Sex: What Is It?


A new study finds that “sex” is complicated—which we already knew, of course. It turns out that people don’t agree about when sex can be called sex, as the Huffington Post reports.

A survey lends legitimacy to a topic—people trust numbers—but, like many survey topics, I doubt if a survey is the best way to talk about What Sex Is. In other words, the survey is both necessary and inadequate—but it’s an important start.

The Kinsey Institute’s survey, like any good survey, asked these “definition” questions in different ways. For example, when penile-vaginal intercourse was brought up without any mention of male ejaculation, 95 percent of respondents claimed that such an act was “sex.” (Maybe the other 5 percent were just fucking with Kinsey…no pun intended.) But when ejaculation was introduced as a conditional to “sex,” 89 percent of respondents agreed that vaginal intercourse was “sex” only if ejaculation happens.

Now we’re in difficult territory. My problem with surveys is that they don’t capture the full range of “belief”—in this case, I suspect that people define sex differently on different days. Oral sex might be “sex” in one situation but not in another, or a person might talk about the same sexual event differently to different people. But in the case of this particular survey, this vagueness and changeability—the impossibility of definition—is exactly the point. So I applaud Kinsey for getting at a murky but vital question as best they could.

Sex eludes definition, but unfortunately, it must be defined in certain cases, and when it comes to sexual violence, we have to err on the side of over-definition. If one of the 89 percent who believes ejaculation to be essential to sex rapes a woman but does not ejaculate, we can’t rely on his definition of sex (and, by extension, rape). And this—to many, I hope, surprising—idea that sex without ejaculation “doesn’t count” has a disturbing precedent in the history of rape law, as ejaculation was often a required condition for rape in the past.

The survey results express other biases, as well: only 50 percent of men over 65 consider anal intercourse to be “sex,” as opposed to 81 percent of overall respondents. In other words, sex is central to how our society empowers and disempowers people. And if it takes a survey to convince people of this, then so be it! Thanks, Kinsey.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • concernedmom

    That sexual perversion has been running rampant in our society, the way it is. Rape is an act of forced submission, be it between a married couple, acquaintences or strangers. If one party doesn’t consent, to me, that is rape! Originally, God meant sex to be enjoyed by loving, married couples. Once people rejected those boundaries, all the unfortunate consequences have resulted… Like STD’s, like unplanned pregnancies, that are the greatest victims if they suffer being aborted by an unwilling mother. It is so sad. But unfortunetly what comes while we live in a fallen world.

  • prochoiceferret

    Rape is an act of forced submission, be it between a married couple, acquaintences or strangers. If one party doesn’t consent, to me, that is rape!

    Nice to see you’ve kept up with the times.

    Originally, God meant sex to be enjoyed by loving, married couples. Once people rejected those boundaries, all the unfortunate consequences have resulted… Like STD’s, like unplanned pregnancies

    Marriage protects against STDs and unplanned pregnancies?

    like unplanned pregnancies, that are the greatest victims if they suffer being aborted by an unwilling mother.

    I’m sure they suffer a lot, if they haven’t even developed a functional brain yet.

  • invalid-0

    I had an interesting discussion with my friends about this – I think the definition they came up with was: stimulation of at least one person’s sexual organs through the use of another person’s body in one way or another.

    Another definition was the “mutual stimulation through the interaction of two people’s sexual organs with each other” – of course, my first thought is that makes it impossible for gay people to actually have “sex”.

    Here’s another interesting question – what needs to occur for someone to no longer be a virgin?

    Anyway – just some interesting thoughts.  I’m a boring old conservative who thinks that sex should be an act of total self-giving love between a husband and wife.  So we don’t really have any trouble at all defining sex – I’ll leave that problem to the rest of you.

  • concernedmom

    Not the only one posting here that speaks out for traditional values! They really love to chew us up on this site…but that comes with the territory! I’ve got your back, sir! :)

  • concernedmom

    Marriage DOES protect against STD’s & unplanned pregnancies, as long as both parties are MONOGAMOUS, & communicate on the subject of family planning, so they use birthcontrol (the pill, contraceptive jelly with condom, for example) until they are ready to start a family. Its people who call themselves “liberated” who go shopping for partners, that take all the risks of STD’s & unplanned pregnancies, if they fail to protect themselves.
    Re: the abortion of an unplanned fetus you cited, not feeling anything? That depends on how long the mother waited, doesn’t it? Either way, a life got snuffed out.

