Your view on male virginity vs male use of prostitution

I agree that Christians shouldn't pick and choose which of God's laws they should obey. And I also agree that there are some "lukewarm Christians" that don't take their religion seriously. But Christians are not perfect. They are human. They are sinners, but those that take their religion seriously make their best efforts to obey God's laws. I'm not being hypocritical here. Why do you keep trying to imply that? I've been a faithful wife to my husband for our entire marriage, despite all the ups and downs we've had and all the things we've been through. I'm not saying one thing and then doing another. And as far as men never having sex, I think their interests would be better served by working on finding an actual relationship and doing what it takes to accomplish that goal, rather than dragging themselves through the mud with meaningless sex with prostitutes who will only damage their concept of women and sex. Most men do find someone at some point in their life. It's pretty rare that a man would go his entire life without someone. And I also think you are putting too much value in sex. There are many things in life to value and enjoy. Having some meaningless act for 1/2 hour with some prostitute who has no feelings for you is not going to improve your life. It will damage it. Your concept of sex and of women is already damaged. You just don't see it. You see sex as some commodity that you are entitled to, rather than as a sharing of something special between two people. Your view of women and of sex is damaged.

And then there are Christians that feel certain things in the bible are outdated.

I personally hate homophobia, and I am a Christian. While I don't agree that it's completely natural, it does happen, and I don't hate gay people (I have friends and family who are gay, and they are good people.)

I agree that picking and choosing your religion is bad, but there are so many divisions of, even Christianity, out there that you can't really say someone is picking and choosing what to follow.

And then there are Christians that feel certain things in the bible are outdated.

 

I personally hate homophobia, and I am a Christian. While I don't agree that it's completely natural, it does happen, and I don't hate gay people (I have friends and family who are gay, and they are good people.)

 

I agree that picking and choosing your religion is bad, but there are so many divisions of, even Christianity, out there that you can't really say someone is picking and choosing what to follow.

Is there something specific in the Bible that says same sex relationships are a sin? I personally don't think there is. I understand that God made man and woman for each other, but other then that, I don't understand what Bible verses people are looking at to make the conclusion that same sex relationships are "sin".

Is there something specific in the Bible that says same sex relationships are a sin? I personally don't think there is. I understand that God made man and woman for each other, but other then that, I don't understand what Bible verses people are looking at to make the conclusion that same sex relationships are "sin".

Let the tap-dancing begin.

Very true. Legalizing it will protect the prostitutes as well. They can be unionized and their employer will be subject to labor laws. It will stop pimps from beating them and then paying them nothing.

Not true that it will protect prostitutes. They will still be abused by men, both customers and the men who train them and break them down so that they will be accustomed to the more brutal acts that customers want to perform with them. It will lead to human trafficking and exploitation on a wider scale.

I agree with this as well. This country doesn't give a damn about the poor and working class but all of a sudden get moralistic about sex workers.

That's really not true. This country spends a huge portion of their budget on welfare to support the poor. They have child labor laws to protect their children, unlike certain other superpower countries, they have unions to protect workers. Sure, there are a lot of things that could be improved upon in this country, but compared to others, we're doing allright. Could be better, but could be a heck of a lot worse as well.

And then there are Christians that feel certain things in the bible are outdated.

 

I personally hate homophobia, and I am a Christian. While I don't agree that it's completely natural, it does happen, and I don't hate gay people (I have friends and family who are gay, and they are good people.)

 

I agree that picking and choosing your religion is bad, but there are so many divisions of, even Christianity, out there that you can't really say someone is picking and choosing what to follow.

I don't hate gay people either. I know several, and they are nice people. I used to work with a gay guy that sat at the desk next to mine. Very nice guy, very friendly. We got along very well. My hairdresser is gay. Very nice guy. We get along great. Doesn't mean I have to personally accept their lifestyle if it goes against Biblical teaching. Doesn't mean I have to support gay marriage. And some people do pick and choose what they want to obey from Biblical teaching. I was agreeing with Wolf's concept that some Christians pick and choose. I also believe that some Christians pick and choose.

Not true that it will protect prostitutes. They will still be abused by men, both customers and the men who train them and break them down so that they will be accustomed to the more brutal acts that customers want to perform with them. It will lead to human trafficking and exploitation on a wider scale.

Oh yeah? Guess what: exploitation is already prevalent.

