xhrisl, September 11, 2002, 01:54
Regarding Sex
Perhaps the best way to define what is & is not normal is to take into context the situaltion when discussing normal & abnormal sexual behavior. This is of course viewed within the context of social relativism, which plainly stated is this that normal is relative. The way be which we define abnormal behavior is judged by the degree of disapproval the behavior illicites. When it come to sexuality the guidelines are the same with the exception of the almost universal prohibition against incest (an unfortunatly not so uncomon practice within the Family). Other behaviors which where also condoned included sex with minors and forced coupulations. Aside from these unfortunate circumstances that affected many of us, when it comes to sex in the real world the options are all yours, and you should not be discouraged or disalutiioned that you may not find someone compatable with (wild child)self. Human sexuality is best viewed (as Masters & Johnson discribed it)as a continum; with exclusive Hetrosexuality on one end & exclusive Homosexuality on the other, & I might add with exclusive Monogomy on one end & rampet Plurality on the other.
While it is true that our upbringing in the Family contributed decidedly to who we are today, let us remember that there is no one here to judge us but ourselves. Having had relationships with members of both sexes (& I'm a man)& every concivable combination of multiple partners in bed---I would urge you to find out who you & what makes you happy.  (reply to this post)

Bella, September 11, 2002, 23:58
Question for xhrisl
xhrisl - I have a couple of questions concerning your post on human sexuality.

First, when you state "....with exclusive Heterosexuality on one end and exclusive Homosexuality on the other ... with exclusive Monogomy on one end and and rampet Plurality on the other" Do you believe that these extremes are innate, biological, social, etc?

Also concerning the above noted statement, are these extremes in regard to individual sexuality? For example: one is either homosexual or is not, one is either monogomous or is not. Or, is the statement pertaining to the sexuality of (social) groups? For example: the population consists of both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Thanks for your opinion and the clarification.
(reply to this post)

xhrisl, September 12, 2002, 01:31
Further clarification on gender issues
There is an increasing amount of evidence for the support of a biological cause for homosexuality withing the Psychiatric & Psychological community. However it behoves one well to remember from what perspective one is coming from with regards to the "Nature v. Nurture" controversy, the predominate theories on gender-socialization fall on both sides of the coin. Firstly the Psychoanalitic Tradition which is Fruedian in nature attributes a gendered sense of the self thru the primary care giver as the manner by which one first becomes aware of gender & later sexuality. Next are the Social Learning theories which cling to the premise that we learn gender from our societies constructs of what is and is not appropriate for our sex. And lastly there are the Cognative Development theorist who speculate that the child forms gender identity thru the use of schemas and mental short cuts to simplify the complexities of a world that is new to them. All theories have both their strong and weak points as to the amount of credit given to innate charecteristics of the individual & those behaviors that are learned. The continueum model of sexuality proposed by Masters & Johnson simply stated is that while exclusive Homosexual behavior & exclusive hetro sexual behavior are the two oppisite poits of the compas---with the majority of individuals falling somewhere in-between, hence for instance pure bisexuality with equal attraction to & relationships with both sexes would represent the center.
(reply to this post)

Bella, September 13, 2002, 09:11
Personal Opinion
xhrisl - thank you for the clarification on the Masters & Johnson theory. It makes much more sense now. I was wondering where the bisexual fits in to the model, now I understand.

I have heared the above arguments on human behavior (although not in great depth) and find them facinating. However, as a student of philosophy myself, I am interested in your personal opinion. Do you agree with any of the above arguments? - if so, which ones and why? Also, within the aruments, where do you see our generation of ex-cog members fitting in?

Thanks again!