  • frolicnaked

    Marriage DOES protect against… unplanned pregnancies

    My parents would likely disagree with you, citing my sister and I as evidence. ;)

  • prochoiceferret

    Marriage DOES protect against STD’s & unplanned pregnancies, as long as both parties are MONOGAMOUS, & communicate on the subject of family planning, so they use birthcontrol (the pill, contraceptive jelly with condom, for example) until they are ready to start a family.

    Funny, that seems to work for non-married couples as well.

    Its people who call themselves “liberated” who go shopping for partners, that take all the risks of STD’s & unplanned pregnancies, if they fail to protect themselves.

    Okay. So people who call themselves “liberated” who go shopping for partners, and take care to protect themselves, are good to go.

    Re: the abortion of an unplanned fetus you cited, not feeling anything? That depends on how long the mother waited, doesn’t it?

    Ah, so you support improved access to abortion, so that women who want one can get it as soon as possible! THANK YEW!

  • invalid-0

    Totally.  I don’t like to call them “traditional”, because traditions can be different, depending on where you are coming from – but I know what you mean.  I was raised in an environment where sex was “encouraged, as long as you are responsible”.  I had a health class in high school that gave us the “comprehensive sex education” I hear so much about.  

    Unfortunately, all the training in the world can’t really prepare you for sex and how it will effect you physically, emotionally (and in my case, spiritually).  In my own past, I can tell you my “comprehensive sex education” and instruction on proper use of a condom really weren’t going through my head when it came down to it – i mean, how can we expect it to when temptation and fleeting passion are ruling the moment?

    Hence, the devastating effects of illicit sexual behavior come into play.  I hurt people; they hurt me; I feel empty inside, not proud of myself in the least.  It really takes an honest self-examination to go from “making lust” to “making love”.  I realized, “wow, there’s more to this than just something to do when I’m horny or bored”.  I’m not married right now – and consequently not having sex.  It’s difficult, but I’m proud that what I do is a choice.  I always have the ability to go back to having sex, and I choose not to.  There’s REAL freedom.  I used to think it was freedom to have sex whenever I wanted, until I tried to stop and realized I wasn’t free at all – I was trapped.

    So… traditional value or not, I’m happy where I am.  I’m 25, and waiting for a girl who I can give myself fully, completely and EXCLUSIVELY to one day, God willing.

  • harry834

    is that just because something is “tradition” doesn’t make it right. Slavery was a tradition. Taking land away from Native Americans was a tradition. Denying women the vote was a tradition. All these things were justifed by saying “this is our way of life” = tradition.

    I will concede that tradition shouldn’t be abandoned merely because it’s tradition, but that is not what any of the pro-choicers here are arguing for. They are arguing that women should not be viewed as murderers for exercising a modern medical procedure to control their reproductive ability.

    And SPEAKING of tradition, it’s been a tradition of the homicide law to define only born people as homicide victims. Only recently are we experimenting with the idea of “fetal homicide” laws. I’m not sure where in the history of homicide law, we have considered someone a victim of murder before they were ever born.

    Of course, us being liberals and all, this argument doesn’t preclude us from changing the law from that tradition of born-only homicide law. HOWEVER, we know the consequences of such a change.

    It means that pregnant woman must be legally mandated to carry out their pregnancies OR they will be considered murderers. Now, I will concede that lawmakers and the anti-abortion advocates have been resistant ot make these types of laws. I suppose they deserve credit for not being that draconian. BUT, it’s legally inconsistent to call something homicide and not not prosecute the person doing that act. It gets more inconsistent when people want to punish the doctor, but not the woman, which is similar to punishing the hired hitman, but not the person who hired him (or her).

    Though, even if American anti-choicers are forever comfortable with this legal inconsistency, they can’t monitor how their fellow anti-abortion friends will feel about women who get abortions. They may not necessarilly be truthful about their own feelings about women, or they may require a lot of logical dancing in thei own heads to avoid feeling such things. Even though everyone who blogs here, blogs anywhere, or speaks or writes, will choose what they say carefully enough for the eyes of others, there are feelings not expressed. Anti-abortion people strongly stand that abortion equals murder. For how long can they tell themselves that the act is murder, but the actor (the woman) is not a murderer? It does require believing that the woman has no choice or awareness of what she is doing. I have heard some say that “it’s not murder beacuse its not cold and calculating, which is what the doctor does”. Problem: Homicide doesn’t have to be “cold and calculating”. There are killings of passion (Rape is often a crime of passion). Also, knowing what women go through to pursue an abortion, knowing what TEENAGE women go through to pursue an abortion, you can’t say rational, caculating thought is not there. 

