Chap wrote:This is a horrible thread. I think bcspace is fast going the way of whyme.
I think that is all I wanted to say.
I think BC Space is going the way of Schryver, with his weird sexual hangups.
Chap wrote:This is a horrible thread. I think bcspace is fast going the way of whyme.
I think that is all I wanted to say.
just me wrote:
That is laughable. I'm pretty sure people can think about sex even when the other person is fully dressed.
Rambo wrote:
Why should we not have sexual attraction to people?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Excellent research to go with my conservative sexual ethics BCSpace. I tip my hat to you.
I once had a young men's leader tell me that the navel was suggestive of the vagina, which is why girls shouldn't wear bikinis.
This is a horrible thread
bcspace wrote:
Now you're back to denying that sexual attraction does not exist.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
bcspace wrote:
This is a great thread because we are finding out that a lot of people think they can do what they want and have no effect. A sad state of affairs and a warning to us all.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
bcspace wrote:So what all of you are saying is that a woman, scandalously dressed, has absolutely no effect on anyone else and has played no role if someone else is sexually attracted to her?
I get it now. There is no intellectual honesty on this board but instead a covering of sins and responsibility.
"Pretty" is not the issue. What you've been telling us is that "girls in bikinis" play no role in sexual attraction.
See tacit.
Okay good. They have an effect. So the question returns to what is our responsibility knowing that we effect others and how what effects are appropriate or not.
bcspace wrote:This is a great thread because we are finding out that a lot of people think they can do what they want and have no effect. A sad state of affairs and a warning to us all.