(reply to this post)

xhrisl, September 14, 2002, 00:19
Reply to Bella
Well Bella, where to begin...when it comes to the issues of Nature V. Nurture I would have to weigh in on a 50/50 split give or take some variation based upon the individual & circumstance. By way having a background scholasticly in philosophy & ethics both (although currently a double major in psychology & womens studies) I could give you reasons to support either premise equally, however, as with matters of faith and religious belief---one chooses to accept certian premises not because they can be niether proven nor disproven, yet rather on the basis of how they fit in to ones belief structure and what one feels comfortable with. It is for the most part my personal oppinion that: the people that matter don't mind, & the people that mind don't matter! When it comes to others judging your sexuality, your real friends will love you no matter who you choose to love. As for the current 2nd generation Ex-members like ourselves I have always found them to be rather open in regards to sexual issues, this may be in part due to the way we where raised with regard to sexual matters, and partly because of the abuses & injustices that many of us have seen. As a result most people I have meet find no judgement of me as I find no judgement of myself for the things that I have experianced. I give this credit to the instinctive questioning nature found in those who have left, and their willingness to bring what good they can from past experiance and to seek new insight and understanding.
(reply to this post)

Bella, September 15, 2002, 19:05
Reply to xhrisl
xhrisl - I would have to agree with your statement concerning second generation ex-members. I too have found most to be pretty open minded concerning sexual behavior, preferences, etc. I have noticed however, that many of 'us' are petrified of commitment and/or trusting a possible significant other. This of course could be due in part to our very "nomadic" childhood - hard to develop bonds when one had to pick up and move to a new home every few months. Or, perhaps this is due in part the the promiscuity we saw in our parents, aunties, uncles, or read for bed time stories -- (just saw picture of "Heaven's Girl" being gang-banged on top of the lion's den ... why couldn't we have stuck to reading Cinderella?!?)

As far as the Nature V Nurture debate goes - Philosophy is easiest argued over a bottle or two of red wine. For the lack of such a lovely substance, I shall leave the topic alone for now.

Thanks again for your interesting posts.
(reply to this post)

arthur, September 17, 2002, 21:14
let's do something about it...
i don't think anyone has Heavens girl any more, but if they did that would be sort of proof that we had growing up, a warped view of sex and of course the mixing of it with our fundimental christian values was perhaps the biggest mistake of it all. perhaps it's a little comforting to know that others feel the same way i do. with that, i was never told that some of these beliefs were actually wrong. i think that one day soon i'll go over what we we're taught and then pick apart and specify exactly what we no longer adhere to. perhaps there are many things we can discover about ourselves that we just aren't aware of until we can actually sit down and discuss these issues topic by topic and highlight what's needed. just an idea. good read though.
(reply to this post)

moonmental, September 18, 2002, 10:31
possibly
I might be able to rake one up....heaven's girl that is
(reply to this post)

monkeyfart, September 14, 2002, 01:07
Sincere seeker of sexual wisdom...
How does the love of animals (real unconditional love*) fit in with all this. - To me I would consider that to be just a perversion but it's funny the amount of weird porn stories you hear along those lines.
(reply to this post)

xhrisl, September 14, 2002, 05:11
Re: "loving your pets"
All I have studied on the subject (UofA is a rather liberal University) the practice is found throughout history & across many various cultures (often as a form of entertainment vis a vis the "$ Donkey Show")although most countries have inacted laws prohibiting the behavior there are several nations that do not expressly forbid this form of expression or if they do such prohibitions are not inforced. As a young adolecent I grew up in scandinavia & I can remember seeing advertisements for such entertainment in Copenhagens red light district (in reality a large number of such specialty material comes from scandinavia & the netherlands as well as south-eastern asia). Zooistry/Beastiality is also found among populations in isolated midwestern comunities in the United States. To my knowledge; w/males its generaly performed as an act of sexual relief when there are no other partners availabe (sheep relate closest in the animal kingdom w/ regards to genital appearance resembling the human female), instances reptd. by females more often involve domesticated pets (honney in places where the kity will lick it). There are animals which will initiate sexual contact, such as dogs & burrows. In my own personal life I draw the line when the sexual behavior involves animals or underaged persons, although I have known 2 women who had experimented w/their dogs when they where adolecents(this did not change my perception of them as people). Its ok to love your pets just don't "love your pet"
(reply to this post)

monkeyfart, September 14, 2002, 06:17
Cool shit!
That's amazing! Truly, I never expected any one to actually have knowledge on the subject. Interestingly most people who I've heard joke (and joked with) about it don't really condemn it however I can't really imagine anyone I know doing something like that (bestiality). I've generally thought that the "porn stars" marketing something like that would be appealing to those with a desire to view the outrageously kinky, but not necessarily experience it. However, it probably happens more than we may think as it certainly may not be much of a discussable item.


