornet's nest, honest.




2005\10\06@210511 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
Well...

I guess I should expect any better from the government.

Let me tell you what I have done to attempt to prevent this in my family.

But first I must tell you that I am very much against guns, knives, and
other instruments of violence. We were in a theater the other day and there
were 4 first person shooters in the little video arcade in the lobby. Kids
between 8 and 16 were playing these games. Some with the parent standing
right there. I commented to my family, and my daughter, as I always do, that
these games glorify violence and it is wrong to desensitize kids to the
effects of guns on humans. I won't let my kids watch movies that glorify
violence. Especially the ones where people are shot at and never hit (G.I.
Joe) or shot and forgotten in the movie. They watched "Master and Commander"
because although there was some violence, it was realistic and the results
(death, dismemberment) were dealt with in the movie. Violence is horrible,
and presenting it in any other way is wrong.

Having said that.

Violence is, sadly, part of life. It is the last refuge of the incompetent,
but we must be willing to admit that quite often, we are incompetent. I
wrote I bit on that subject at
http://www.massmind.org/other/incompetence.htm I think it pretty well
explains my position on this.

My daughter knows exactly where to kick a guy and how. She knows where to
bite, how to peel a finger off her throat and break it, how to break a nose
and a kneecap.

My daughter is taking karate classes at a local dojo that I have some
respect for. I wish I could find better, but...

My daughter has been trained by a trusted expert gunsmith and sharpshooter
in the care, handling and use of many types of firearms. She has practiced
with them and is, for her tender age, a crack shot. She has never practiced
shooting at anything that even loosely resembles a human. We don't keep guns
in the house. Anyone who tries to scare her with one had better hope he
actually has it off safety and doesn't loose his grip on it.

I guess what I'm saying is basically that when it come down to her getting
hurt or some guy getting hurt, I hope it will be the guy. That will save me
from having to hurt him. Or her sister who is a TSA, testing for Air Marshal
next month, and has had all the same training.

Of course, the D.A. will probably prosecute her if she ever does any of
that. But when she gets out, it will be with her confidence intact. And the
guy will think twice.

And despite all of that, I'm horribly afraid. For her, and for myself if I
ever find her bleeding. I don't think I would do anyone violence, but I
don't know.

Hearing that the authorities are no help, doesn't help.

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\10\06@223723 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
1. What has this all to do with Mote Prime ?


2.

{Quote hidden}

At least it's "hero" is a NZer.
Albeit overly dangerous when armed with a telephone.

_______

My son grew up through his teenage years on violent PC video games and
1st person shooters and the like. We were, as one may imagine,
suitably concerned and sought to apply a proper degree of light handed
guidance. There would have been some 'just plain no' but largely it
was interaction and discussion - nothing heavy (which tends not to
work with most teenagers anyway). Overall I was still moderately
unhappy with his choices in this area.

He is now 26 and still likes subsets of this sort of activity.

However, he is now in the final year of a theological degree and
intends to follow this with a Masters degree in theology. I can hear
the remarks being prepared about Christians and their kind :-). But he
is also now a Pacifist in the truest sense. He is utterly against
violence to people and against evil in all its many forms, but he
does not consider that killing people is justifiable. He cannot
conceive of Jesus Christ in his earthly role doing so and believes
that there are other approaches to all the problems where death and
violence is a common "solution".

While his views and mine do not align completely in this area* this is
a rather pleasing outcome considering my concerns in his formative
years.

* I, alas, feel that there may be circumstances where killing people
becomes the optimum solution, or the best one practically available. I
certainly don't ever want to be placed in the position where I have to
make such choices in practice. World War 2 probably provides a
suitably time removed and situation-rich example to test these
feelings on. There were, of course, many situations in that conflict
where killing people was not the best solution. eg despite the several
excellent arguments for the dropping of the two A bombs on Japan,
creative solutions that *may* have resulted in little or no loss of
life would have been possible.

However, I'm also not wholly sure that my son isn't right.




       RM




2005\10\06@224132 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I think that is one reason why wife swapping happens. It may be a
>> sort
>> of unspoken agreement that the men will help each other out with
>> the
>> raising of the kids down the road.

> Sounds closer to polyamory to me.

Closer, maybe. But still a vast chasm and a pipe-dream away from
reality.

Hands up all those who believe that
   " ... a sort of unspoken agreement that the men will help each
other
   " out with the raising of the kids down the road."

is liable to be worth the paper it isn't written on in the large
majority of cases in the real world?