    We do know that the anti-abortion people do not want to look intolerant of women’s difficulties or circumstances. So it is understandable to think that they would want to avoid consciously saying, writing, blogging, or even thinking anything that puts the woman in too negative a light. This is hard to do when you believe she is committing the murder/homicide/manslaughter of her child.

    Pro-choicers have a conssitent position: we don’t believe that abortion is an act of murder, in any objective sense. If a woman feels subjectively that it is murder, than such a view should be respected if/when she becomes pregnant when she doesn’t want to. This is all consistent with the idea that abortion shold be an individual choice.

    A lot is said by anti-abortion people about how women have suffered emotionally from having abortions. The trouble is that this only describes some woman. It doesn’t describe others (I’m Not Sorry). One option is to assume that the stories of regretful women are true, and those of non-regretful women are not or are coached. Why assume this double reality?

    Perhaps anti-abortion people feel that the non-regretful women should feel regretful, and if they don’t there is something wrong with their views. Why assume this for non-regretfuls, but not for regretfuls? Moreover, why assume regretfuls aren’t coached by the anti-abortion side? What determines why we should assume one should be taken at face value, but not the other.

    “Let these women speak for themselves, without activists speaking for them!” Shouldn’t that include activists on either side?

    I should also point out that there is a difference between how people (women included) do feel, and how they should feel. How people “do” feel is usually defined by how people in a situation generally feel. This is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. To handle details beyond the general, some specificity is required in the decsription to explain why some don’t feel the same as the general/most people. This gets into the analysis by empirical observation, whether by qualitative, quantitative, or both types of description.

    Now prescriptive/ should is a different animal. Saying how people should feel is determined by things like values, beliefs, worldviews, ideals.

    There is a difference between concern for the fetus and concern for the woman. It is an assumtion that what harms the fetus will harm the woman. Many, many women have sought abortions whether it was legal or not. Many of these women had children already. If they didn’t, they certaily had lives of their own that were of value. I don’t mean life in the biological sense = merely being not clinically dead. I mean life in the sense we know it when we say “I want to take charge of my life”, “I don’t know where my life is going”, “I need to make a good life for myself”, “ruin my life”, “change my life”. These uses of the word life don’t make sense if we use the only the biological sense of the word. The biological sense says: “we have a life until we are clinically dead”. “Quality of life” under the this sense may be about the functioning of body organs, like heart that’s not clogged. But our hope for what WE call “life” is for more than these biological functions. If I tried to describe these qualia, I’d be listing all week, and still not be done.

    So people (including women) aren’t necessarilly supposed to feel something just beacuse some segment of the population thinks they should feel it. Which gets to another point: that the criterion for emotional well-being is, or at least may be different, than the criterion for satisfying certain moral values. We can see this in the way that morality is usually about doing the “right” thing regardless of how we truly feel. One can argue that moral satisfaction may be antagonistic to emotional well-being. That doesn’tnecessarilly mean we shouldn’t work for morals. But they are different pursuits. Freud realized this with his separation of the id, ego, and superego. Though we know that our emotional well-being often requires us to do the right thing, to feel good about ourselves, BUT the definition of “right thing” is defined differently for different people. SHOULD it be that way? Maybe, maybe not, maybe it depends. But the fact is that it sooner or later is that way.

    So we are back to the situation where some women feel a certain way about abortion, and others do not. If we are trult concerned for the emotional well-being of each individual women who makes this decision for herself, then OUR moral judgments about what she should do is a moot point. However, if we want her to do the “right” thing, then this means – as is the definition of doing the “right” thing” – that we want her to do this thing REGARDLESS of how she feels. If that is the case, then we are taking concern for her emotional well-being out of the picture.

