h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Roadkill
I *hated* that scene!

"Yes and I remember once on the top of a hill....safe....no.
There was a local RAF training base nearby...."

LOL! There's a whole genre of people out there who prefer to be seen. They go to such places deliberately.

My other half reached early adolescence during the Second World War, and especially the blitz. His first experiences was joining many others roaming the London Parks, where couples didn't care. Many turned to sex as a relief from the stringencies of the war. No one knew when they would die, or those they loved would die. In the parks, people were so uncaring it was not unknown for the audience to applaud an impressive 'performance'.

Amazing...
Of course being in the missionary position I heard the noise only..
My partner seemed less than enthralled. Then the local gliding club swept in....the R/T was obviously well used.

In one way or another, we've done fair amount of discussing sex. We've talked round the Christian attitude to it, and I think it's fair to say the pagan attitude is a lot freer, in that we see it as an essential part of life, to be rejoiced in. But, given the original purpose of this thread, what are peoples' views on the relationship between sex and religion? Is it simply something which is as natural as eating? Is it something which we should enjoy and, if so, by what standards? Are there 'natural' restrictions to the enjoyment of sex e.g. the number of partners, the types of activity (yes, lets not back down the homosexual argument, but keeping it general). Is marriage necessary? What about open marriage? Polygamy? Serial parnterships? Is a relationship for life and, if so, why? Is sex something to be ashamed of, or indulged in as a secret activity? Is it always to be done 'vanilla' or is BDSM or other variations OK in religious terms?

>>Della, you may like this site, http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/<<
Yes, I it, I have bookmarked it, and it's wonderful. Thank you so much!

And why is paedophilia suddenly so taboo?

Because it's the only sexual crime where there can be no consent; also, it's only recently been drawn to the public eye, and basic pack-instincts make us want to protect our children.

>>Are there 'natural' restrictions to the enjoyment of sex e.g. the number of partners, the types of activity<<
That's where I'd be on the argument, Heathen. In my opinion, there must be restrictions, if it's 'boots off and all in' (did I get that expression right???) then there's very little *real* enjoyment in it. Multiple partners, sequentially or all at once, are *not* what it's about.
The minimum requirement for me is a genuinely exclsuive and meaningful relationship - one open to the possibility of children (not I *didn't* say *required* to have children, just open to the possibility. There's nothing worse for a woman to proudly tell a man "I'm pregnant" and have him say either (a) How do I know it's mine? (b)You've got to get rid of it or (c)Oh, no, what are we going to do now?, Oh no, are you sure? or variations. Believe me, I know!)
In terms of commitment marriage (civil, religious or both) is the most desirable requirement.

The age of consent is arbitrary. The government introduced it so there would be a post. There could theoretically be consent, it just wouldn't be consent.

"Oh, you couldn't possibly have /wanted/ to, you're far too young!".

No, I support a drastic reduction in the age of consent. It's only that I don't particularly feel that six years olds are amazingly qualified to make decisions about sex, and abusive pleasureless sex at that, which could impact on their entire lives. Do you?

Personally I believe violation of a minor...under 16...is a heinous crime. But other wise I'm easy between consenting partners.

Mal- no I don't. I raise the point as a matter of theory.

OO- when you say "violation" do you mean rape? Or just a sexual act? Because as I say, the age of 16 is an imposed one.

Take it from me, 16 is a dumb age and no one I know pays any attention to it. They do it whenever they feel ready. There should be no set age so high.

I f the age of consent was 10 or 30 it would still be opposed. Do you oppose the idea of having an age of consent or just the level it is currently set at?

The circumstances would dictate definitions.
Two consenting 15 yr olds is understandable.
An older and younger partner would demand scrutiny
as to consent, abuse or rape.

Yeah, but that would generally be between two minors, yes? Not what is generally meant by paedophilia.

But I'm with you on that count, Mal.

Blackberry
I oppose both. However, I realise that having no set age is impractical, and so I say instead that 16 is too high. If I am a law breaker for loving someone before the age of 16 (or even 15 in my case), then so are millions of others. But 16 is too high and 15 is just wishy-washy, and if people started having sex earlier they'd demand other things too. It's too personal, but there's no other solution.

>>In one way or another, we've done fair amount of discussing sex. We've talked round the Christian attitude to it, and I think it's fair to say the pagan attitude is a lot freer, in that we see it as an essential part of life, to be rejoiced in.<<

Agreed - especially between partners in magic LOL as well as partners who choose not to practise magic... But magic with a sexual partner is - special. As is sex with a magical partner. Something which cannot, IMHO, be bettered. Or maybe I was just lucky...

>>...the number of partners...<<

I think so - I consider sex to be pretty much sacred, actually - and to be enjoyed at its best between a pair who are - made for each other. I accept that this is a minority view, but it is my view, and valid for me.

>>Is a relationship for life and, if so, why?<<

See above...

>>Is sex something to be ashamed of, or indulged in as a secret activity?<<

Ye Gods No!!!

>> Is it always to be done 'vanilla' or is BDSM or other variations OK in religious terms?<<

Variations are fun... Some variations are more fun than others. Each to their own taste...

Jez

Let's not forget education as regards consequences:
emotional
medical
social

Agreed the law is a crude instrument. It is ridiculous that if a 16 year old and 15 year old have sex that is illegal (and gets the 16 year on a sex offenders register) and a 60 year old can have sex with a 16 year old quite legally. Still the law is better than a lynch mob which is the most likely alternative.