       RM


2005\10\06@231113 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
I get the feeling he won't take you up on that offer :)

It's sort of interesting. I don't drink, and yet I get offered alcohol
all the time. I don't really understand why it has become a sort of
reward in our society. Perhaps it's just easier than saying "Thanks
for the good work". I suppose it's also a way of giving something to a
person without having to pick out a gift or worry that you're writing
a cheque that's too small.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

On 10/6/05, John Nall <spamBeGonejwnallspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
> Good for you, James!  If I ever get up that way, I will buy you a beer,
> if you will accept it  What is that old saying?  "I don't agree with
> what he says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."  (Or
> something like that, anyway.  :-)

2005\10\06@232302 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>> and because of the "revolution" many our
>> friends were experimenting with different arrangements.

The social and religious "values" that surround sex date to periods
in history when it was normal to get married (or the equivalent)
shortly after puberty, give birth to half a dozen children, and die
by about the time the youngest had their first child.  It's not at
all surprising that those mores don't seem to fit well in a modern
society where people of both sexes delay families till after they
have established careers (~30) and live for 50 years after that.  So
societies going through assorted mutations trying to find a more
viable form, and the unsuccessful mutations are dying off.  Fortunately
(?) societies seem to evolve much faster than organisms.  Maybe we'll
find something that works better Real Soon Now...

BillW

2005\10\07@072641 by olin piclist

face picon face
David Van Horn wrote:
> Yikes. I didn't mean to kick a hornet's nest, honest.

Now really Dave, that is rather hard to believe.  The resulting flurry of
messages was completely predictable.  It's exactly what I thought would
happen I read your first post.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\10\07@090117 by David Van Horn

picon face
> David Van Horn wrote:
> > Yikes. I didn't mean to kick a hornet's nest, honest.
>
> Now really Dave, that is rather hard to believe.  The resulting flurry
of
> messages was completely predictable.  It's exactly what I thought
would
> happen I read your first post.

What I meant to do, was to let my friends here know about something that
I found to be a really positive experience for myself and my wife (HAI).

They don't promote themselves much, and it took me a fair amount of
digging to run across them.

The discussion about swinging was more or less coincidental, and seems
to have taken over. As it happens, this place is very close to my home,
and I thought it was really amusing that something so trivial would make
international news.



2005\10\07@090805 by Jinx

face picon face
> how does it harm me for my partner to have sex with someone else ?

You might get a free party.............

This is said to be a true story. If it isn't, it should be

=================================

It's about a recent wedding that took place at Clemson
University. It was in the local newspaper and even Jay Leno
mentioned it

It was a huge wedding with about 300 guests...

After the wedding at the reception, the groom got up on stage with
a microphone to talk to the crowd. He said he wanted to thank
everyone for coming, many from long distances, to support them at
their wedding. He especially wanted to thank the bride's and his
family and to thank his new father-in-law for providing such a lavish
reception. As a token of his deep appreciation he said he wanted to
give everyone a special gift just from him. So taped to the bottom
of everyone's chair, including the wedding party, was an envelope

He said this was his gift to everyone, and asked them to open their
envelopes. Inside each manila envelope was an 8x10 glossy of his
bride having sex with the best man. The groom had gotten suspicious
of them weeks earlier and had hired a private detective to tail them.

After just standing there, just watching the guests' reactions for a
couple of minutes, he turned to the dumbfounded crowd and said,
"I'm outta here." He had the marriage annulled first thing in the
morning.

While most people would have canceled the wedding immediately
after finding out about the affair, this guy goes through with the
charade, as if nothing was wrong.

His revenge... making the bride's parents pay over $32,000 for a
300 guest wedding and reception, and best of all, trashing the bride's
and best man's reputations in front of 300 friends and family members

2005\10\07@094848 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
David Van Horn wrote:

> Most every religion I've looked at has the same core beliefs, in that
> one should be nice to other people, live and let live, etc.  

It seems you haven't read a lot of the Old Testament... Not exactly a 101
on how to be "nice" to other people. But it's essential part of the basis
of at least two major religions.

Gerhard

2005\10\07@101104 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > Most every religion I've looked at has the same core
> beliefs, in that
> > one should be nice to other people, live and let live, etc.  
>
> It seems you haven't read a lot of the Old Testament... Not
> exactly a 101
> on how to be "nice" to other people. But it's essential part
> of the basis
> of at least two major religions.

