Christ Centered Gamer

ArchAngel wrote:Interestingly enough that you bring up the high numbers of teen and extramarital pregnancy, when it is the states that adopt abstinence-only sex education have higher rates of teen pregnancy across the board, and show a rise in teen pregnancy correlated to the installation of abstinence only education.
There are several reasons for this, but I feel this is enough to at least give pause.

Not a very long pause. Cause doesn't always equal effect, and aside as you said, there are other reasons for it. I'm not actually sure that has any bearing on the present issue. I mean, I'm pretty sure the people in those states still know what causes one to become pregnant, and that it's not just kissing. It also factors out Teen angst and the wish to fart on the man.

ArchAngel wrote:The way I see it is that things are permissible until proven otherwise, and not restricted until proven permissible. There's a lot of life to live out there, and I'd rather live it in freedom than pervasive rule and law. We're supposed to have freedom in Christ, and there's no freedom at all if you only can do the actions that are white-listed.

Why is it when someone suggests something is bad/wrong or even a dumb idea, they automatically become the person standing for pervasive laws and a set of rules to follow instead of Christ? That's unkind. That to me, is also a slippery slope argument, and I can't understand it. If it's not explicitly (or even foggily) called evil within the bible, it's OK? For that matter, is it an assault on freedom that one cannot murder? Or lie? Or is that just the fence that makes freedom worth while?

ArchAngel wrote: Part of the reason, I believe, that we are disagreeing with you on this subject is we don't want you to go forward and struggle fiercely with yourself and handle the guilt and shame of your stumbles when it is not something you had to do in the first place.

I'm just tired to the spleen of people mocking/belittling/farting on people who refuse to kiss until marriage. That's a culturally accepted belief (that it's OK), not necessarily a moral choice for what you consider is best. And I'll fight for the little guy who says 'no' even if I look like (or more likely, become) an idiot in the process. It's annoyance at the logic and attitudes behind the arguments/mocking that gromble me enough to want to fight.

ArchAngel wrote:Okay, you're life and you're choice and to your credit, you aren't imposing these ideals on anybody else. Despite what I said about the mindset before, I won't belittle you for your choices on living your own life.

Wat is this

ArchAngel wrote: It is this very same reason why people going on diets are urged not to starve themselves, because they'll crack eventually (and they always do) and gain even more weight than they had before. And I've seen many kids start out to try and remain pure to the nth degree, but end up with the girl pregnant at the altar. It is by moderation and a sustainable pace does an effective diet last.
In the end, these choices for what level of physical affection you will show will be between you and your future girlfriend (or boyfriend, teeheehee).

The diet analogy doesn't really work here, considering it implies you over-indulged or ate unhealthily in the first place, whereas the 'hand-holding homeschoolers' generally teach not to start at all, but keep on the healthy diet you're already on until dessert is ready. Or something else less creepy sounding.

And by the reverse of that, I've seen people go the 'kissing is OK' route and end up pregnant. 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.

I'm older than you, numbnut.

Now, you can call me naive (and it be true), but you're still not making valid points. Am I going to want to kiss the girl I lall in fove with? Yes. Of course. But the fact I want to, and it feels natural and is actually the way God designed stuff, is not an excuse to get smoochy. Doubly not with the aspect that the sin within our hearts likes to twist the good things God gave us.

You'd have a point about the fact that repressing it can lead to worse choices later, if there were not so many non-married people pregnant and/or with children out there. The teen pregnancy number alone is incredibly high. By that fact itself, I am lead to believe that even 'kissing' as a way of doing something not evil to keep yourself from 'the evils brought on by repression' and/or giving into 'bigger' temptation later, is entirely ineffective. It'd also help if I didn't know several people who went with the 'kissing is OK, but no further' route and ended up with kids out of wedlock. -_- So no, no point. Told you, I'm jaded.

I don't mind the condescension. It happens. What I do mind is the mockery, hate, scorn, and laughing that 'hand-holding homeschoolers' receive. That's...aside from my natural annoyance at the 'it's the mature thing' argument, is why I'm even in this thread. They're doing what is logically sound, and probably morally. I dislike it intensely when anyone gets onto them for it.

I mainly am just addressing your comment about it being possible to go through a romantic relationship without making physical contact or something.

