I'm getting the sense that you don't understand the arguments. You say you're standing for the little guy; this implies that we are picking on the little guy.
In one deft swoop, you delegitimized any point we make and closed yourself off to any reason we might provide. Don't worry about the little guy here; no body's out to get them.
He's got a point here. This is actually something I've noticed that you do a lot of the time, bro (and I know you've admitted to it in the past). It's an honorable position to take and I'm familiar with the urge to side with those who struggle, but if you're not reasonable about it you can do much more harm than good. If you say "no" just because people are opposing the minority that says "no," you might be saying no to something that could potentially deserve a "yes" or at least a "maybe." Sometimes defending the little guy can be obtuse. The little guy needs support, but only if their cause is right and smart, and only if they're being abused in the first place. Like Arch said, we're not out to get them. Just because we disagree with their logic doesn't mean we think they should be tarred and feathered.
But consider this, I won't speak for others, but I came from the similar conservative background and I know firsthand the sort of pain, anxiety, guilt, confusion, and torment this, and many other related position, brings. All this needless hurt because people are running in front of God. I was the hand-held homeschooler and I'm still paying the price for it.
Sure it's not the worse thing, and everybody has struggles from their childhood they'll have to address throughout their life, and there good sides to homeschooling too, but I'm not going to make excuses for practices I find ineffective or harmful.
I'm going to back Arch up on this, too. It's no secret that my parents are divorced, and it's probably no secret that it was for sexual deviance. My dad was with prostitutes and was deep in porn for... many years. It escalated from smaller things, but the disloyalty was always there. His dad's dad was sexually promiscuous. My mom was sexually abused by her father as a child (he abused other children, too). So my point is that my family has gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to sexuality. That was reflected by how I was raised by my mother, which was to be very, very sexually repressed. It sucked. They divorced right around when I hit puberty and my mom was dealing with depression and bitterness and she channeled that onto me as I became more aware of my own attraction to ladies. I was raised to confess all my lust to someone, and since I was a lonesome homeschooler with a divorced, ill mother that moved around a lot, my mom was the only accountability partner I had. It's... not something I recommend. At all. Especially when one's mother struggles with bitterness as much as she did.
As a result, I dealt with extreme shame and hatred for having any of the sexual feelings that I did. If I acted on any of that in some way, I felt even worse. I've not shaken that, and to some degree I value it. I feel that I have a pretty good moral compass when it comes to sex, all things considered. But the downside is that sex makes me feel evil, and it's a constant struggle to get over that.
So I was indeed raised to court and not kiss and not be in a room with someone alone, all of which I've come to disagree with. I believe in dating
smart and kissing
smart and being
smart about being in a room together. The majority of my peers have said "I'M GONNA COURT AND I'M NOT GONNA KISS" Despite that the result is that after several months they kiss and touch and are alone together all the time and who knows, maybe they dooze. But my point is that only in the rarest of cases is someone able to repress those urges and feelings. When they don't, they're chastised. It sucks. It feels super bad. The simple fact of the matter is that if you're dating, if you're with someone that you're attracted to for long enough, if you're free to express yourself with that person, some physical affection is going to happen, just like sexual attraction is going to happen in one's own life. The important thing is to learn how to control it and not be controlled by it. You could argue that you can't trust yourself to be smart, and to some degree that's true.
But going back to the pie metaphor, though in this case replacing it with wholesome, necessary food, I'd argue that you need to eat it to live, right? You've got to eat food to stay alive. In a relationship, there has to be some physicality for it to be healthy, because we're made that way. Humans are made to touch and be affectionate. So what you're arguing (if I'm understanding you correctly) is to abstain from the food so that you don't further give into the temptation of gorging yourself on it. Which is to say, of course, that you should abstain from kissing so that you don't give into the gateway drug (so to speak) that leads to sex. So what we have here is controlled, healthy, sustainable living compared to absolute starvation that leads to certain death. If death equates to the failure of a relationship or if nothing else a lifeless relationship or even at the extreme end of things an explosion of repressed, manic sexuality, then is it really the ethical, reasonable thing to do? If smart physicality can keep things healthy and natural, then isn't it more preferable?