I am not a Christian or Muslim so I might be totally wrong, but IMHO the
life and teaching of Jesus is the prime authority in Christianity.
Everying else is second at most. Likewise for Islam the words of the
prophet are the prime authority, not the old testament.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\10\07@111845 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> > Most every religion I've looked at has the same core
>> beliefs, in that one should be nice to other people, live and let
>> live, etc.
>> It seems you haven't read a lot of the Old Testament... Not
>> exactly a 101on how to be "nice" to other people. But it's
>> essential part
>> of the basisof at least two major religions.

> I am not a Christian or Muslim so I might be totally wrong, but IMHO
> the
> life and teaching of Jesus is the prime authority in Christianity.
> Everying else is second at most. Likewise for Islam the words of the
> prophet are the prime authority, not the old testament.

The following is an engineering explanation :-).
ie explanation as best I may while attempting to not attempt to do more than give a straight answer.

By all means tell me that such explanation is out of place, even in this out of place (and very interesting) conversation. BUT first be sure that this isn't in fact no more than i say it is and therefore useful. If no such explanation can possibly be useful then I suggest you stop reading now.

______________

I am a Christian. I can speak with reasonable knowledge on core Christian beliefs that would be held to a variable extent by the majority of Christians.

Christianity is an indivisible whole. Best (but wholly inadequate) physical analogy might be a hologram. If you take any one part and try and say "this is Christianity" you are liable to end up like the ?6? men examining an elephant. But if you take that part and try to see the whole in it, albeit with a lower resolution, you get a better picture. But if you must take one view or a starting view then start with Christ. Christ is the answer / explanation / foundation / in which everything else finds completion.

Christians will tell you that Christianity is a consistent whole, that there are no contradictions or loose ends and that it all works. While it definitely seems to many that this is not true, it is not reasonable to make such assertions from an external perspective. This is equally true for most if not all religions - and is an area of major misunderstanding and annoyance. You may validly question how a religion fits your reality, but you cannot meaningfully question the logicality of its inner functioning. This is frustrating and annoying and seems ridiculous. There are close enough parallels in the physical world - entirely different in nature but equally annoying. One such is the eg Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, or indeed most interpretations of QM. In the Copenhagen holy writ it is invalid to question the state of an event/object/ ... prior to the collapse of the wave function. The question has no meaning and the stupidity of this being the case need not be addressed. Mrs Schrödinger's Pet is neither dead or alive or anything else. Many accept this without too much tearing of their mental fabric.

Another is wave/particle duality.

Another is space time compression at relativistic speeds (special theory is understandable if not believable, general theory is away with the fairies but demonstrably usable).

So - back to Christianity.
If you look at Christ, His teachings, His nature, His life, His death then you get a useful picture - albeit not quite the gentle Jesus meek and mild milk-sop that many are used to - Christ was a man's man extraordinaire.

But then if you look at the Old Testament, acts of 'God's people', nature and actions of God etc, you may have trouble reconciling what you find with what you see in Christ. Many walk away without trying. Many try without succeeding. The only way to win is to lose everything and become part of the system using the rule set provided. Many object to this and demand that an approach that better suits them be provided. The rules don't seem to change.

The point is, Christianity is an indivisible whole. It does indeed teach that the ultimate aim of life is to be nice to people because God loves them and wants you to love them as much as He does. But it also contains in the "Old Testament" (and certainly also in parts of the New Testament) parts which appear (and are) far from 'nice' by our standards. And Christ is indeed (Christians will tell you) the ultimate embodiment of niceness/goodness/perfection.But if you take more than a skim of the Bible stories you find a man who invariably answered questions in ways that nobody else does, a perspective that is quite unlike what you'd expect. a person who would have simultaneously have been really fascinating and really really really annoying to have interacted with. And a person who accepted utterly the place and validity of all the Old testament teachings - and indeed, embodied them.

If you want just "nice" in your religion then Christianity, and Christ are not the place to go. Something like Bahai or some paths of Buddhism, or James' UU church will give you far nicer nice. Christ is indeed Mr ultimate nice guy - but He is not only about nice. He is about all aspects of God simultaneously and all at constant full throttle.

So yes, Christ is indeed the primary reference and authority [and I won't even start to get into His relationship with "God the Father" :-) ] BUT you also must take everything else that comes with Him. After all, what else would  you expect from someone who set up the system that the Copenhagen model is trying to explain :-) ?