My only question is whether or not you can back up something like this scripturally.
Before I continue, I'm not saying that giving up kissing until marriage is unscriptural.
What I'm asking is whether or not you can tell that kissing is wrong on a Biblical basis, you know?

Because here's where we are. There's a couple of us saying "ya lol smooches heh" and you (and a couple others who haven't chimed in on this particular discussion) saying "not necessarily, farts and soda." If we're at an impasse in which kissing can both help and hinder in the walk of purity, with both sides seeming to possess equal ground...

Well, let's put it this way. We all know people who kissed and got pregnant, some who did and DIDN'T get pregnant, and some who DIDN'T and did/didn't get pregnant. My guess is that, with some exceptions for people who are just really really easily corruptible or something, kissing isn't the problem we should be discussing.

ChickenSoup wrote:Well, let's put it this way. We all know people who kissed and got pregnant, some who did and DIDN'T get pregnant, and some who DIDN'T and did/didn't get pregnant. My guess is that, with some exceptions for people who are just really really easily corruptible or something, kissing isn't the problem we should be discussing.

All true. And something I can agree with. I've not been claiming it's scriptural or otherwise because honestly, I don't believe I can. And as you said, you can't either. Frankly, as long as people don't get all gross and start putting their loved ones' entire head in their mouth, I don't really mind teh smooches. Srsly. Probably even in my own life, awkward as it is to think about at 3 AM.

Really, the only reason I'm arguing here is because I despise (strong word, I know) the way 'hand-holding homeschoolers' are treated by the modern world, even and especially by modern Christians, when they've got logics and reasons that make just as much sense as the more 'affectionately romantic' people. It is, as you said, an impasse I think. Unless it could be shown otherwise.

At any rate, they're mocked, farted on, hated and declaimed. So, in conjunction with my own annoyance at the superiority/claimed maturity that tends to go along with that, I get all ragey ranty. I don't despise you, mind. I <3 U. I just dislike the 'conservatively romantic' people are treated in the western world. It's like they're idiots who haven't caught up to the way things should be. And it bothers me, so I 'fight' by arguing.

Oh and 'numbnut' was a joke. I didn't mean that as an actual insult. Sorry.

*sigh* I was hoping I didn't have to clarify myself further.

Chozon1 wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:Interestingly enough that you bring up the high numbers of teen and extramarital pregnancy, when it is the states that adopt abstinence-only sex education have higher rates of teen pregnancy across the board, and show a rise in teen pregnancy correlated to the installation of abstinence only education.
There are several reasons for this, but I feel this is enough to at least give pause.

Not a very long pause. Cause doesn't always equal effect, and aside as you said, there are other reasons for it. I'm not actually sure that has any bearing on the present issue. I mean, I'm pretty sure the people in those states still know what causes one to become pregnant, and that it's not just kissing. It also factors out Teen angst and the wish to fart on the man.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cause doesn't always equal effect." Perhaps you mean correlation doesn't mean causation? That's true, but you can't disregard strong correlation, either. I'm going to assume you're not suggesting that the extraordinarily high numbers of teen pregnancy is simply done as a rebellion towards abstinence only education.

ArchAngel wrote:The way I see it is that things are permissible until proven otherwise, and not restricted until proven permissible. There's a lot of life to live out there, and I'd rather live it in freedom than pervasive rule and law. We're supposed to have freedom in Christ, and there's no freedom at all if you only can do the actions that are white-listed.

Why is it when someone suggests something is bad/wrong or even a dumb idea, they automatically become the person standing for pervasive laws and a set of rules to follow instead of Christ? That's unkind. That to me, is also a slippery slope argument, and I can't understand it. If it's not explicitly (or even foggily) called evil within the bible, it's OK? For that matter, is it an assault on freedom that one cannot murder? Or lie? Or is that just the fence that makes freedom worth while?

I already made a provision that this wasn't what you're doing; no point in getting defensive over a charge that was never leveled against you.
I also already provided a provision in my statement on why murder isn't permissible; point is moot.

ArchAngel wrote: Part of the reason, I believe, that we are disagreeing with you on this subject is we don't want you to go forward and struggle fiercely with yourself and handle the guilt and shame of your stumbles when it is not something you had to do in the first place.