    Now, I did say abive that it can be justifed to demand or ask that people do the right thing, regardless of how they feel. I also said that such a demand/ask could be “taking concern for her emotional well-being out of the picture”. So my question: If we demand that someone not punch someone or steal from someone, even if that would make them feel better, are we “taking concern for their well-being out of the picture”. answer: we  might be doing that in a way, but we usually don;t say we are. Rather we say that he needs to satisfy his emotional well-being in another way. And this is ok, beacuse we accept that there are other ways to satisfy your emotional well-being. So another question: should a pregnant woman find other ways to satisfy her emotional well-being rather than abortion?

    answer: the problem is the difference of hardship, sacrifice, and denial of individual choice between these two demands. The demand we make of the man to not punch is not as intense and the demand we would make of the pregnant woman to stay pregnant against her will. Something is demanded of the woman’s body that is much, much, much more than what is demanded of the man’s body. And it has never been the case that pregnancy should be leaglly required by law. Should it be? Anti-abortion people say “yes” using implicit word choices, and I think also implicit conscious-thought choices. But we are banning abortion, which is the option of terminating pregnancy. That means we are legally requiring pregnant women to be pregnant REGARDLESS of how they feel or what they want.

    Pro-choicers stand to say that this particular moral demand/ask is too far and too much. Whether by law of by objective (not subjective) moral view, it is draconian to view women as murderers for exercising their freedom to choose modern medical ways of avoiding pregnancy and the hardships and sacrifices that go with it. Women of this century are no longer required to let nature decide for them whether or not they get oregnant, just like we are not required in this century to let nature decide whether or not we can fly against gravity, die from nature’s diseases, or even be have a bad day at word beacuse of treatable allergies caused by nature’s pollen and sometimes-hyperactive immune systems. Medical science was, is, and will be our way for letting US decide how much sway biological processes get to have over our lives unchallenged. Yes, we have to make wose decisions, and sometimes less intervention is better than more. But to say “nature’s way” is right simply beacuse it is “nature’s way” is a disengenous thought to anyone living off of modern medicine’s discoveries, including those that led to the exercise science to tell us how often, how long, how much to jog to avoid illness. 

     

  • invalid-0

    Dude, it’s a message board, not a book club.  Can you shorten and/or simplify your point for me?

  • harry834

    or ever,

    read in your free time, if you choose, think it over, don’t worry about responding back if you don’t wish…however, we will talk about you and your views in your absence if we wish

  • crowepps

    It sounds to me like most of the advantages you name come from the ‘monogamy’.

    Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 – Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)

  • harry834

    If so, please blog Your thoughts in this discussion. We welcome Your input directly rather than having people like Concerned Mom speak for You.

     

  • concernedmom

    PCFerret! By terminating the beginning of a new life as early as possible! Trouble is, by the time the woman knows she’s pregnant, the embryo is a good 6-8 weeks along. And a HUMAN L-I-F-E. I guess since you don’t believe in God, there’s nothing wrong with playing one, right?

  • concernedmom

    Was designed to protect children, to make an incentive likelier of the parents staying together in the same home. But without it, partners have a much easier “out” when things get difficult, or boring. Ideally, a couple who takes their vows SERIOUSLY, who care more about the holy union marriage is supposed to be, will resist infidelity…becuz that would be ADULTRY. I would think if people cheat (as your stats indicate) they have no relationship with God, either.

  • concernedmom

    Cuz I would sure like to hear from you directly, too… Instead of all these front men you have on this blog! :)

  • concernedmom

    I am so glad to hear the way you think! :)

  • concernedmom

    Text Harry wrote, I cought: “It is draconian to view women as murderers for exercising their freedom to choose modern medical ways of avoiding pregnancy.” Well, there’s the rub. If he’s saying that an unborn child isn’t considered a legitimate human being entitled to protection UNLESS his mother wants him…this puts it all on the mother to make that distinction, doesn’t it? So, by this reasoning, if she doesn’t want to carry the baby, it automatically turns that baby into a non human, non recognized mass of tissue she may feel good about vacuuming out of her uterus, since it would be inconvenient to allow it to mature, & go to the trouble of birthing??
    It just amazes me the twisted logic these anti lifers come up with!!

  • ack

    I think that most of the politicians running on Family Values tickets would like to think they have a relationship with God. Problematically, they also tend to have Relationships with their staff.

    IMO, if the institution of marriage can protect those who consensually agree to it, and promote healthy, egalitarian relationships, then I’m all for it. The vows need to be shored up by healthy behavior within that relationship!

     

  • ack

    IMO, human being status has no bearing. I understand that there’s a lot of debate about when personhood/sentience/human weight happens. I don’t care.

     

    If I’m not required to make a one time offer of blood, tissue, or organs to someone I injured in a car wreck, then I cannot be required to do so if I become pregnant. Especially if I’m not required to do so for a child I birthed. Either women have bodily autonomy, or they don’t.