       Russell McMahon




2005\10\07@112622 by Aaron

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>>It seems you haven't read a lot of the Old Testament... Not
>>exactly a 101 on how to be "nice" to other people. But it's essential part
>>of the basis of at least two major religions.
>>    
>>
>
>I am not a Christian or Muslim so I might be totally wrong, but IMHO the
>life and teaching of Jesus is the prime authority in Christianity.
>Everying else is second at most. Likewise for Islam the words of the
>prophet are the prime authority, not the old testament.
>
>Wouter van Ooijen
>
Yes,  Christians believe that the one of the main purposes of the OT was
to point to a new and better way... the teachings of Jesus in the NT.

2005\10\07@114515 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
Aaron
> Yes,  Christians believe that the one of the main purposes of
> the OT was
> to point to a new and better way... the teachings of Jesus in the NT.

Russel:
> Christianity is an indivisible whole.

I have at least two incompatible RJ11 footprints (and hence a stock of
PCBs with holes that cut through traces). Maybe we an conclude that
engineering is difficult, even if you are a God ;)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\10\07@120211 by Dave Lag

picon face
was that OT or [OT] ?
;)

Aaron wrote:

> Yes,  Christians believe that the one of the main purposes of the OT was
> to point to a new and better way... the teachings of Jesus in the NT.

2005\10\07@120559 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Firstly I am a free thinker and have read some Bible and Buddist
teachings and I respect people's religion beliefs. And I think to
believe some non-existent or not-being-able-to-be-proved-to-be-existent
metaphiscal object is perfectly okay. To believe in a living human
being as omni-present and omniscient and superior to all the rest
of the world like the Falungong stuff is beyond me though.

I did not follow this thread but I think Gerhard are really correct about
the Old Testament. What I read in it is really hate and revenge.
The one high high above must have some big changes from the
Old Testment to the New Testment.

Regards,
Xiaofan

On 10/7/05, Gerhard Fiedler  wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2005\10\07@122320 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
I am reading this OT thread since I think Russle is really right that
"People who subsribe to OT usually  have more rounded  characters,
get more out of life and are more liable to be voted most  popular classmate
of the year :-)."

This thread will be PICLIST THREAD OF YEAR 2005. ;-)

{Original Message removed}

2005\10\07@124126 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Since this has become the confessional, I should join in too.

I'm proud to announce that after many years of being an atheist, I have
seen the light.  I am now a follower of the noodle, having been touched
by His noodly appendage.  Yes, I am now a Pastafarian.  But please don't
take my word for it; see it for yourself here:

http://www.venganza.org/

Ramen!


ps: if you are not convinced yet, this site might help:
http://objectiveministries.org/babyj/

2005\10\07@133106 by John Ferrell

face picon face
James feels that I am being critical of your HAI experience. I did not
intend to do that.
It sounds like a good program. The fact that you report a positive
experience convinces me of that.

However, the discussion seemed to be leading towards support of a "free sex"
culture. When I was a teen age fellow, that sounded like a great idea. My
experience of 50 more years has led me away from that position.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\10\07@142500 by Gus Salavatore Calabrese

face picon face
Having been a lurker until now, I find myself incensed in general
at the comments.  ( Nothing specific )

1) The use of the word "WE" ..... as in WE are cavemen or
WE must become more enlightened.  "I" ( capital I ) do not like
collectivism and "I" am NOT a member of WE.  Sure groups can
work together to create great things.  The bigger a group becomes,
the more likely it is to become mindless and be lead by creepy
people.  "I" am afraid of groups larger than about 20 people.


2) Some people ( I am one ) would like to drop the whole idea of sex
to the level of enjoying food, scenery, drugs, whatever.  I myself am
monogamous because I found a mate who is a 9.9 in my eyes and I
do not want to risk losing that.  If other people want to swing, I do  
not
care one bit.  My daughter has new partners all the time and tells me
what she likes about sex with each of them.
The reason sex is banned is because many of those who are not getting
as much as they want are jealous.  This is true of many crimes.

WOW  a lot of people are afraid of sex.  There is a difference  
between sex and
violence although the two are often intertwined.  Forcing sex on someone
is violence, I repeat it is violence.  Voluntary sex is not a crime  
regardless
of the age.  I put no lower boundary on the age.  The issue is what is
voluntary ?