(reply to this post)

jpm, September 14, 2002, 16:12
wierd shit
I know someone that caught his girlfriend using some kind of sauce to get her pet (a dog) do it's thing. I thought it was pretty revolting, but he didn't think much of it, other than it was a little odd. I could never understand how someone would go for something like that, but to each their own?
(reply to this post)

monger, September 14, 2002, 05:40
Too much information for me!
Chris, that's some disturbing shit! Did you really have to get into the whole thing there with the sheep??
(reply to this post)

Jerseygirl, September 12, 2002, 05:30
Interesting Topic
This is good stuff!Your writing is a little high falluting(impressive)but having just discussed this topic last nite in class I am very interested in this whole take on things.I and friends of mine who also grew up in the family, seem to have a lot of questions regarding how much of our sexuality is just who we are (even being in the process of discovering that)and how much is programmed by the way we were brought up.Up until now I've been kind of deciding that anything cool is me and anything weird is definately the way I was brought up--lol.But really I mean even some of the heavier sexual practices can have a thread back to "family" influence right?Well maybe I'm off the topic but this is very interesting nevertheless.
(reply to this post)

xhrisl, September 13, 2002, 00:23
Reply to Jerseygirl
Ok---so what I'm hearing is that "I earned an "A" v. the teaher gave me a "B", arguement. Yes, we all like to take credit for what is great about ourselves & shift the wierd stuff to what we where taught. In actuality many of us judge our former selves too harshly & as a consequence carry on with an excess of emotional bagage; to this I have a solution that has worked well for me personally---it is a set of 3 maxims: 1. Was it the best I knew at the time? 2. Did I find it pleasureable? 3. Was it consentual? I have found that if I can answer each of these in the affirmative that the experiance was not wasted.
Finally I add two cluases;
A. Have I learned any thing since?
B. If I have wronged anyone have I sought to make amends?
These I apply to all aspects of my life (sexuality included) & I have found them to be a benificial guideline in my acceptance of self, & the manner in which I treat others. With specific regard to sexuality---do what feel natural and don't let others ideas or the way you where raised interfere with your enjoyment, life is all about learning who we are, & if you don't get it all figured out the first time, who said you can't come back? Love who you will, because "the heart wants what the heart wants" be it a man, a woman, or in-between. And, if you like a little pain with your pleasure or some such, have at it just be honest with yourself & your partner(s) (it's not cheating as long as u share)
(reply to this post)

Jerseygirl, September 13, 2002, 09:40
xhrisl--the teacher failed me.
Actually I'm not sure what the teacher gave me just yet. Kudos to you anyways for your way of neatly catagorising the aspects of your life, however, this is altogether too neat for the problems I search for anwers in.Also doing what feels natural and not letting things or persons interfere with our enjoyment or, simply put: "following ones heart" can have extreme repercussions with no path left to go back and try again.
I do agree with you though about no experience being a waste especially since most of us were severely experience deprived. I guess my questions are too psycho or messed up for answers,too bad for me. BTW were you in the Sicily RTC? Wasn't that a special place. Take care.
(reply to this post)

xhrisl, September 13, 2002, 23:54
Kudos to you as well
Yes Jerseygirl, I was in Sicily---and it was a special place if you count that an RTC sheperd was abusing his own daughters sexualy while at the same time running the progam. The whole situation was a travisty of errors and there are many who came and went from that place who won't ever be half as well as they where when they entered. In regards to your own unique situation I cannot pretend to know the difficulties that you face & the issues you are trying to resolve, I can, however, offer myself to you as a friend & listen to what you have to say. I have commited some major errors in judgement & in acts of omission in my time and would be the last person to judge you. If you need someone to talk to---I am not able to say that I have the answer, (those lay within yourself) however, often times just venting to someone else helps to clarify things in ones own mind. If this helps my E-mail is listed under my name and our corespondance can remain more private. I hope that all is well with you, and those whom you care about.
(reply to this post)

JoeH, September 12, 2002, 10:13
I like that philosophy
That means everybody has to be nice to me all the time, cause when I act weird it's just because of the cult, nothing inherently wrong with me! Well maybe I'm exagerating, but the theory is good!
(reply to this post)

Anthony, August 15, 2002, 19:20
Theatre of the Poor
Was Oscar Wilde correct when he said that sex is the theatre of the poor? Or was he just being facetious? I find it rather hard to explain why the poor always seem to have more children than the rich. And no, I’m not talking about societies such as our which implicitly promotes this by such policies as Welfare (which I hear is not faring to well). There are many cultures/societies in which there are no governmental rewards for baby factories, yet they continue to be annually produced at an accelerated rate, why? It just doesn’t make sense to me to have children while living in poverty, but that’s just me. Now, there are instances where children, it is hoped, will grow up to help the parents financially (or work the farm, etc…), but this seems to be rare now days.

