Rusty Shackleford
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,106
- Points
- 0
My entire education was a "vista of Sin"...
Hehehehehe.
Hehehehehe.
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year. -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Tickling/Religion/Guilt & Evil...
- Thread starter qjakal
- Start date
Bleh. Evil. A human invention to make us afraid to think for ourselves. I think a post earlier back (can't remember where) perfectly summed what REAL evil is, but most are content to simply say "Whatever my church thinks is bad".
Sorry. I am not exactly a devout Catholic.
Sorry. I am not exactly a devout Catholic.
Rusty Shackleford
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,106
- Points
- 0
Yup
Hear hear.
Hear hear.
Evil...
Some say its a matter of perception. I always say I know it when I see it.
Some say it's a matter of timing. I think they may be right...sometimes.
Some say it's all about intent, but I think they're fooling themselves, on purpose.
Some say it's whats NOT about love, but I say I'd hate to think so...
Some say a lot... Q
Some say its a matter of perception. I always say I know it when I see it.
Some say it's a matter of timing. I think they may be right...sometimes.
Some say it's all about intent, but I think they're fooling themselves, on purpose.
Some say it's whats NOT about love, but I say I'd hate to think so...
Some say a lot... Q
Hmm...tequila
Damn...gotta lay off tequila before posting...that was either profound or ridiculous! Anyway, figured we might want to incorporate some Xmas comments into the thread...speaking of religion gone bad and all that! Ok..not "bad", but at least "misguided"...stressful time of the year that can really tick me off... Q
Damn...gotta lay off tequila before posting...that was either profound or ridiculous! Anyway, figured we might want to incorporate some Xmas comments into the thread...speaking of religion gone bad and all that! Ok..not "bad", but at least "misguided"...stressful time of the year that can really tick me off... Q
P.H. Tickler
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 245
- Points
- 0
No guilt here...
I think the bigger sin would be denying your enjoyment of tickling. I love tickling my wife, she understands that it's my "thing". I couldn't imagine having been together all these years and NOT letting her in on it.
I'm a recovering catholic, I was about 18 when I just got sick of everything being my fault (If you're catholic, you can relate ;-) ).
I went through the classic oppressive Irish Catholic education system, and maybe I got my foot fetish from always looking down to avoid eye contact with the sisters of (NO) mercy.
I may have lost my way for a few years, but there's no way you can not believe in a higher power when you see your children born, that's powerful stuff! I do tend to have considerably less belief in institutionalized religion, ESPECIALLY ones that seem hellbent on making you feel bad for every single thing you do.
I will throw this thought out tho, EVERY religion believes in something after death, even ones without a central deity. Why? Because NOBODY can bear to imagine that there is an end. Nobody seems to question the fact that religion likes to preach forgiveness, yet we're all paying STILL for original sin.... or the fact that adam and eve had 2 sons... where'd the rest of us come from? (*cue deliverance banjos*). My faith in organized religion went out the window in school, when this kid who sat two rows from me freaked out and tried to run away, turns out this priest was molesting him, and they were trying to keep it quiet (couldn't silence the press tho, it was ALL over the local news).
The God I believe in was there in the delivery room...twice so far.
As far as tickling and guilt... I'd feel guilty if I never told my wife, and after all these years, went to seek release elsewhere. I'm not ashamed to be a tickler, and I'm not ashamed that it turns me on, in fact, I'm glad I know myself so well.
Which brings up another opressive religious belief... premarital abstenance from sex... I firmly believe that you should find out if you are SEXUALLY compatible before committing the rest of your lives to eachother. We have a wonderful relationship, one that includes tickling... because it's just who I am. I also cater to her needs, the tickling is fun for her, but she's not "aroused" by it.
I try never to consider religion when it comes to tickling... Although, maybe it might be fun to get her in a nun costume for some stocking foot tickling
I think the bigger sin would be denying your enjoyment of tickling. I love tickling my wife, she understands that it's my "thing". I couldn't imagine having been together all these years and NOT letting her in on it.
I'm a recovering catholic, I was about 18 when I just got sick of everything being my fault (If you're catholic, you can relate ;-) ).