3)  I think nuclear families are completely overrated,  The best way to
raise a child is by a lot of caring adults.  I am annoyed that  
parents think
they "own" their children and believe they should choose the child's
moral and religious instruction.  Nor do I think the state should  
have anything
to do with it.

4) The "consenting adults" thing is okay with me.  I find many 13  
year olds
that are more intelligent and thoughtful than my 50 year old sister.  
The
real definition of an adult has more to do with physical power than  
anything
else.  Women were treated as infantile humans for much of history  
because
of their average size, weight and strength.  ( Not to mention men do  
not get
pregnant )

5) Teaching young women that they are "worthwhile" is useless as long as
the majority of people insist that there " really are ! " blacks,  
whites, asians,
niggers, jews, kikes, christians, etc.   As long as internal and  
external
collectivism is a powerful impulse, one can forget teaching anyone  
their true
value.  What is the value of a rich american ? a teenage girl ? a US  
soldier
in IRAQ ?  a policeman in IRAQ ?  Osma Bin Laden ?  Obviously not the  
same.
And it is a joke pretending their value is the same.

6)  Getting "people who have problems" help has me laughing until  
snot fles
out of my nose.  This is one step from the soviet gulags.  I think  
everyone knows
"people who have problems" and should be forced to take drugs or  
forced to go
to counseling or some other really nice thing........

7)  All religions are crock and their explanations of why they are a  
suitable
template for behaviour are a crock.  Most of it devolves into " you  
wouldn't
understand unless you walked in my shoes ".  What a crock !  Why not  
just
admit it gives the religious an excuse for their behaviour and it  
makes them
feel good.  At about the same level as screaming girls at a rock  
concert.  I was
into religion in my youth and the highlights felt the same as going  
to a Moody
Blues concert and lighting up a stubbie.  Do I care if there are 6  
billion plus
religions in the world ?  No ....... just leave me the ^%^%$ alone.
( Science is a religion as well and I admit that I like it pretty  
much.  I just try to
avoid the parts where science makes suggestions how one might behave )

8)  What difference does it make if the high school star is killed in  
the big game
or waits a couple years to get his leg blown off in an "offensive" in  
a non-war ?
Oh, yeah I forgot.  No there are the "forever" wars.  The war on  
drugs.  The war
on terrorism.  The war on drunk drivers.  The war on intolerance.

9)  I was married twice and my first marriage was fun for 7 years and  
then it wasn't
for 3 years so we divorced.  I view it as 7 years of fun.  I do not  
view it as a failed marriage.
A friend of mine celebrated her 56th wedding anniversary a month ago  
and I can
safely say that 49 years of that has been a totally dead, boring  
schwa as far as the
relationship is concerned. Children, outside interests have kept my  
friend going.
People who brag about being married for 3,834 years do not impress  
me.  What did
they do with their lives?  That is what I want to know.  Did they  
torture their children ?
My second marriage lasted 5 years.  At that time I said to my wife,  
"let's get divorced"
She said she really didn't want to.  "C'mon , please" I said.  I  
hated the whole implied
contract that comes with marriage.  Finally she agreed and we have  
lived together the
last 5 years in sin.  We are talking about getting married again just  
to drive our
acquaintances crazy.

10)  The fact that a lot of human behaviour  is "hard coded" does not  
lead me to the conclusion
that I might as well accept it.  I AM trying to be an alien that  
looks at behaviour and asks
"What was this all about and does it serve me well ? "  I understand  
a lot about why people do
absurd and self-destructive things and I forgive them for it  
( mostly ).  That does not mean
I accept it.  I try to gently point out alternate forms of  
behaviour.  ( and sometimes it has to be so gentle
that the nudge is almost non-existent )


11) What in the ever-loving blue-eyed world do you tell people who are
fixing to jump off a cliff, convinced they can fly (although to date no
one has succeeded in doing so)?  Have a nice trip?

I tell them it is very high probability that pain, injury and death  
await them.
Have a nice trip.

12) My first wife was raped in her youth and while not a violent  
event, the perpetrator threatened
to suffocate her.  Her mother's response was to blame her.  If I had  
been there, the minimum I would
have done is cut the guy's cojones off.
My daughter was raped ? in Europe.  She was travelling alone and  
flirted with these guys and one
of them insisted on having sex.  She said it was case of her going  
too far with a guy with the wrong
kind of personality.  It does not haunt as far as I know.  ( Lest  
anyone say that I would be the last to know,
I talk with my daughter all the time about things she does not  
mention to anyone else including her mother )
If my daughter's life had been threatened, I would have ( see top of  
this paragraph )
I would have to know with a great deal of certainty who the  
perpetrator was.