Surely even the poor and uneducated have some knowledge of current birth-control practices, and condoms are not that expensive, if indeed this is their preferred medium of entertainment. Could it be religious persuasion?
  (reply to this post)

Jerseygirl, September 14, 2002, 07:29
Dude,it's simpler than that
Did you ever consider taking what he said literally? Sex is their theatre because they are too poor to get a TV or VCR!
(reply to this post)

JoeH, August 15, 2002, 19:44
great topic!
my mom said something rather interesting about this: "they don't have kids because they're poor, they're poor because they have kids" While this is not entirely accurate in all cases, there are a lot of people whose children get in the way of their financial success.

It would be really interesting to discover why this happens. I imagine we would discover that it is due to a number of factors: ignorance, stupidity, religion, hope for the future, or just to add some meaning to their lives.
(reply to this post)

Anthony, August 15, 2002, 20:18
Theatre of the Poor
Now that’s something! I hadn’t thought of it that way (referring to you mother’s comment), it’s actually quiet funny when you think of it, but sadly, it seems so true.

I once heard of a study which documented the correlation between the sales of baby diapers (or some other baby product) and that of beer at 24 hour 7-Eleven type of marts. The study concluded that mothers would send the husbands out late at night for “emergency” or last minute shopping, and the husbands would often pick up a six pack (or something beerish), guess they should've bought condoms to begin with. Anyway, I digress.
(reply to this post)

someone out of the family, July 17, 2002, 13:38
the law of love is sick
it screwed me up so badly, my mom had a child with the person she was "sharing" with, and it has scarred all of us for life. The family dosent know what they are doing, they dont care.
  (reply to this post)

Anthony, July 17, 2002, 18:42
Law of Love
Yeah, if it were a matter of personal opinion or taste it would still be deranged and mentally disturbing, but to elevate it to a "law" is beyond insanity.
Regards,
Anthony
(reply to this post)

Jules, July 23, 2001, 23:12
Promiscuity
Do you think that a monogamous relationship is realistic or even possible nowadays? Personally I'm not too sure (though admittedly I have major commitment issues). Do you think it is wrong to have sex outside of a relationship? Does it make a difference if you are not married? Are open relationships morally acceptable?   (reply to this post)

monkeyfart, September 6, 2002, 17:10
Monogamously possible
Monogamous relationships are definitely realistic and possible nowadays!! I think many people who leave "the family" continue to hold on to the free attitudes & mentalities because for one reason or another they want to. I think we afford ourselves a freedom of mentality which many people in the world don't dare to. So we maintain a mentality which is very open about sexual conduct and related experimentation just without the hypocrisy of religion involving itself. Personally I think its really only acceptable to be "open" like that before you commit yourself, if your not in a relationship go for your life, once you are its called cheating. I can see how idealistically on a utopian level the idea can work if all parties involved were all magically on the same wavelength and really needed to fuck someone else in order to stay sane, but when peoples so called under control feelings and emotions get let loose I think you will have to be ready for complete unpredictability. For that reason I can’t see how it would contribute to strengthening a relationship that you were really serious about.


(reply to this post)

Alf, July 14, 2002, 05:56
i think this sums it up
monogamy monotany..
(reply to this post)

jodaisy, July 12, 2002, 05:57
HELLO
OF COURSE NOT!!! THAT IS A CULT THING. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH VARIOUS PEOPLE THEN I SUGGEST YOU DON'T HAVE A RELATIONSHIP AT ALL....OR ALTERNATIVELY JOIN A SWINGERS CLUB.
(reply to this post)

someone out of the family, July 17, 2002, 13:40
I couldnt agree more
why fuck other people and be in a relationship? If you are going to sleep with others dont be in a relationship. Why sleep with someone else cause you are "sharing" what the hell is that? If they are alone, oh well they can masturbate they dont need to be screwing someone who is married or in a relationship. the law of love is SCREWED UP and I HATE it.
(reply to this post)

Mike (Blondie), October 18, 2001, 23:38
RE: Promiscuity
Good question on promiscuity...

