What's sinful about wanting to fuck?

When you're not married to the person, or doing it when the other person is unwilling, or both.

There's a difference between really horny and wanting to dip your wick and forceable having sex with someone. The first is about sex, the latter is about power.

Firstly, there's an edit button on the bottom left of your post so you don't have to double post again.

The following quotes (or paraphrases) are taken from "The Journal of Science" published on October 1st 1981. The paper I cite is "Rape Proclivity Among Males" written by Neil M. Malamuth. (Proclivity means: A predisposition or natural inclination.)

Whilst it is true that 20% of men (mainly US college students) indiciated that, if they had the chance and wouldn't be caught, they had a high likelihood of raping. On a study of 50 rapists (who had come forward anonymously and had not been caught by the police) this statistic was much higher. It was found that these reports are related to male aggression against women. Men who have forcably raped someone as they were "so sexually aroused they could not stop" were found to rationalise their acts and see them in a positive light and would not see this as a form of aggression.

Rapists are more likely to (1) hold callous attitudes about rape and believe rape myths, and (2) show relatively high levels of sexual arousal to rape (Rada, 1978).

Gager and Schurr (1976) found that the most frequent cry of a rapist to their victim is, "you bitch... slut ... you know you want it." And afetrwards, "There now, you really enjoyed it, didn't you?" Wolfe and Baker (1980) back this up by finding that virtually all of the 86 rapists that they interviewed reported that they did not believe that their actions constitued as rape or that their actions were justified by the circumstances (either by the woman being provocative or because he was horny). Burt (1978, 1980) argues that these beliefs play an important role in causing rape and that these beliefs cause rapists to justify their own behaviour.

Abel et al (1977) found that rapists had a high sexual arousal after being exposed to aural and visual portrayls of rape, higher than their non-rapist counterpart. Rape portrayls where the victim continuously obviously does not enjoy or hates the sexual act was found to result in significantly less sexual arousal in non-rapists than rapists.

The following quotes (or paraphrases) are taken from "Contemporary Sociology" published on March 1st 1991. The paper I cite is "Theories of Rape: Inquiries into the Causes of Sexual Aggression" written by Pauline B. Bart.

"Were a radical feminist to propose a theory that included "evolutionary fact" that the "fittest" men are rapists because they historically have been able to impregnate as many women as possible, and the fittest women are rape resisters because they want men who will help them care for their offspring ... the woman would be denounced as an essentialist and a man a hater."

Ellis (same publication) hypothesised that rape should be associated with sex disparities in social status and power, rape is primarily motivated by desires for power, rather than sex and rapists are generally more aggressive towards women.

Lord Stanley. I would be more than happy to point you towards many scientific articles and books that would help educate you in this area. Or perhaps websites are more accesible for you?

Rape Myths
Patterns of Rape
LiveStrong: Rape

Educate yourself before making such flippant remarks.

Rape and assault (sexual or any kind) is never okay.

- Rexy

Wow. This article shows just how fallen our world is—where rapists don't even think they're committing a crime.

Wow. Your behaviour shows just how fallen our world is—where the ignorant don't even think they're committing ignorance.

Just ready for the second coming huh

I'm bisexual and a really really horny guy who has some neurotic and psychological issues and struggles to keep my beliefs and values in check with the happy chemicals my body needs to stop myself getting depressed.

Am I first to the chopping block or what?

This is a rape myth. This is one of the reasons why rapists justify their actions.

This.

Also out of my whole post, that's what you picked up on?

- Rexy

Why do I get the feeling that I'll be involved in a lengthy exchange with Stanley in the near future?

I don't do this to be annoying, I do this because I feel sad for all of you. The Bible clearly lists the boundaries of acceptable behavior (7th Commandment, multiple passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy), and rape cannot be justified by any means, Rex Tirano. It is a criminal offense that must be punished.

Homosexuality cannot be justified, either. I have passages for that, too.

I feel sad for you. It must be a real drag having to worry about whether you're allowed to swear or participate in natural human activity. We're all a little constrained by certain circumstances as it is, you don't need to make things worse for yourself. It's bad for your mental health.

As for homosexuality for not being justifiable, I'm sure that there are passages where Jesus shows a little sympathy for "sinners" like prostitutes and homosexuals.

Actually, I don't ever feel the need to swear. It's just plain dirty.

Jesus shows pity on a prostitute woman, who was caught in adultery. He tells her, "Go, and sin no more."

I want you to explain why clearly and concisely.
Which is much more reasonable than some of the attitudes certain lunatics in your religion take towards these people.

1stly, as I have explained: swear words make things accursed. If you add an expletive to a word, it makes things foul. Plus, they carry immediate negative connotations that make for extremely uncomfortable conversations and meetings.

To the 2nd point, who better to turn to than the Bible? Jesus does not slap her for being a prostitute, he tells her not to do it anymore. We can trust that she didn't.

Don't even get me started on the ten commandments. Their inadequacies and totalitarianism are far too glaring.