I went through the classic oppressive Irish Catholic education system, and maybe I got my foot fetish from always looking down to avoid eye contact with the sisters of (NO) mercy.
I may have lost my way for a few years, but there's no way you can not believe in a higher power when you see your children born, that's powerful stuff! I do tend to have considerably less belief in institutionalized religion, ESPECIALLY ones that seem hellbent on making you feel bad for every single thing you do.
I will throw this thought out tho, EVERY religion believes in something after death, even ones without a central deity. Why? Because NOBODY can bear to imagine that there is an end. Nobody seems to question the fact that religion likes to preach forgiveness, yet we're all paying STILL for original sin.... or the fact that adam and eve had 2 sons... where'd the rest of us come from? (*cue deliverance banjos*). My faith in organized religion went out the window in school, when this kid who sat two rows from me freaked out and tried to run away, turns out this priest was molesting him, and they were trying to keep it quiet (couldn't silence the press tho, it was ALL over the local news).
The God I believe in was there in the delivery room...twice so far.
As far as tickling and guilt... I'd feel guilty if I never told my wife, and after all these years, went to seek release elsewhere. I'm not ashamed to be a tickler, and I'm not ashamed that it turns me on, in fact, I'm glad I know myself so well.
Which brings up another opressive religious belief... premarital abstenance from sex... I firmly believe that you should find out if you are SEXUALLY compatible before committing the rest of your lives to eachother. We have a wonderful relationship, one that includes tickling... because it's just who I am. I also cater to her needs, the tickling is fun for her, but she's not "aroused" by it.
I try never to consider religion when it comes to tickling... Although, maybe it might be fun to get her in a nun costume for some stocking foot tickling
Re: No guilt here...
This has always been an interesting thought to me. People want to find out if they are sexually compatible before getting married. The premise being that if we are not sexually compatible we will not get married and thereby not end up divorced. Yet look at all the divorces. Of course you will say that they got married without first checking out their compatiblity. Yet statistics show that most of the divorces occur among couples who were sexually active before marriage. In fact if a couple lives together before marriage they are most likely to end up divorcing. Seems to me the idea of premaratal sex makes sense in our minds but in truth is an absolute failure.
Also I tell people here is the way to check your sexual compatiblity: If one of you is male and the other of you is female, then you are sexually compatible. Very few divorces occur because of sexual incompatibility. Most divorces occur because of disagreements and fights over MONEY.
P.H. Tickler said:
This has always been an interesting thought to me. People want to find out if they are sexually compatible before getting married. The premise being that if we are not sexually compatible we will not get married and thereby not end up divorced. Yet look at all the divorces. Of course you will say that they got married without first checking out their compatiblity. Yet statistics show that most of the divorces occur among couples who were sexually active before marriage. In fact if a couple lives together before marriage they are most likely to end up divorcing. Seems to me the idea of premaratal sex makes sense in our minds but in truth is an absolute failure.
Also I tell people here is the way to check your sexual compatiblity: If one of you is male and the other of you is female, then you are sexually compatible. Very few divorces occur because of sexual incompatibility. Most divorces occur because of disagreements and fights over MONEY.
P.H. Tickler
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 245
- Points
- 0
Re: Re: No guilt here...
We made an agreement beforehand... Anything else could be fair game for discussion and argument, but NEVER fight over money. That was probably the best deal we ever made, and have 10 years so far without a single money fight. (My dad used to say that if you take out the money issue, there usually isn't much left to fight about, and he was right)
I have never studied the divorce statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that the sexual issue has led to more than a few flings. Just imagine being married, having the desire to incorporate tickling into the lovelife... and she HATES it... Well, you're not really gonna be satisfied too long, are you?
Everybody's situation is different, but in my case, it was best to find out first. Male and female is easy compatibility for vanilla sex, but add in the "extras"... To me, it was important to know that she was ok with my particular twisted yet endearing "kink". (she does have fun with the tickling 😉 ).
It seems that most of my divorced friends got married too soon, most of them aren't hurting for money, and the ones that remarried seem to be doing better the second time around.
I have a tendency to ramble on (lol)...