I realte what you're saying about commitment issues Jules. I've been in numerous mostly short-term relationships in the last five years and I always used to think the problem was with me. Well maybe it was, but I can't help but think that it's also due to (perhaps unrealistically) high expectations / standards. Could it be the same with you?

Anyway, back to the subject.

Yes, I think monogamous relationships are realistic and quite achievable. It's mostly an issue of trust and establishing what you and your partner want.

Following on from that, I don't think it's wrong to have sex outside of a relationship. Though ideally your partner should be informed about it and be consent to your actions.

Can't comment on the nuptial issue and I guess I've already answered the question about open relationships being morally acceptable. I'm very influenced by the idea that love and consideration should be the motivating factors behind all that we do, but especially in relationships.

In closing I should point that I'm speaking from a theoretical perspective here. I haven't actually tried an open relationship and haven't heard all that many positive stories about them (at least not from both parties involved).

Does anyone else have experience in this area? I'd be interested to hear about it.

(reply to this post)

Holon, July 31, 2001, 21:17
RE: Promiscuity
Oh yes I do believe monogamous relationships are very possible. Inside marriage and out. I have never and would never cheat on my husband. To my knowledge he hasn't or wouldn't either. I have cheated on a few boyfriends but, when you find that special someone you sort of lose the desire to be with anyone else. Perhaps I'm just naive.
(reply to this post)

porceleindoll, August 6, 2001, 03:49
RE: Promiscuity
This is a tuff question and something I haven't come to a conclusion about. It's easy to say what you believe and what you would do until you are actually faced with the situation. When we were in the F. I didn't have jealousy problems and was always willing to let my husband wander, confident in the fact that he wouldn't leave me. But he never did go outside our marriage once in the 8 years we have been together. A couple years ago I did have a short lived relationship with an outsider, which was very enjoyable, but my husband and I were having difficulties and I was about to walk out on him, plus we were still connected to the Family.

Having been raised in a certain mind-set your whole life (that promiscuity is acceptable and relationships outside your marriage is acceptable), it's hard to know what you personally believe, at least for me. Since we have left the F. I wouldn't consider hardly looking at another guy (at least not straight out, perhaps from the corner of my eye), but I'd definitely keep my emotions and actions in control, cause it's such a different world out here. Plus there's the whole emotional mess to clean up.

What I do believe though is that it's possible to love more than one person at a time, each one holding a different part of your heart, but it is possible to control your body and make decisions based on responsiblity and what you need to do. (for instance, taking kids, work and etc. into consideration when and if you decide to engage in another relationship).

So I think that Holon is right, a monogonous relationship is possible depending on the personal beliefs of the person(s) involved.
(reply to this post)

Deb, September 7, 2001, 12:19
RE: Promiscuity
I honestly don't get the whole "monogomous relationships" thing, for myself that is. I really admire people that can but I get sooo completely bored with partners very quickly--so you can imagine that I go through them like an express train. I mean, I've only been in love once in my entire life and I'm unmarried, 25 and w/ 2 kids! I'm thinking that growing up in the F. has something to do with both my attitude and the unwanted pregnancies, but we're not going into that now. Anyway, I'm not a jealous person by nature, tho can be a bit "territorial" at times. (Go figure.)And another thing is that when I'm involved with someone, however short a time that is, I expect them that they will have sex with other people if they're attracted to them--mainly because I have some serious commitment issues and can't stand hearing that I "can't" because I "belong" to a certain person. Tit for tat, so to speak. So, I've pretty much boiled it down to one thing: I'm a freak. My friends have been saying it all along and it's true, although can't say it's a complete and utter surprise. It reminds me of this movie I saw called, "Love and Sex" (w/ Famke Jenssen), about a very free-spirited/free-sexually/free-whatever girl. Anyway, she gets together with this guy and he asks her the two dreaded questions: "How many?" and "Will you marry me?" I HATE the first one and am not real keen on the second one. Aren't there any men out there who I can live with but we have a very "open" relationship and no one gets jealous or psycho? Please, God, just one Adonis...(Am I babbling? :>)
(reply to this post)