I'm just tired to the spleen of people mocking/belittling/farting on people who refuse to kiss until marriage. That's a culturally accepted belief (that it's OK), not necessarily a moral choice for what you consider is best. And I'll fight for the little guy who says 'no' even if I look like (or more likely, become) an idiot in the process. It's annoyance at the logic and attitudes behind the arguments/mocking that gromble me enough to want to fight.

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.
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.

ArchAngel wrote: It is this very same reason why people going on diets are urged not to starve themselves, because they'll crack eventually (and they always do) and gain even more weight than they had before. And I've seen many kids start out to try and remain pure to the nth degree, but end up with the girl pregnant at the altar. It is by moderation and a sustainable pace does an effective diet last.
In the end, these choices for what level of physical affection you will show will be between you and your future girlfriend (or boyfriend, teeheehee).

The diet analogy doesn't really work here, considering it implies you over-indulged or ate unhealthily in the first place, whereas the 'hand-holding homeschoolers' generally teach not to start at all, but keep on the healthy diet you're already on until dessert is ready. Or something else less creepy sounding.

It applies because it concerns natural urges. Doesn't matter if you haven't kissed or had sex before, you're going to want to. You're built that way. I know you already know it. Hunger is a very apt description for it.

And by the reverse of that, I've seen people go the 'kissing is OK' route and end up pregnant. 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.

There are a lot more steps than just kissing to lead to pregnancy. Deal with the relevant steps instead of drawing the line back so far back to be practical. It might snap and you'll end up with a whole mess. Not to mention the slippery slope fallacy you mentioned earlier.

ArchAngel wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "cause doesn't always equal effect." Perhaps you mean correlation doesn't mean causation? That's true, but you can't disregard strong correlation, either. I'm going to assume you're not suggesting that the extraordinarily high numbers of teen pregnancy is simply done as a rebellion towards abstinence only education.

I think you can actually, when there are so many other factors. If that was the only one, sure. I'm no scientist, so maybe a few are shrieking after reading that, but for myself, I can ignore it given how many other things are involved. What states are you talking about, exactly? In either case, it still really has no bearing on the present issue. Because abstinence means no sex, not no kissing. 'Least, as far as I understand it.

ArchAngel wrote: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.
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.

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 should also realize I'm not just talking about only in this forum, but the wider world. They're made fun of pretty regularly in America. So really, I could actually believe you that no one was picking on them if they weren't constantly claimed to be 'culturally regressive' amongst other less friendly labels.

There's also a difference between 'don't understand' and 'don't agree'. That's a bit condescending of me, but I'm forever surprised at how often the 'if you understood you'd agree' argument is used on the internet. So, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I understand what you're talking about. I just think you're wrong. I also happen to think making fun of them falls under 'out to get them', even if in a benign way.

ArchAngel wrote:It applies because it concerns natural urges. Doesn't matter if you haven't kissed or had sex before, you're going to want to. You're built that way. I know you already know it. Hunger is a very apt description for it.

Yes, but you can resist natural urges. You're not guaranteed to fail. If you couldn't, I'dve decked many a person over the years. The analogy also completely ignored willpower and gumption, both of which can easily fail alone, but I am reminded of the multiple bible verses which say all things are possible with God.

ArchAngel wrote:There are a lot more steps than just kissing to lead to pregnancy. Deal with the relevant steps instead of drawing the line back so far back to be practical. It might snap and you'll end up with a whole mess. Not to mention the slippery slope fallacy you mentioned earlier.

I was completely unaware of that. Silly me. >.>

Have you considered the line might be in different places for different people? And that kissing may be over it for some? And that by following the cultural norm (which is a bad idea anyway, looking at the 'celibacy is overrated' line America seems to run by), they totally whiff it into the very same pain, anxiety, and grief you mentioned earlier that was supposed to be avoided by moving the line forward? And if, as you said:

ArchAngel wrote:While four is still statistically insignificant considering the multitude of marriages you see around with varying "success" rates (whatever you might consider that to be), there's no doubt that there's plenty, and there's plenty that ended up just fine.
And there's plenty of the so many of the "courtship, no such-and-such relationships that ended the same way. And there are those who did work out.

Then what's the issue here?

ArchAngel wrote:*sigh* I was hoping I didn't have to clarify myself further.

You don't technically. Just admit my domination and rub mah feets with scented oils.