Happy New Year everyone (in advance)
omega said:
We made an agreement beforehand... Anything else could be fair game for discussion and argument, but NEVER fight over money. That was probably the best deal we ever made, and have 10 years so far without a single money fight. (My dad used to say that if you take out the money issue, there usually isn't much left to fight about, and he was right)
I have never studied the divorce statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that the sexual issue has led to more than a few flings. Just imagine being married, having the desire to incorporate tickling into the lovelife... and she HATES it... Well, you're not really gonna be satisfied too long, are you?
Everybody's situation is different, but in my case, it was best to find out first. Male and female is easy compatibility for vanilla sex, but add in the "extras"... To me, it was important to know that she was ok with my particular twisted yet endearing "kink". (she does have fun with the tickling 😉 ).
It seems that most of my divorced friends got married too soon, most of them aren't hurting for money, and the ones that remarried seem to be doing better the second time around.
I have a tendency to ramble on (lol)...
Happy New Year everyone (in advance)
Re: Re: Re: No guilt here...
Interesting how different people can see things differently. I know many divorced people who did not get married too young when it comes to chronilogical age. Perhaps they were too young emotionally (or mentally). Of divorced people who remarry, I see much fighting between the ex's continue. The kids from the first marriage and the kids in the second marriage end up getting pushed and pulled around because the ex's use them as bargaining chips, or as ammunition against each other. I have never seen a good clean mess free divorce. As for the second marriage itself, most of those are over before five years.
It comes down to this. We are selfish people. All we care about is ourself. We don't care about our spouse or our kids unless they can give us something or we can get something by using them. I know this is harsh and many of you will disagree. But I am so fed up over the messes in marriages and families that come to me for help. It ALL comes down to one thing, we are selfish people.
To illustrate, apparantly P.H. Tickler would never consider being selfless enough to give up tickling for a woman. You say that doing that would be giving up something that is a real part of yourself. Of course it would, that's what being selfless means. Now I'm not saying that you should give up everything you enjoy. I just think something like your tickling "kink" could have been discussed and explored without first actually having sex.
Please note: I am not condemning you at all. If anyone can be selfish I would be at the top of the list. Also I don't expect you to turn to my way of thinking on this. Ultimatly this is between you and God. If you don't like his views on sex then tell him.
P.H. Tickler said:
Interesting how different people can see things differently. I know many divorced people who did not get married too young when it comes to chronilogical age. Perhaps they were too young emotionally (or mentally). Of divorced people who remarry, I see much fighting between the ex's continue. The kids from the first marriage and the kids in the second marriage end up getting pushed and pulled around because the ex's use them as bargaining chips, or as ammunition against each other. I have never seen a good clean mess free divorce. As for the second marriage itself, most of those are over before five years.
It comes down to this. We are selfish people. All we care about is ourself. We don't care about our spouse or our kids unless they can give us something or we can get something by using them. I know this is harsh and many of you will disagree. But I am so fed up over the messes in marriages and families that come to me for help. It ALL comes down to one thing, we are selfish people.
To illustrate, apparantly P.H. Tickler would never consider being selfless enough to give up tickling for a woman. You say that doing that would be giving up something that is a real part of yourself. Of course it would, that's what being selfless means. Now I'm not saying that you should give up everything you enjoy. I just think something like your tickling "kink" could have been discussed and explored without first actually having sex.
Please note: I am not condemning you at all. If anyone can be selfish I would be at the top of the list. Also I don't expect you to turn to my way of thinking on this. Ultimatly this is between you and God. If you don't like his views on sex then tell him.
P.H. Tickler
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 245
- Points
- 0
Correct, but is selfishness such a BAD thing?
Great points...
It's all about balance.
This is my wife's second marriage.. 10 years so far and showing no signs of weakness. I'm glad that I was selfish at that moment, but it wasn't put out as an ultimatum... it was more of a "confession" (we're not exactly mainstream ;-)). Being up-front about everything wasn't just a one way deal, and there have been many opportunities for her to express desires she didn't feel comfortable sharing with her uptight ex (who didn't want kids... money wasn't the prob there either).