porceleindoll, July 7, 2002, 19:45
are we messed up? pt1
I think our upbringing has a lot to do with our sexual attitudes and behavior. It was such a big deal in the group, in a weird way though. I am not jealous about my husband, I made it very clear to him at the beginning of our marriage that I would be fine if he had affairs or whatever, and of course I fully expected the round of sharing with other partners, as long as he was honest with me about it. The interesting thing though is that shortly after we got together, we moved from a large place to a smaller remote one and never had the opportunity to go outside of our marriage (besides a brief fling I had), and it was never an issue.

Now that we have left, I find myself wondering if my opinions have changes since my morals have changed. I do believe it is not right to go outside your marriage, but neither do I find myself totally shocked or horrified at the idea. It's like I know it's wrong on one level, but if it were to happen in our marriage, I don't think I would be too pissed about it. It's one issue I haven't been able to sort out yet, my personal opinions on sex and relationships outside your marriage.

I am wondering if it has to do with the careless attitude we had about relationships in the group. We were never really taught loyalty to one person, but it was a "group marriage" and we were all married to each other and to the Lord, everyone in the Home was a brother, sister, aunty, uncle, whatever, being faithful to one individual wasn't emphasized.


(reply to this post)

porceleindoll, July 7, 2002, 19:53
are we messed up? pt2
When you think about it though, the group not only taught us infidelity in marriage, but what about in family units, how many of you (us) were brought up in a group unit, and found that your relationship with your parents or siblings was somewhat lacking? What about the emphasis put on teachers and the teen and Jett shepherds? I was a Jett shepherd for a few years, and a teacher for younger kids at the HCS, and I oftentimes found it disturbing that we, the teachers, seemed to have a stronger influence, control and greater importance to the kids then the parents. Parents were coming to us for permission, for advice, and hanging on to our words, we basically had the last say in most cases, but was it right? Was it right to replace the parent relationship with a teacher? What about the fact that you were encouraged to call all adults aunty and uncle? And then when some started to become grandparents, an announcement came out to find some other title for the new grandparents other than grandpa, since we already had a "grandpa". So, the role of being a grandparent was also taken over. My kids still call their grandfather Papa, and I am very uncomfortable using the world grandpa.

The root to the problem of promiscuity could lie in our upbringing of unfaithfulness to individuals and the breaking down of the family and marital unit we beheld and probably experienced during our years in the group.
(reply to this post)

Auty, September 14, 2002, 21:00
Tragic
We were born to believe we were all "One Wife" with multiple "aunties & uncles" "mommies & daddies" "brothers and sisters" etc. The tragic ending of this is when the child left their "family" no one wanted to have anything to do with them. I was lucky to have one "systemite" parent, some are not that fortunate and were truly orphaned by all they believed to be part of their family unit.
(reply to this post)

Deb, September 7, 2001, 12:22
RE: Promiscuity
P.S. Alf, I am so NOT asking you.
(reply to this post)

alf2, June 30, 2002, 05:13
RE: Promiscuity
I love you sweety.. but I think God's endtime prophet can do a little better than a single mum with 2 kids. Teenage nymphs are more to Alf and Abrahims taste.
(reply to this post)

Pumpkin, May 21, 2002, 17:42
RE: Promiscuity
I know I personally feel fufilled with 3 guys at once (not all at the same time though unless I want it that way). Guys are a lot more jealous than they admit. I sometimes think they're more jealous than chicks. My boyfriends are even jealous of my girlfriends if they can't watch. LOL!
(reply to this post)

CollegeDude, July 8, 2002, 04:56
Needz Pumpkin
Oh Pumpkin, U are too cute :P
(reply to this post)

Frank, September 20, 2002, 08:30
Pumkin's Cute
sluts are cute aren't they, hooray for sluts!

That whole openly bisexual multiple partner thing got old and wrinkly along with hippies.
(reply to this post)

< previous page     page: 1 | 2 | 3     next page>