Multiple sex partners: Trendy but toxic

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | September 19, 2002 | Michael Medved

[daniel boob]

Damn Unitarians again.

[LiteKeeper]

Bump to read about the apostates later

[LiteKeeper]

There are two gates: one narrow, and one broad - and the broad one leads to destruction.

[LiteKeeper]

Anthropologist Kristen Hawkes, who has studied remote tribes in Paraguay and Tanzania declares that "this model of the death-do-us-part, missionary-position couple is just a tiny part of human history."

Like I said there is a narrow gate!

[parsifal]

Fascinating post! I read an article last nite about how nature abhors heterosexuality. 21 pages it was and read it with my mouth gaping wide open and wondering how Cole Porter ever wrote his song---Bees do it--Birds do it--Lets fall in love....parsy the continually amazed.

[parsifal]

True. Most broads do lead to destruction. parsy the destroyed.

[colorado tanker]

We beat 1984. Can we defeat the Brave New World?

[jlogajan]

placing a priority on the long-term well-being of society rather than personal and immediate gratification.

Ah, socialism.

[muawiyah]

Actually, "human history" was written by folks living in civilizations who learned to control their impulses.

Those Amazonian tribes have no history whatsoever beyond the descriptions written down by the anthropoligists who study (and may we suggest "play with" them).

One would wish the Unitarian-Universalists well in their adoption of these supposedly "healthy" customs. That way they will move off the American history stage all that much sooner.

S o o o o o o o o o o L o o o o o o n g UUs.

[onedoug]

Building civilization requires mastering impulses rather than surrendering to them.

Which is what the early Hebrew insistence on channeling, particularly male, sexuality into marriage (exclusively monogamous after the 10th century CE) begat. And if that was an anchor to the rise of Western civilization, then drifting with what at once seems fashionable can only further its demise and decline.

[KeyBored]

This group sounds like something Xlinton could wholeheartedly endorse.

[31R1O]

How 'bout a link so I can read it to?

[31R1O]

How 'bout a link so I can read it too? oops!

[Eala]

Ha. When he said "toxic", I thought of AIDS... and Africa...

[DWSUWF]

"...the philosophy and practice of loving more than one other person at a time..."

LOL!

You can certainly monkey around with more than one person at a time... If you have the energy and interest.

But genuinely loving more than one person (in a sense that includes a sexual relationship) is a chimera.

Sooner or later those free-wheeling sex smorgasbord deals come flying apart, as often as not with some degree of hard feelings and even violence.

[The FRugitive]

No doggie style? Come on, there's nothing wrong with a little doggie style now.

[parsifal]

Which? The "Bush is Gay" or the "Nature Abhors Heterosexuality" thing? parsy.

[Stultis]

Gives a whole new dimension to Eramus Darwin's (Charles Darwin's granddad) description of Unitarianism as, "a feather-bed to catch falling Christians."

[x]

One of the arguments against gay marriage was, "Why can't someone then marry four people, or his or her own brother or dog or cat?" The bestialists thought they'd be the next one's to have their practices legitmized. Now it looks like they'll be at the end of the line again.

The Unitarians seem to feel that if something is no longer forbidden it has to be officially approved and positively sanctioned. I doubt the gays or polyamorists appreciate having all of the transgressive character taken out of their activities.