Why don't we give prostitutes the chance to be able to turn to someone, if they need to be protected? That's only humane. There are sex workers. They need a lobby, too. They can't even call the police for help if they are being threatened. Tell me how this is fair? Tell me how this mentality accommodates Christianity? And what about strip bus where STDs are transmitted like crazy because there are no laws enforcing the use of condoms, while they do have sex in those places for money? What do you think about that? It's still happening, whether you think it's morally acceptable or not. By outlawing it and closing your eyes, things will only get worse for everyone, not better. Christians should open their eyes and see the facts and then, based on those, make a Christian decision that serves and protect the people, even if they're just sex workers. You love all people equally? Then act accordingly.

The "problem" won't go away by ignoring it. The conditions can and have to be improved, though. That will help our society, not harm it. Why do you think other countries handle the problem that way? They're not stupid. Those are developed countries with stellar education systems. People know what they're doing there. Here, IME, a false sense of morals rules and it does NOT take care of those who need it the most. It's not what God wants.

Not true that it will protect prostitutes. They will still be abused by men, both customers and the men who train them and break them down so that they will be accustomed to the more brutal acts that customers want to perform with them. It will lead to human trafficking and exploitation on a wider scale.

That's really not true. This country spends a huge portion of their budget on welfare to support the poor. They have child labor laws to protect their children, unlike certain other superpower countries, they have unions to protect workers. Sure, there are a lot of things that could be improved upon in this country, but compared to others, we're doing allright. Could be better, but could be a heck of a lot worse as well.

Just a philosophical question KathyM, but do you believe that it's the government's job to protect people, even from themselves, even at the expense of personal liberties? I ask this because I think the only way for the government to completely get rid of prostitution is to use more and more resources (aka other people's money) to violate people's individual freedoms (the right to sell and buy sexual services). Anyway, just curious.

Oh yeah? Guess what: exploitation is already prevalent.

Why don't we give prostitutes the chance to be able to turn to someone, if they need to be protected? That's only humane. There are sex workers. They need a lobby, too. They can't even call the police for help if they are being threatened. Tell me how this is fair? Tell me how this mentality accommodates Christianity? And what about strip bus where STDs are transmitted like crazy because there are no laws enforcing the use of condoms, while they do have sex in those places for money? What do you think about that? It's still happening, whether you think it's morally acceptable or not. By outlawing it and closing your eyes, things will only get worse for everyone, not better. Christians should open their eyes and see the facts and then, based on those, make a Christian decision that serves and protect the people, even if they're just sex workers. You love all people equally? Then act accordingly.

 

 

The "problem" won't go away by ignoring it. The conditions can and have to be improved, though. That will help our society, not harm it. Why do you think other countries handle the problem that way? They're not stupid. Those are developed countries with stellar education systems. People know what they're doing there. Here, IME, a false sense of morals rules and it does NOT take care of those who need it the most. It's not what God wants.

Women are exploited in that profession whether it is legalized or not. Legalizing it will not prevent exploitation. If you read the article that I posted previously, you will see that women are not protected from harm when it is legalized. They are still abused, whether it is legalized or not. Prostitutes put themselves at great risk when they engage in that business, whether it is legal or not. Risk of disease and risk of abuse. Christianity encourages people to end a sinful lifestyle. A lifestyle that is damaging and destructive to them. When people engage in a destructive lifestyle, they put themselves at risk. You're suggesting that Christianity should support legalizing prostitution so that prostitutes would be better protected. Christianity provides that ending a sinful lifestyle is what will protect that person from the harms that come from it. Legalizing it will not protect a prostitute from harm. She will still be abused by customers and by the men who "break her in" for the customers. It is not an act of love to encourage legalizing prostitution. That would be enabling a destructive lifestyle. The act of love comes from encouraging the prostitute to leave a destructive lifestyle, which is what Jesus did in the case of prostitutes he encountered.

I don't hate gay people either. I know several, and they are nice people. I used to work with a gay guy that sat at the desk next to mine. Very nice guy, very friendly. We got along very well. My hairdresser is gay. Very nice guy. We get along great. Doesn't mean I have to personally accept their lifestyle if it goes against Biblical teaching. Doesn't mean I have to support gay marriage. And some people do pick and choose what they want to obey from Biblical teaching. I was agreeing with Wolf's concept that some Christians pick and choose. I also believe that some Christians pick and choose.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

So do you pick and choose from the bible?