     

    And if we don’t, then people really need to start following their logic through…

     

  • ack

    IMO, human being status has no bearing. I understand that there’s a lot of debate about when personhood/sentience/human weight happens. I don’t care.

     

    If I’m not required to make a one time offer of blood, tissue, or organs to someone I injured in a car wreck, then I cannot be required to do so if I become pregnant. Especially if I’m not required to do so for a child I birthed. Either women have bodily autonomy, or they don’t.

     

    And if we don’t, then people really need to start following their logic through…

     

  • prochoicegoth

    You insult the belief systems or lack there of of others on this site, you verbally beat down those who have had abortions, you LIE about those of us who are pro-choice and you THINK you’re doing your god a service? Are you seriously THIS horrendous or are you simply a troll?

  • julie-watkins

    because my IUD failed. It was my husband who told me I could be pregnant (“you smell different”), but I was in denial. (I had spotted–which I convinced my self was a period, silly me.) We’re atheists, so “is this a sign from God?” wasn’t part of the discussion. We didn’t want children then, that was why I was using bc. The abortion was a mutual decision. 28 years ago, the world was already overpopulated, & we didn’t think it was right to add to Earth’s population when we weren’t really wanting to be parents at that time. Since an IUD wasn’t a good match for my body, I had my tubes tied, the reversible method. If we wanted kids later. Turns out, “later” never happened, I’m in menopause: no kids, no regrets. More restrictions on abortion or birth control access wouldn’t affect me personnally, but I want other people to have the choices I did.

  • littleblue

    This just isn’t true.  Historically, the institution of marriage has been about patrilineal property rights and guarantee of paternity.

     

    And you’re contributing to nothing but inaccurate stereotypes when you say that only god-fearing people are moral and practice fidelity.   Honestly, it’s offensive. 

     

  • harry834

    have had abortions themselves, I’m wondering how people like Concerned Mom and arex think about these people. I’m wondering how they feel having conversations with murderers, if that is what they truly believe.

  • jayn

    Ideally, a couple who takes their vows SERIOUSLY,

     

    And again, this has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with the mindsets of those participating the the relationship.  When I got married, my relationship didn’t change–honestly, the only reason we got married as early as we did was for the legal benefits.  We had already committed ourselves to each other, it didn’t take a big marriage ceremony (or in our case, a judge in our livingroom) to make that happen.

     

    I’ve always taken my relationships seriously–married or not, I would never cheat, or (knowingly) have relations with a man who was in another relationship.  Getting married is pretty quick and easy, if you’re just looking for that slip of paper (and straight).  Making the relationship work is a whole lot harder, and that’s the part that counts, married or otherwise.

  • harry834

    and any other deities that people believe in.

  • princess-rot
    The institution of marriage…Was designed to protect children, to make an incentive likelier of the parents staying together in the same home.

     

    That is a very recent definition. Historically, throughout the world and its myriad religions, children and women were chattel, and all “marriage” served as was a property contract ensuring the head male received all his land, wealth, property and heirs as was his due. It was designed to protect the patrilineal household and the head patriarch’s assets. It was a property investment, largely politically-based. It was expected, as late as the middle of last century, and is still condoned to a degree, that a married man could take mistresses as his entitlement, and before that slaves, handmaids and concubines of either sex. Read your bible. It’s in there. Off the top of my head, something to the effect of this: “I bequeath unto you my handmaid Bilal, open up her womb, so that she may bear a son.” It was expected (and still is, to a different extent) that women (or if you were privileged, a female servant) would do all the childrearing and men had nothing to do with such dull and frivolous things as raising their children beyond the occasional superficial interaction, and sons were always worth more than daughters, as they still are in large parts of the world: China and India, for instance. Seriously, this is the second time you’ve posted and shown your ignorance of any cultural or historical context that colours what happens today.

  • princess-rot

    Since virginity as a concept is a largely cultural construction designed to protect the privileges of the dominant class – as the institution of marriage originally was – I consider it irrelevant. Nobody calls you a driving virgin if you have never driven an automobile. It is just silly, now, to use it as an indicator of anything. People are not jars of jam and we do not have freshness seals.

    I’m a boring old conservative who thinks that sex should be an act of total self-giving love between a husband and wife.

    Which suggests you define sex as a property transaction between two correctly insured parties, rather than something two people do for mutual physical and emotional pleasure.