We're both selfless when it comes to the kids, I totally agree with people being selfish to some extent... But if I didn't mention it... then I'd have to be one of those repressed people who must live vicariously through paysites, videos and magazines.
You only live once, why settle?
P.H. Tickler
Great points...
It's all about balance.
This is my wife's second marriage.. 10 years so far and showing no signs of weakness. I'm glad that I was selfish at that moment, but it wasn't put out as an ultimatum... it was more of a "confession" (we're not exactly mainstream ;-)). Being up-front about everything wasn't just a one way deal, and there have been many opportunities for her to express desires she didn't feel comfortable sharing with her uptight ex (who didn't want kids... money wasn't the prob there either).
We're both selfless when it comes to the kids, I totally agree with people being selfish to some extent... But if I didn't mention it... then I'd have to be one of those repressed people who must live vicariously through paysites, videos and magazines.
You only live once, why settle?
P.H. Tickler
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,812
- Points
- 0
Defining Evil
Time to revive this Russian novel of a thread.
I'm reading a book called "Life At The Bottom", subtitle "The Worldview That Makes The Underclass". Author is Theodore Dalrymple MD, a psychiatrist who works at a slum area hospital in the UK, and also at a prison. Here's the last paragraph from the introduction:
"In what follows I have tried first to describe underclass reality in an unvarnished fashion, and then to lay bare the origin of that reality, which is the propagation of bad, trivial, and often insincere ideas. Needless to say, a true appreciation of the cause of underclass misery is desirable in order to combat it, and even more to avoid solutions that will only make it worse. And if I paint a picture of a way of life that is wholly without charm or merit, and describe many people who are deeply unattractive, it is important to remember that, if blame is to be apportioned, it is the intellectuals who deserve most of it. They should have known better but always preferred to avert their gaze. They considered the purity of their ideas to be more important than the actual consequences of their ideas. I know of no egotism more profound."
Those ideas the good doctor speaks of are the ones that have demoralized Western culture for a generation, and have resulted in the destruction of family structure among the poor and, increasingly, the middle class. The word "egotism" isn't strong enough. Try "evil" instead.
Strelnikov
Time to revive this Russian novel of a thread.
I'm reading a book called "Life At The Bottom", subtitle "The Worldview That Makes The Underclass". Author is Theodore Dalrymple MD, a psychiatrist who works at a slum area hospital in the UK, and also at a prison. Here's the last paragraph from the introduction:
"In what follows I have tried first to describe underclass reality in an unvarnished fashion, and then to lay bare the origin of that reality, which is the propagation of bad, trivial, and often insincere ideas. Needless to say, a true appreciation of the cause of underclass misery is desirable in order to combat it, and even more to avoid solutions that will only make it worse. And if I paint a picture of a way of life that is wholly without charm or merit, and describe many people who are deeply unattractive, it is important to remember that, if blame is to be apportioned, it is the intellectuals who deserve most of it. They should have known better but always preferred to avert their gaze. They considered the purity of their ideas to be more important than the actual consequences of their ideas. I know of no egotism more profound."
Those ideas the good doctor speaks of are the ones that have demoralized Western culture for a generation, and have resulted in the destruction of family structure among the poor and, increasingly, the middle class. The word "egotism" isn't strong enough. Try "evil" instead.
Strelnikov
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,812
- Points
- 0
More From Dr. Dalrymple
"...the public explanation of behavior (of thugs and wastrels), including their own, is completely at variance with all human experience. This is the lie that is at the heart of our society, the lie that encourages every form of destructive self-indulgence to flourish: for while we ascribe our conduct to pressures from without, we obey the whims that well up from within, thereby awarding ourselves carte blanche to behave as we choose. Thus we feel good about behaving badly." (Page 122)
"Experience has taught me that it is wrong and cruel to suspend judgement, that nonjudgementalism is at best indifference to the suffering of others, at worst a disguised form of sadism. How can one respect people as members of the human race unless one holds them to a standard of conduct and truthfulness? How can people learn from experience unless they are told that they can and should change? ...I can think of no more contemptuous way of treating people than to ascribe to them no more responsibility than (lab) mice.