That's it    a definite OT rant

AGSC

2005\10\07@144817 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Urban legend, but fun to tell nonetheless:
http://www.snopes.com/weddings/embarrass/bothered.asp

It's an elaborate version of "What is the worst revenge you can get
away with for some crime done against you."

-Adam

On 10/7/05, Jinx <TakeThisOuTjoecolquittEraseMEspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\10\07@152344 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jinx wrote:

>> how does it harm me for my partner to have sex with someone else ?
>
> You might get a free party.............

That's a /really/ good story :)

But still... this story is not about having sex with someone else, it is
about a betrayal involving sex. It seems there's a real confusion about
these two aspects.

Gerhard

2005\10\07@183543 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Russel:
>> Christianity is an indivisible whole.

Wouter:
> I have at least two incompatible RJ11 footprints (and hence a stock
> of
> PCBs with holes that cut through traces). Maybe we an conclude that
> engineering is difficult, even if you are a God ;)

What you need is the special hologram model.
Available only to special order.



       RM

2005\10\07@183543 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>... IMHO the life and teaching of Jesus is the prime authority in
>>Christianity. Everything else is second at most. ...

> Yes,  Christians believe that the one of the main purposes of the OT
> was to point to a new and better way... the teachings of Jesus in
> the NT.

Sometimes put -

"The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed".


       RM

2005\10\07@202134 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Absolutely no religion here (even though it obviously has things to
say about the following)(but I'm not saying anything at all below
about it) :

James: Can we keep going in this original direction if you set
appropriate guidelines as to how far we can digress into others?

______________


I'm sorry if I gave any impression that I felt Dave's course was wrong
or improper. I seldom disagree too violently with most of what Dave
has to say :-)

I skimmed the site and what I saw seemed good. I'm sure I'd find fault
in the detail - but there's always fault in the detail. The general
concept seemed similar to causes run by (can I say it) any number of
religious groups. Most people can learn much about the underlying
things that drive them and their relationships when guided by those
suitably qualified (- qualified usually both by formal training and
life experience).

_____________________

As always, this is opinion and may be worth less than you pay for it.
But it may be worth more.
Any place you disagree just add a mental "IMHO" and keep reading.


A (but certainly not the only) major 'problem' with much that is said
on the general subject of sex and relationships and life in general is
the failure to discern between "pleasure" and "other". High on the
list of "other" I would place 'satisfaction'. I believe that
satisfaction is one of the major drivers in life. Maximise
satisfaction and you generally feel that have a good life. If this may
sound like self fulfilling twaddle think about it for a moment. if it
still; sounds like twaddle, press delete ;-).

Pleasure is great !!!! I find it very pleasant. I can't get enough of
it. But I know, from an entirely practical point of view, that for my
own sake (let alone other people's) that I shouldn't try to. I know
that my optimum satisfaction, and the optimum satisfaction of anyone I
have ever met, is not achieved by optimising pleasure. I also know
that the more pleasant I find something the less logical the knowledge
becomes re not optimising it. [Optimisation in a given circumstance
may well be fine - medium or long term optimisation is the problem].
eg I enjoy the act of sex as much, I imagine, as most men. In any
individual specifically sexual experience optimisation of pleasure is
a major driver. But even there my wife's pleasure is obviously also a
major requirement. Ensuring the pleasure of the other part[y/ies] is
not, of course, always the aim in sex in general.

Pleasure (more or less) is based on finding ways to stimulate the
brain's 'pleasure centre' (PC). This is often not a bad thing. Some
methods are more effective and more direct than others. However, the
more direct the approach the more addictive the result tends to be
(not tightly correlated but the trend is obvious). There is much more
to addiction than just pleasure centre (PC) effect, but they are more
than 'just good friends'. As well as addiction (formal or obvious) any
high PC stimulant also tends to have the 'unfortunate' effect of
habituation - there's a decreasing dosage / effect relationship and a
tendency to want/need to increase the stimulus.