  • concernedmom

    Here without a PHD or all day to sit & look up info on my PC so I can sound more intelligent than everyone else? Well excuuuuse me!

  • concernedmom

    Fail to bash or twist anything I say. I only give my opinion, WHICH happens to be different than yours. Why is it OK for you to shred anything I believe, but NOT for me to stand up for what I believe?? I don’t expect to “convert” anyone of you regulars or anyone else. But maybe just someone might be interested in hearing something other than a liberal perspective?? There ARE a few conservatives posting here- & you piss on every one of them, too. Now what’s nice about how you treat US, hmm? Tit for tat a problem, evidently?

  • prochoicegoth

    I call them as I see them. So unless you have a disorder where you post things you really don’t mean, you have no one to blame but yourself for my responses to WHAT YOU WRITE. I’m not twisting a damn thing, so don’t cry victim when you get back the poison you spew on here.

  • concernedmom

    “All have sinned, & fallen short of the Glory of God”. That encludes ALL, so I never said I wasn’t a sinner, too. The difference is, Jesus gave His incarnate Life to pay for my sins. And yours. If you refuse to accept this fact, then you simply will miss the way of escape from damnation after death. But you are free to reject this, at your soul’s peril. We Christians are just the messenger, yet you think you need to shoot us. *sigh*

  • jayn

    We Christians are just the messenger, yet you think you need to shoot us.

     

    Well, maybe if you would stop trying to shove your faith in our faces every chance you get…

     

    Seriously, it’s like having a neighbour who visits every afternoon despite all attempts to get him to leave, and who tells you your house will burn down if he doesn’t keep visiting so he has to come over.  I don’t dislike evangelicals because of their faith–I dislike them because they’re annoying.

     

    If you were willing to live and let live, there would be no problem.  Unfortunately, a large number of Christians aren’t, and they will do whatever they thinks needs to be done to get the rest of us to abide by their moral code.  I wouldn’t feel the need to shoot you if you would just stay off my freaking lawn!

  • concernedmom

    Anyone who is unwilling to be POLITICALLY CORRECT by pleading the case of the unborn? Are YOU the only one allowed to stand up for what you believe? I’ve read what you’ve wrote to even casual conservatives posting here. And it aint pretty.

  • concernedmom

    Open to everyone to share their own points of view? Or only the ones you agree with? If I just simply said abortion is taking an innocent life based on a law that opened a Pandora’s Box, would you feel any differently? I “keep coming here” becuz there’s real babies that are never born or had a chance to contribute to society, at the hands of abortionists. All I am doing is showing ANOTHER choice than the one you apparently find so agreeable!

  • ack

    Here’s another interesting question – what needs to occur for someone to no longer be a virgin?>>

     

    That seriously is an interesting question. Studies that have looked at teen sexual behavior have found that in order to preserve “virginity,” teens turn to oral and/or anal sex. Redefining the word seemed appropriate until I asked myself why we should bother.

    I think that we need to move away from the heavy value placed on virginity and place more emphasis on true consent and safety.

  • aqil02

    I really hate adult doing sex with under age. Are them have extreme sex addict ? Any physiotherapy to help them

  • jayn

    I don’t mind debating with other on their point of view.  I mind people trying to pass laws that force me to follow a faith I don’t necessarily believe in.  I mind knowing that there’s pharmacists that will deny contraception to women because they think it’s messing with God’s will, when those women may not believe in God.  I mind knowing that gays still can’t get married in many states, because Christianity doesn’t approve.  I mind knowing that teenagers aren’t getting vital information about contraception because some people think that’ll it’ll promote behaviour that they think is immoral.

     

    And I mind being told that there’s another choice besides abortion, when I ALREADY KNOW THAT.  I’m tired of being patronized that way.  No one here is saying there aren’t other options.  But last I checked, no one is trying to outlaw women giving birth.

  • women-toys

    the world is still crazy and there are so many sex addicts….

  • rebellious-grrl

    “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks for mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.” “Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said ‘I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.’ Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine.” Song of Solomon 7:1-3,7-9 Drinking wine out of someone’s belly button, that’s sexy.

  • crowepps

    I never took more than a few classes in college and I work two jobs.  It isn’t the PhD or looking things up all day that makes posters “sound more intelligent”.  You might consider the startling idea that some of them not only have devoted the time and trouble to self-educate themselves but perhaps actually ARE more intelligent.