why me wrote:This board is certainly preoccupied with the sex life of Joseph Smith. Most are having a fantasy about it. Here is Joseph Smith with Fanny...here is Joseph Smith with Eliza dillydallying away. His libido is huge...etc etc etc...But then again why not...since many societies are experiencing a pornofication of their lifeworld, why would I assume less especially from the americans on this board.
For me, I am fascinated by Joseph Smith's "pornofication" of his world. And more importantly, if the "dirty details" were acknowledged by the church publicly and as fact, there would be no reason for the fascination. It isn't about sex, it's about honesty.
why me wrote:I am more than willing to discuss the history of pornography from the 1970s to the present day. I have no problem with a sex discussion.
That could be a very interesting discussion.
why me wrote:But the preoccupation of Joseph Smith's sex life as illustrated by the critics et al. just shows a certain sense of obsession or justification for their present status as exers.
It's not so much his sex life, for me anyway, but how he managed to persuade so many (with notable exceptions) that God really sanctions polygamy. Although I don't see "remarkable" similarities between Joseph Smith and David Koresh, in this regard I do.
I personally am worried about why me's preoccupation with the sexual thoughts of this board's members. He's having erotic fantasies about most if not all of the posters.
EAllusion wrote:I personally am worried about why me's preoccupation with the sexual thoughts of this board's members. He's having erotic fantasies about most if not all of the posters.
Does EAllusion stand for Erotic Allusion? Just curious.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
This board is certainly preoccupied with the sex life of Joseph Smith. Most are having a fantasy about it. Here is Joseph Smith with Fanny...here is Joseph Smith with Eliza dillydallying away. His libido is huge...etc etc etc...But then again why not...since many societies are experiencing a pornofication of their lifeworld, why would I assume less especially from the americans on this board.
I find it frankly bizarre that you are not able to differentiate between discussing Joseph Smith' polygamy and "fantasizing" about his sex life.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
If you look at the idea BC mentioned about the natural man (id) being the enemy of God in Freudian terms, it would lead you to the conclusion that the superego is the holy portion of the human psyche. However, it seems that these to sides merely obscess about sex differently. The id wants sex and the superego wishes to repress sex, but attention to sex is still at the forefront.
Ah! The psuedo science of psychology. The "science" that brings us Kinsey and NAMBLA.
Freud was not a psychologist. He was a psychiatrist. Kinsey was not a psychologist. Kinsey was an entomologist.
Kishkumen wrote:Does EAllusion stand for Erotic Allusion? Just curious.
God I hope so.
Also in the spirit of this thread: SEX
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