In any case, nonjudgementalism is not really nonjudgemental. It is the argument that...everything is the same, nothing is better. This is as barbaric and untruthful a doctrine as has yet emerged from the fertile mind of man." (Page 194)
This one ties in with something Omega said in one of his posts, that the churches that are growing are the ones that haven't watered down the Word of God. Apparently the same is true in the UK.
"Opposite my house, in the center of the square, stands a Victorian Gothic church, a building of some grandeur, which soars upward with immense confidence. Its interior is unspoiled, its stained glass windows magnificent. It is almost always empty...
...the Vicar's tolerant and restrained kind of religion is not the kind to spark a revival, and he knows he is almost the last of his breed. The hold of a church over its society is like the bloom of a grape: once gone, it is gone for good...
...A hundred yards from the prison where I work is another church, unlisted in the yellow pages...built by the subscription of its impoverished (Jamaican immigrant) members...
...(at the service) murmurs of assent were heard... (sin, robbery and violence) wasn't the police's fault, or racism's, or the system's, or capitalism's; it was the failure of sinners to acknowledge any moral authority higher than their personal whim. And in asserting this, the congregation was asserting its own freedom and dignity: poor and despised as its members might be, they were still human enough to decide for themselves between right and wrong. And they offered hope to others too: for if a man choose to do evil, he could later elect, by act of will, to do good. No one had to wait until there was perfect justice in the world, or all the circumstances were right, before he himself did good." (Pages 89-96)
And the typical establishment response to this sort of thinking. We've all seen the same in this country from Country Club Republicans and Limousine Liberals alike:
"...The (cab) driver was, of course, exactly the sort of petit bourgeois who, when not actually hated by intellectuals, is despised as an uninteresting and unimaginitive menial, whose dream is what they have mocked for so long - respectable independence. He is therefore beyond the pale of sympathetic understanding: for the small man is to be defended only so long as he consents to remain a victim, in need of publically funded ministrations." (Page 119)
Read the book. It's well worth the time it will take to do so.
Strelnikov
"...the public explanation of behavior (of thugs and wastrels), including their own, is completely at variance with all human experience. This is the lie that is at the heart of our society, the lie that encourages every form of destructive self-indulgence to flourish: for while we ascribe our conduct to pressures from without, we obey the whims that well up from within, thereby awarding ourselves carte blanche to behave as we choose. Thus we feel good about behaving badly." (Page 122)
"Experience has taught me that it is wrong and cruel to suspend judgement, that nonjudgementalism is at best indifference to the suffering of others, at worst a disguised form of sadism. How can one respect people as members of the human race unless one holds them to a standard of conduct and truthfulness? How can people learn from experience unless they are told that they can and should change? ...I can think of no more contemptuous way of treating people than to ascribe to them no more responsibility than (lab) mice.
In any case, nonjudgementalism is not really nonjudgemental. It is the argument that...everything is the same, nothing is better. This is as barbaric and untruthful a doctrine as has yet emerged from the fertile mind of man." (Page 194)
This one ties in with something Omega said in one of his posts, that the churches that are growing are the ones that haven't watered down the Word of God. Apparently the same is true in the UK.
"Opposite my house, in the center of the square, stands a Victorian Gothic church, a building of some grandeur, which soars upward with immense confidence. Its interior is unspoiled, its stained glass windows magnificent. It is almost always empty...
...the Vicar's tolerant and restrained kind of religion is not the kind to spark a revival, and he knows he is almost the last of his breed. The hold of a church over its society is like the bloom of a grape: once gone, it is gone for good...
...A hundred yards from the prison where I work is another church, unlisted in the yellow pages...built by the subscription of its impoverished (Jamaican immigrant) members...