I don't think so. I swear all the time with a lot of people, and we never feel awkward. We don't even notice. In fact, it gets across the point extremely efficiently.

Which is much more reasonable than some of the attitudes certain lunatics in your religion take towards these people.

I'll pray for you. Words are meant to be a sacred thing, a way of communicating our thoughts to others in a meaningful way. Littering them with profanities robs us of what made Shakespeare so great: art, wit, and creativity.

What do you mean by "some of the attitudes"?

Words are not meant to be sacred at all. They communicate ideas. There is nothing inherently meaningful in communicating ideas. Some people communicate some real bullshit ideas, like you. And in fact, "littering them with profanities" can help to highlight particular points or convey a point more efficiently.

Tell you what, I thought that you thought a person who commits a sin should be punished, like how you thought that fictitious villain from Batman should be executed because of his sins. I thought that maybe you thought that prostitutes should be stoned or something.

Are you fucking serious? Are you really the sort of twee, immature prat who believes that words still have potency even orphaned from context, and willfully limit your own vocabulary because of it? While these words do have definitions, their true use as an expletive, both cultural attitude and the gratifying harshness of the sounds themselves are able to give real kick to a sentence, properly able to express anger, indignation, surprise and so forth, extremes of emotional experience where other words will fail. Used skillfully, they can greatly enhance a conversation.

Your prudishness weakens you.

Hahahahaha! You know nothing of Shakespeare. If you did, you'd know his works get as vulgar as a whore's genital warts and are littered with Tudor curses as good as our own.

I just love carrying on 2 conversations at once, don't you?

I'm guessing your usage of the word BS is used as a vulgarity in context, is it not? The phrase "there is nothing inherently meaningful in communicating ideas" has just taken all the meaning out of life.

We don't believe in stoning prostitutes—they have a right to salvation, they should be preached to, taught the saving grace of God. I am nothing but a sinner saved by grace.

Bullet Magnet: ...Shit fuck bastard. Out of context. Unmeaningful. And foul. Unnecessary.

I don't think that there is anything particularly meaningful about somebody communicating the idea that words, even without context, are bad.

Doesn't a lunatic murderer also have a right to salvation then, even if you think his sin is worse?

And the point that BM was trying to make is also the point that I have been trying to explain to you. Used effectively, "expletives" increase the efficiency of communcation.

1: Thanks for that clarification. Meaning has now returned to life. I feel much better.

2: Hmm, I think I misinterpreted my thoughts. NO ONE has a RIGHT to salvation, it is the gift of God that we receive. We preach to the unsaved, and God chooses which will hear the word, and which will repel it. A lunatic would be unable to understand; we should still do our best to communicate with them, but if it is impossible, they must be executed.

As an example, if a murderer is converted to Christianity while on death row, he must still be executed. His earthly guilt remains; the difference is that, on his death, he will not be damned forever.

Bullet Magnet: I'd rather not debate over Shakespeare. It's too low of me to bring him into a thread about "knocked up." We can try to find some other common ground.

Agreed on all counts. So? What does necessity have to do with anything? What should that stop one doing anything? Things not being necessary are what makes life interesting. This forum isn't necessary. Striped shirts aren't necessary. I look forward to your argument opposing the existence of both those things.

And foul? That's the point, isn't it? It isn't always foul, and that is certainly subjective, but being foul is one of the purposes of swearing. It is a valid purpose.

When you're misintepreting your own thoughts, you really need to examine yourself.

So if the atheist who never did wrong dies, he goes to hell. The murderer who comitted a terrible atrocity says "I'm sorry" at the last minute and gets into heaven. What a fair system.

Shakespeare wasn't too good for sex. As far as I'm aware, he loved it.

I'm afraid there was not an atheist who never did wrong.

Bullet Magnet: Striped shirts are not necessary. But they are not offensive, like swear words. Why would you want to be foul? The definition of foul: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: Offensive to the senses; loathsome. Even if they act as the quarterback of your vocabulary, why would you use loathsome words when there are civil ones that will do just as easily?

I'm afraid you're full of shit.

I'm guessing you're referring to yourself. "The atheist who never did wrong." If not, define wrong and we'll discuss this civilly and in contextually-related sentences.

Do you believe you've never done wrong in the eyes of God and yourself?

No. I have sinned often and greatly.

Have you ever done "wrong" in the eyes of God and yourself?

This is the part where he defines "rejecting God" as a great wrong.

My whole argument was that "civil" ones do not always do the sentiment justice, when you want a harsh edge to your phrasing, for example, or actually desire on occasion to be uncivil. Or, you know, personal preference. I'm not particularly concerned with causing offense, particularly to those who are offended so easily, and over such trivial things. For them, being offended is really a self-inflicted distress.

I dunno about God, but I'm pretty sure I've never sacrificed any of my personal beliefs or values. I certainly don't regret anything I've done in my life.

Now for the other prong in your argument; nobody leads a perfect life. Religious people 'sin' too.