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

I've been following this topic with great interest, and I think both sides have made some relevant points that I can identify with. As I said earlier, I was one of those 'hand-holding homeschoolers' who said that they weren't going to kiss until the wedding day. In my house, things like kissing weren't really talked about, I think I just understood that 'sex before marriage is bad, mmk?' and managed to equate kissing alongside that. My parents never really offered any guidance on this issue other than encouraging my decision, and I sort of left it at that. I had never been in a relationship before but figured if it was right, then everything would flow smoothly and I'd have nothing to worry about.

Then I got to college, and here's where I understand where Chozon is coming from. I'm big into theater, and two weeks into my freshman year, I landed a role that asked for kissing. I remember having this huge moral dilemma (if Kenny and ohno were still around, they could back me up ) but ended up being able to rationalize it and not feel guilty. It may seem like a small thing, but it wasn't at the time. Because of that, the whole 'Trip is uncomfortable kissing until marriage' came out, and pretty much every one of my friends thought I was being silly. I became the sheltered kid from Asia who didn't understand how relationships worked, and it got to me, and I have to say, it broke me down. I started to see their point, which circles back to many of the points that Soup and Arch are making in this thread. I made a conscious decision that if I came to a moment that felt right, I was going to kiss the girl that I loved. The moment came, and I don't regret that decision.

I think both arguments have merit, and it depends on each couple. I don't think it's wrong to kiss, but I think that waiting until marriage to have that first smooch is commendable if it can be said without a doubt that it didn't effect the strength of the relationship. It is possible to refrain until your wedding day, I know people who have done it, but it just doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I think importance should be stressed upon pureness of heart and love, rather than a specific set of physical things that you should or should not do, whether that means kisses or no.

Well put and thoughtful reply, Trip.

You mentioned that you became that "sheltered kid from Asia who didn't understand how relationships work." That stuck with me and I think this has been a point that Chozon was trying to hit on. Chozon, am I wrong to assume this is why you want to stand up for the little guy?
Because, if so, I see your point on this. This sort of treatment for kids from a very conservative background comes from a position of ignorance and frankly, it makes life hard. As a homeschooler, the only people who treat you as a normal person are other homeschoolers. It seems like nobody else understands you and many of that make it perfectly clear. I was absolutely shocked by the change in behavior towards me after I started college; I was blown away by the notion that people might actually want to talk with me. It took a little bit to realize this, and I was confused and wondered if I looked like some charity case.
Maybe I didn't come out and acknowledge this sooner because this isn't the case with us here, since we're all comraderies in this. We know what it's like to be ignored and made to feel less simply because of our background. It's not okay, and with this I agree with you.
Our criticism isn't for the little guy, but for rules of the system that we have issue with.

In the end, I suppose, I'm just angry at a lot of different people and a lot of different things.

(But it does help that while I went out and built a career and life for myself, many of the people who looked down on me for being sheltered haven't progressed much past high school and are still living with their parents. Suck it.)

You mentioned that you became that "sheltered kid from Asia who didn't understand how relationships work." That stuck with me and I think this has been a point that Chozon was trying to hit on. Chozon, am I wrong to assume this is why you want to stand up for the little guy?
Because, if so, I see your point on this. This sort of treatment for kids from a very conservative background comes from a position of ignorance and frankly, it makes life hard. As a homeschooler, the only people who treat you as a normal person are other homeschoolers. It seems like nobody else understands you and many of that make it perfectly clear. I was absolutely shocked by the change in behavior towards me after I started college; I was blown away by the notion that people might actually want to talk with me. It took a little bit to realize this, and I was confused and wondered if I looked like some charity case.

Hoho, I can familiarize with this completely. I hope I don't come off as not sympathizing with those kind of people, because I'm totes one of them. I want to stand up for them as much as you do, bro, and I think they should be defended. I hope I didn't come off as suggesting otherwise. It's just that considering we're all from the same background here and friends 4 lyfe, it might be a mistake to bunch Soup's joking in with other people's scorn and rejection. Teasing is a quantum leap from "oh, so you have no friends and you've never been with a girl, loser." That's the thing that riles me. Riles me up bad. @__@

Suck it.