Just a philosophical question KathyM, but do you believe that it's the government's job to protect people, even from themselves, even at the expense of personal liberties? I ask this because I think the only way for the government to completely get rid of prostitution is to use more and more resources (aka other people's money) to violate people's individual freedoms (the right to sell and buy sexual services). Anyway, just curious.

Yes, it is the government's job to protect people--protect them from others, and protect them from themselves. That is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, smoking laws, traffic laws, laws against violence, etc. And it is at the expense of personal liberties. We are taking away a person's right to smoke when we ban smoking in public places, because the person sitting next to the smoker also has a right to breathe clean air. We're limiting and controlling a person's right to bear arms, by requiring gun registration and prohibiting ownership of certain types of weapons to protect the safety of others. We're banning drugs that harm an individual and that put him at risk of harming others. That's one of the government's main jobs is to protect people--both from others and from themselves. The government will never get rid of prostitution, but at least by keeping it illegal, it will not be expanded on a wide scale, like what would happen if it were legalized.

Is there something specific in the Bible that says same sex relationships are a sin? I personally don't think there is. I understand that God made man and woman for each other, but other then that, I don't understand what Bible verses people are looking at to make the conclusion that same sex relationships are "sin".

Here is what the Bible says about homosexual relationships:

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

by Matt Slick

There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context), and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

• Lev. 18:22
  , "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
  1
  
  
• Lev. 20:13
  , "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
  
  
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10
  , "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, [sIZE=2]10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." [/sIZE]
  
  
• Rom
  . 1:26-28
  , "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, [sIZE=2]27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."[/sIZE]
  
  

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God who created Adam, a man, and then made Eve, a woman. This is what God has ordained as the normal means by which we carry out his command to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). What God has set up is what is right -- not what sinful man sets up.

However, unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: they are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:24). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing, and then they go and promote it and condemn others who don't participate in their sin. So, without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal hell.

What should be the Christian's response to the Homosexual?

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.

As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as you would for any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of his sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness. Instead, stand firm in the truth that God has revealed, love him/her biblically, and pray for his salvation.

__________________________________________________

See Related Articles

• 
  
• Christianity and Homosexuality
  
• The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America moves closer to apostacy
  

This article is also available in: Norsk

• 1. All Bible quotes are from the NASB Bible.
  

Yes, it is the government's job to protect people--protect them from others, and protect them from themselves. That is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, smoking laws, traffic laws, laws against violence, etc. And it is at the expense of personal liberties. We are taking away a person's right to smoke when we ban smoking in public places, because the person sitting next to the smoker also has a right to breathe clean air. We're limiting and controlling a person's right to bear arms, by requiring gun registration and prohibiting ownership of certain types of weapons to protect the safety of others. We're banning drugs that harm an individual and that put him at risk of harming others. That's one of the government's main jobs is to protect people--both from others and from themselves. The government will never get rid of prostitution, but at least by keeping it illegal, it will not be expanded on a wide scale, like what would happen if it were legalized.

Okay. Fair enough. That perspective is way too statist for my tastes (being that I believe in individual liberty and freedom) but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Some people like big government and think it's the answer for everything, other people (like myself) do not.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

 

So do you pick and choose from the bible?

That passage means that God condemns homosexuality, as is His right as the creator. That passage is saying that God will put them to death if there is no repentance, whether that is during their earthly life, or whether that is in the afterlife. Their life, without repentance, will be lost. One might consider that AIDS is a curse that God has put on that lifestyle to punish it. That's entirely possible. Whether you think that's unjust or inhumane, or whatever, it is God's right to judge and condemn that which He finds sinful.

I agree that Christians shouldn't pick and choose which of God's laws they should obey. And I also agree that there are some "lukewarm Christians" that don't take their religion seriously. But Christians are not perfect. They are human. They are sinners, but those that take their religion seriously make their best efforts to obey God's laws. I'm not being hypocritical here. Why do you keep trying to imply that? I've been a faithful wife to my husband for our entire marriage, despite all the ups and downs we've had and all the things we've been through. I'm not saying one thing and then doing another. And as far as men never having sex, I think their interests would be better served by working on finding an actual relationship and doing what it takes to accomplish that goal, rather than dragging themselves through the mud with meaningless sex with prostitutes who will only damage their concept of women and sex. Most men do find someone at some point in their life. It's pretty rare that a man would go his entire life without someone. And I also think you are putting too much value in sex. There are many things in life to value and enjoy. Having some meaningless act for 1/2 hour with some prostitute who has no feelings for you is not going to improve your life. It will damage it. Your concept of sex and of women is already damaged. You just don't see it. You see sex as some commodity that you are entitled to, rather than as a sharing of something special between two people. Your view of women and of sex is damaged.