If pleasure were the ultimate aim in life, as it is for some, then the
obvious solution would be a direct stimulus of the pleasure centre -
as is standard fare in many SciFi stories. A "wirehead" typically and
rapidly becomes a non-person, conscious and caring only for the
ultimate pleasure sensations generated. rapid physical death is the
certain outcome without outside intervention and/or support. (In some
of Larry Niven's stories the 'hero' is a wirehead addict who knows
what
he wants and knows what it will do to him, so he wires a system that
will limit the dosage he can get per day and makes it unable to be
tampered with when he most would like to be able to do so.) This
somewhat bizarre and realistic seeming enough scenario gives (I think)
a reasonable insight into the nature of pleasure. It is a great
driver, and certainly has its place, but it's unlikely to map
perfectly over optimisation of other aims. Many other drivers
correlate variably well with pleasure optimisation but none 100% and
many quite poorly. Most of us can see the paucity of the life and
desires of a wire head. It's easy enough to see that the life is
pointless from any perspective except that of their own pleasure, that
nobody else benefits, relates or derives any value from their
pleasure. The same is variably true of all our pleasures to the extent
that they are entirely personal. When making love my overwhelming aim
is maximising my wife's pleasure. I certainly wish my own pleasure to
be 'right up there', but if the choice is (as may well be the case)
between maximising her pleasure and mine, then hers is clearly the
most important. What I get from this is far far greater than what I
get from the moments peak passion that I might otherwise achieve. [If
both partners in a sexual act take this approach then they're both on
a roll :-)]. What's happening here is something greater and far
broader than pleasure is being optimised. This is part of what I
generically term "satisfaction".

"Satisfaction" may be quite another creature from pleasure. Pleasure
is definitely in its
armoury, but there is much more to it. And it does correlate well with
a diverse range of other targets.

To take a typical example, imagine I have a crucial 'must be done'
drainage task on my property that I decide (possibly stupidly :-) ) to
do myself. It's cold. It rains and I don coat and gumboots. The boots
fill with water and I have to choose between sweating profusely or
leaving it partially open and getting soaked. Either way I end up
soaked. I work for 9 hours. It's wet. It's muddy. My muscles ache, my
back screams for mercy. My hands are blistered. My
body protests. I feel terrible. At the end of the 9 hours the job is
done. The rain gurgles happily down the drain. Over the last few hours
any sensations remotely akin to the peaks of sexual passion have been
(not unexpectedly) absent (except for a small subset of people :-) ).
I put away the tools, shed my boots and coat and walk to the house. My
body asks whether death is an available option. Pleasure has fled.
Satisfaction has seldom had a sweeter hour. [If you can't identify
with this scenario, I'm sure I have some drainage work that you can do
for me ;-) ].

The rest of life is variably like this. Some few (percentage wise) may
well find their life aims are optimised by swinging, serial partners,
no fixed partners, wine-women-and-song, take no thought for the
morrow, ... . Some may live as eg James Bond as Ian Fleming writ him
lived, and be satisfied enough in the process. But for most
satisfaction is to be found in a very measured mix of the more humdrum
and mundane. In eg raising children in a stable and loving environment
where they can feel and be wanted and supported and cared for for who
they are, and protected and guided and cherished until they are able
to take responsibility for themselves and in turn share this gift with
others. Millenia of experience suggests that the greater heights of
pleasure seeking do not fit well with such attainments. This is
certainly not to say that pleasure does not have its place in such
things. But it must often play a measured and secondary place if the
greater attainment of personal attainment is to be achieved. Note that
I make no comment here on 'appropriate' family structure. Even a
'nuclear' family will be very different in say Scotland and Polynesia,

I'm absolutely certain that people will take exception to the above
opinion. eg Swingers, they will say, can be wholly loving caring
parents and bring up loved children in a nurturing and safe and
productive environment. And I agree wholeheartedly. They can indeed.
BUT the norm is that this is not will happen. The norm is that the
parents pleasure seeking will impact the children's lives. All family
life is a compromise, an interaction between the desires and needs of
all concerned. Optimise pleasure will favour the individual. Optimised
satisfaction for a parent will (usually) favour the family. This is
the practical experience of humanity to date. We may wish it to be
otherwise. We may think we can make it otherwise. Maybe we can - but
experiments to date most often fail to do so with consequent damage to
many. Those seeking to not damage those they love or themselves are
best advised to tread on the side of tradition.


       Russell "imho" McMahon







2005\10\08@131233 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> James: Can we keep going in this original direction if you set
> appropriate guidelines as to how far we can digress into others?

He's already answered that.  I don't find KILL THREAD NOW to be ambiguous.

*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...