PayPal sparks furore over limits on "obscene" e-books

[thir]

Actually, I was referring more to conservatives than to any specific religious group, although I do believe that much of the problems that people have with sexuality, especially OTHER people's sexuality, is founded in religious belief. But atheists can be just as "prudish", so no, I'm not trying to make that connection.

There are just some people who are dedicated to making sure that other people not be allowed to do anything that they themselves find offensive, or wrong. In this country those people tend to be conservatives (though by no means exclusively) and yes, many of those conservatives are very religious. But ultimately I agree with you: you don't have to be religious to hold such opinions. But just maybe you have to have been exposed to it somewhere in order to form those opinions? Personally, I don't know why anyone would object to my buying pornography other than for religious reasons, but I'm sure you'll be able to give me reasons.

I agree the idea of what other people do seems to be on the forefront of many radical group's minds. But I am sure that one's own sexual problems or limits (if any) come from religious ideas, whether or not one is religious or not. We carry the inheritance from religious ideals whether we like it or not. Hence the puritanism even in non-religious people which you mention.

I also think there may be an element of 'if I have to go without, by god so must they'. I mean for all groups. I saw this for instance in a job I had where you were supposed to go to union meetings, and I did not. They were all over me, and the most offered argument was not about unions, but about how they too thought it was difficult to find the time, but they did, and so must I. I believe that the more you want something (in this case more time) but cannot have, or deny yourself, the angrier you become at people who have it or take it.

I also personally believe that one reason why especially so many women are subs, is because they need/want to be freed from sexual shames and exhibitions.

In short, I think the more freedom for everyone, the less people in general feel like interfeering with other's peoples' business. Happy people rarely make trouble for others - without a very good reason which concerns themselves directly.

[Thorne]

I agree the idea of what other people do seems to be on the forefront of many radical group's minds. But I am sure that one's own sexual problems or limits (if any) come from religious ideas, whether or not one is religious or not. We carry the inheritance from religious ideals whether we like it or not. Hence the puritanism even in non-religious people which you mention.

I agree. We are still trying to get out from under almost 2000 years of Christian "leadership", and it's impossible to ignore the effects of religion in our society, language, history, etc.

I also think there may be an element of 'if I have to go without, by god so must they'. I mean for all groups. I saw this for instance in a job I had where you were supposed to go to union meetings, and I did not. They were all over me, and the most offered argument was not about unions, but about how they too thought it was difficult to find the time, but they did, and so must I. I believe that the more you want something (in this case more time) but cannot have, or deny yourself, the angrier you become at people who have it or take it.

Yeah, I've seen this kind of thing, too. I've always gotten a bit of a kick out of pushing against the flow with these people.

I also personally believe that one reason why especially so many women are subs, is because they need/want to be freed from sexual shames and exhibitions.

I've noticed that quite a lot of the subs I've encountered were raised Catholic. I've read postings by people who have tried to explain the reasons for this, but most of them seem to boil down to just what you've said. Interesting.

In short, I think the more freedom for everyone, the less people in general feel like interfeering with other's peoples' business. Happy people rarely make trouble for others - without a very good reason which concerns themselves directly.

Well, some people are only happy when they ARE making trouble for others. Politicians, especially, seem to have a built in need to interfere with other people's lives. And again, a lot of that seems to hark back to religion. They tend to see themselves having a divine mandate to rule, and it's important to them that they make others feel the same thing.

[thir]

Well, some people are only happy when they ARE making trouble for others. Politicians, especially, seem to have a built in need to interfere with other people's lives.

So it seems! But still, if they had a happy life, would they bother? Or is it some sort of genetic disorder that makes them like this?

[denuseri]

I also personally believe that one reason why especially so many women are subs, is because they need/want to be freed from sexual shames and exhibitions.

As wishful as this type of thinking is it doesn't take into account that all of our desires have real solid biochemical instigators IE: its more part of our natural physiological response to certain stimuli than anything else.

[Thorne]

As wishful as this type of thinking is it doesn't take into account that all of our desires have real solid biochemical instigators IE: its more part of our natural physiological response to certain stimuli than anything else.

While there are indeed natural physiological responses, there are also learned, or psychological responses. These can be more compelling than the natural responses. And more dangerous, as well.

[thir]

As wishful as this type of thinking is it doesn't take into account that all of our desires have real solid biochemical instigators IE: its more part of our natural physiological response to certain stimuli than anything else.

I would get too much off topic here if I continued this discussion. But you know what I think - we both know what the other thinks. If we want another round, we should start a new thread, ok?