It is worth noting that I can respect people who don't kiss until marriage; the OP was about people who flip out when little "slips" happen that are so far from "doing it" that to call it sinful stretches logic to the degree that it becomes ridiculous to even talk about

Well, I see that my name was brought up in this topic, with me barely posting. O_o

I think that kissing - and honestly, guys, I can't even believe this discussion is being had; this wasn't even a consideration in my house growing up, and my family was pretty sexually repressed for a very long time - is pretty far from "doing it," and that it's honestly not going to hurt anything. That's different from getting grabby, from groping, from a number of other things that I would probably get banned for even bringing up, because you can get quite "far" without actually having sex, and I think that's something that the more naive here don't realize. Kissing doesn't involve nudity. It can, but it's not inherently there. It doesn't have to involve penetration. It doesn't have to involve touching of intimate areas.

And this is where I find this thread coming back to stuff I was saying years ago.

There is a fear - however strange it seems to me - of sex in this country. I have had arguments about the need for nudity in art. I have had arguments about the need for sex in art. And I find myself staring at a screen containing a discussion involving the necessity of something so simple as a kiss.

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. - Song of Songs 1:2

When age chills the blood, when our pleasures are past—
For years fleet away with the wings of the dove—
The dearest remembrance will still be the last,
Our sweetest memorial the first kiss of love.
- Lord Byron

You are always new. The last of your kisses was ever the sweetest; the last smile the brightest; the last movement the gracefullest. - John Keats

I can express no kinder sign of love, than this kind kiss. - William Shakespeare

We can see Biblical precedent for kissing. We can see it mentioned throughout literature.

My God does not condemn for kissing, for touching, for expressing love. My God does not hold me in stark fear of the other sex, of their strange otherness. For all of my struggles with faith, this is the one thing I am sure of, this is the one thing that I will not dispute. As people, we need to live life: I see no value in holding back to this degree, in the restraint of sexual expression as innocent as this.

CK and I share many similarities in the broad strokes of our upbringings. My father held our family in repression because of his own repressed sexuality, coming out as gay when I was 18. I had to discover sexuality for myself as growing up, which did lead to porn, but it also lead to a sort of fear of women. How could a woman love me? How a could a woman want to be with me? I didn't know. I think that's one of the great mysteries: men are by nature so different from women, knowing what attracts them to us is something beyond what we can actually know. And that's wonderful.

I have slowly moved past my own growing pains with sex. I know how to flirt with women. I know how to talk to them, to understand them as best I can. In short, I know how to interact. I'm not going to detail my own history here - I don't think that would be apropos - but I do feel the need to say that if you're of a certain age, and we're still having this discussion, then I honestly feel sorry for you. You're missing part of growing up, just in interaction. And as such, you cannot hope to understand the petty insignificance of what you're preaching.

First off, most of the motivation for my posts in this thread is blahblahblah emotional stuff, and so sometimes I just go off on people when they annoy me. If I am able to see that I'm the one that's wrong and there's not an issue, I can just throw it down and not asplode at innocent joking people.

But it's harder for me to control that knee-jerk if I genuinely think the other person is wrong; so probably only about 40% of the impetus was for the triple H crew, who I also belong to. So probably another good bit of that was an attempt to defend my own way of thinking. Most of my motivation was just anger, and a way to fight with people while having my conscious mind claim I was doing something that was right. And I apologize for that. It hit me at about 8 AM yesterday what I was doing, and that it was wrong. I'm telling you all this not for to make excuses for my behavior (because I have none; just apologies), but because I feel it's lying to you guys and myself to try and glamorize myself into someone whose only purpose here was just to stick up for others. Because it's not true. If it was, I'd have no guilt at the moment. So I apologize. I'm genuinely sorry.

I mean don't get me wrong, I do want to stand up for 'em and stuff, and I can stand by what I've written here (with the exception of calling Soup a numbnut); just not the heart behind it, or the way it was expressed, or the reason I started it.

Basically, I'm an idjit.

Dude, any one of us here can think of times where emotions have gotten in the way of something we're trying to say, both online and offline. Sometimes we've just got to take a breather and evaluate things. It's seriously no big deal. For all intents and purposes I think we've had some constructive conversation going on here. I think we can go away from it with our own respective views but with a bit more understanding for where the other person's coming from and what turmoil they may be going through. Which I'd like to think is more the purpose of these discussions than even just changing someone's mind.

No worries, Chozon. You're still a cool guy. I doubt any of us are holding anything against you.
Besides, discussions over disagreements is a good thing; makes us think and re-evaluate. It's how we progress.