...(at the service) murmurs of assent were heard... (sin, robbery and violence) wasn't the police's fault, or racism's, or the system's, or capitalism's; it was the failure of sinners to acknowledge any moral authority higher than their personal whim. And in asserting this, the congregation was asserting its own freedom and dignity: poor and despised as its members might be, they were still human enough to decide for themselves between right and wrong. And they offered hope to others too: for if a man choose to do evil, he could later elect, by act of will, to do good. No one had to wait until there was perfect justice in the world, or all the circumstances were right, before he himself did good." (Pages 89-96)
And the typical establishment response to this sort of thinking. We've all seen the same in this country from Country Club Republicans and Limousine Liberals alike:
"...The (cab) driver was, of course, exactly the sort of petit bourgeois who, when not actually hated by intellectuals, is despised as an uninteresting and unimaginitive menial, whose dream is what they have mocked for so long - respectable independence. He is therefore beyond the pale of sympathetic understanding: for the small man is to be defended only so long as he consents to remain a victim, in need of publically funded ministrations." (Page 119)
Read the book. It's well worth the time it will take to do so.
Strelnikov
Time Travel....
*bump*
It's been interesting to reread this (and time consuming) Wonder if Omega is still around? And it's odd to see us refwerring to wallStreet as such a "wildman" when nowdays he's a fairly calm regular! Anyone else "see" themselves in here? Q
*bump*
It's been interesting to reread this (and time consuming) Wonder if Omega is still around? And it's odd to see us refwerring to wallStreet as such a "wildman" when nowdays he's a fairly calm regular! Anyone else "see" themselves in here? Q
Perhaps..
a quick read through some of what's already written would answer your question, Sunday. It probably came up somewhere. I tend to take things on a case by case scenario and not generalize, so that I have a lot of flexibility and can adapt to the subject being discussed in a rational manner. Alternatively, if you need to communicate with me in a solo fashion, supply the Forum with an active email and a discussion could take place in a proper venue, rather than monopolizing a thread. Q
a quick read through some of what's already written would answer your question, Sunday. It probably came up somewhere. I tend to take things on a case by case scenario and not generalize, so that I have a lot of flexibility and can adapt to the subject being discussed in a rational manner. Alternatively, if you need to communicate with me in a solo fashion, supply the Forum with an active email and a discussion could take place in a proper venue, rather than monopolizing a thread. Q
Sunday_10pm
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Messages
- 555
- Points
- 16
I apologise for being an arse. Sorry. Hope you can feel emotions.
I was just a bit angry in that other thread. Would you mind if I made another thread related to the topic I was angry about?
oh and you can delete your posts from our conversation in this thread now, as it's just me being a twat. I'll delete mine. (delete this too once you've read it)
I was just a bit angry in that other thread. Would you mind if I made another thread related to the topic I was angry about?
oh and you can delete your posts from our conversation in this thread now, as it's just me being a twat. I'll delete mine. (delete this too once you've read it)
Heck, you're a better man for your consideration, Sunday_10pm. I respect you for it. I don't think you're the arse for such, especially since it's something you've handled on your own. When you cease making mistakes in this life, I believe you have to wear robes and a halo...
For what it's worth, Q and I argue in this thread, as we did in others. So did Q and Strelnikov, and Strelnikov and I. We just avoided insulting one another, where some cannot. We avoid telling each other what the other is thinking. Neither Q nor Strel ever did so, and I don't believe I did, either.
I respect them, and they treat me as someone to be respected. Makes disagreement possible without insult. You have such makings in you, from now-removed posts I've seen. With small edits, prior to that final point of clicking "Submit Reply" you can disagree without providing a reason for editing. A mod won't edit what doesn't break the rules, after all.
Were I you, and being in a similar position from said now-removed hostilities, I would say that you're the better for your resulting knowledge and behavior. I' respect you for it, too.
For what it's worth, Q and I argue in this thread, as we did in others. So did Q and Strelnikov, and Strelnikov and I. We just avoided insulting one another, where some cannot. We avoid telling each other what the other is thinking. Neither Q nor Strel ever did so, and I don't believe I did, either.
I respect them, and they treat me as someone to be respected. Makes disagreement possible without insult. You have such makings in you, from now-removed posts I've seen. With small edits, prior to that final point of clicking "Submit Reply" you can disagree without providing a reason for editing. A mod won't edit what doesn't break the rules, after all.
Were I you, and being in a similar position from said now-removed hostilities, I would say that you're the better for your resulting knowledge and behavior. I' respect you for it, too.