I guess I'm saying that at the end of the day you've got to decide whether or not you think a romantic relationship can be healthy without physical affection. And hey, you could be right. I've yet to see a couple successfully abstain from kissing, but I've seen plenty abstain from sex
while allowing kisses and other basic expressions of love. To be honest, coming from a Bible-thumping small town (waaay back in the day), the most prevalent problem hands down involved church-going adolescents having sex with their friends and getting pregnant. They weren't even dating, so you can't blame that on kissing. It's sex for sex's sake, and
that, I think, is the problem.
EDIT: I see that I have another post to reply to YOU DUDES NEED TO JUST SLOW DOWN
First of all, I hope you realize I'm totally cool with you making whatever choice you want to in your own relationships. The only issue I'm really addressing is the prevalent thought in Christianity that "YOU'D BETTER NOT TOUCH, OR... OR ELSE" is damaging and I've been on the receiving end of it and it's just not good stuff. I get making your own decisions and it's all fun and games to argue which opinion is right or wrong, but when it turns into "son, you best kiss that girl and get all up in her bunches because that's what a relationship needs" or "lady, did I see you kissing that boy DO YOU KNOW WHAT'LL HAPPEN IF YOU KEEP THAT UP" something's gone wrong.
It's a personal choice, and at no point should someone be condemned for it, even if we think it leads to babies out of wedlock. BUT THIS LEADS TO MY SECOND POINT
Really? Aside from Soup's OP (in which he made fun of 'em to begin with), you don't consider "It's just a bad idea propagated by overprotective parents who can't stand the idea of their precious daughter kissing some boy. Next step, they'd be a prostitute!" or "You better start smooching. Do it for science. If not, at least slap 'em on the butt" to be mocking them? At the least, belittling them? If you don't, we probably have very different ideas of what those words mean. Even in jest (as I'm guessing these were supposed to be said), that'd hurt.
You're taking a butt-ton of issue with Soup and other people joking about some kids and their decisions. You more than anyone I know have promoted imperviousness to people's words, so I'm just kind of baffled by that. In the past when I've argued for people to not discredit the meaningfulness of movies to some people (liek me lul), I recall you saying something along the lines of "it's just words, ignore them." This along with your reaction to Drew's stupid Steve Irwin joke (even after taking into account that you were stressed) doesn't altogether go along with my perception of you thinking jokes and insults should just be ignored. I mean, I guess I could've been wrong (everyone takes offense to words at some point, after all), but the fact that you're explaining your anger is sourced in people getting mocked for their choices doesn't really communicate "aw heck, they're just words"
So all's I'm saying is that if you're going to promote "words are just words" you need to not pick and choose what you think should be joked about and what shouldn't. What you consider a sensitive issue may not be considered sensitive by others. Your advice is sound, but if you're as mad about this as you say you are, it doesn't really add up for me. Looking at Soup in particular, his jokes were pretty harmless, and if someone deciding not to kiss is overly offended by jokes of that nature, then they may need to be told to calm down, they're just words, nobody's making you not do what you want.
I just think that maybe you might be potentially getting a little too concerned for the little guy and hence taking too much offense when jokes (albeit stupid at times) are made about them? I'M TALKING ABOUT OF LOVE AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL ANTAGONIZED. QUICK HUG ME SO THAT I KNOW WE ARE WELL
It also factors out Teen angst and the wish to fart on the man.
Soo...dunno where that leaves us. Maybe with something more than simple little 'rules' causing one to either say no or yes at the inappropriate times. Maybe cabbage. I'm tired, and afraid that despite my best efforts, I've come across grumpy and raging.
Sorry.