Kathy you are completely wrong. There are men who will never have the romantic interest of a woman. Some of them are disabled or have some other problem. There are even normal men who will never have the interest of a woman for whatever reason.

So they should never have sex? You tap dance around the question, by assuming there is someone out there for everyone. Even if there is, do you think it's viable for a man to get laid 1 time every 15 years?

My concept of women isn't formed by prostitutes. The few prostitutes I've been to have been warm, friendly and really cool normal girls. Of course, that's their job, but I found them to actually improve my opinion of women, they dedicate their lives to sexually healing men . My negative opinion of women has been formed exclusively by women I've dated or otherwise know.

And yes, I am entitled to it. I am also entitled to a wife. For thousands of years, men were entitled to sex and women, regardless of their post in life, the historical anamoly is this idiotic effeminate post modern period that throws biological fact under the bus and replaces it with "sociological" marxist dogma.

Kathy you are completely wrong. There are men who will never have the romantic interest of a woman. Some of them are disabled or have some other problem. There are even normal men who will never have the interest of a woman for whatever reason.

 

So they should never have sex? You tap dance around the question, by assuming there is someone out there for everyone. Even if there is, do you think it's viable for a man to get laid 1 time every 15 years?

 

My concept of women isn't formed by prostitutes. The few prostitutes I've been to have been warm, friendly and really cool normal girls. Of course, that's their job, but I found them to actually improve my opinion of women, they dedicate their lives to sexually healing men . My negative opinion of women has been formed exclusively by women I've dated or otherwise know.

 

And yes, I am entitled to it. I am also entitled to a wife. For thousands of years, men were entitled to sex and women, regardless of their post in life, the historical anamoly is this idiotic effeminate post modern period that throws biological fact under the bus and replaces it with "sociological" marxist dogma.

I understand that, for a very limited number of men, they do not end up finding a relationship during their lifetime. That is rare, though. Some don't find it for quite a few years. You are still a young man in your 20s. You have your whole life to find a relationship, and I suspect you will eventually. There are many people out there with disabilities and negative aspects about themselves that have found love and companionship through normal means, and have not resorted to prostitutes. There are many men out there that have gone years without sex and some are virgins, and they have managed to live just fine without resorting to prostitutes. Like I said, you are giving sex too great of an importance in your life to the point of getting it at the expense of another. You are supporting her damaging lifestyle that puts her at risk of abuse, disease and degradation in order to get this desire of yours met. Sex is one thing--it is not everything. Don't kid yourself by thinking that prostitutes are in this to heal men or because they care about men. They are only in it for the money--that's it. Most of them hate what they do, but they don't want to give up the money. In this day and age, we have to compete with others for a mate. That's a fact of today's life. Even married people have to compete, since if their spouse no longer considers them worth having, it is all too easy to leave them and move on to someone else. That's life in today's society. No longer a man and woman being matched up through their parents, and staying together for life. But most people can find relationships and intimacy without resorting to criminal activity or damaging activity. Even disabled people. Even people that don't have much going for them.

Kathy

There are litterally millions, tens of millions of men in China who, due to the non-existence of tens of millions of chinese women will never find one woman that way. What should they do?

Kathy

 

There are litterally millions, tens of millions of men in China who, due to the non-existence of tens of millions of chinese women will never find one woman that way. What should they do?

Dear man, you are talking about a society that exploits and devalues its women and children on a regular basis. It treats women and children as second class citizens and has young children working like slaves in factories for extremely little wages. It promotes the concept that female children are of little to no value. People there get abortions if their child is female. They do reproductive selection techniques to assure themselves that their child will be male. It is no wonder that there is now a huge imbalance between the number of men and women in China. And men have only themselves to blame for that. Pardon me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese men who have brought on these conditions onto themselves. What should they do? How about valuing women and children. How about elevating them to be people of worth. How about reversing the reproductive selection practices that their country engages in.

Dear man, you are talking about a society that exploits and devalues its women and children on a regular basis. It treats women and children as second class citizens and has young children working like slaves in factories for extremely little wages. It promotes the concept that female children are of little to no value. People there get abortions if their child is female. They do reproductive selection techniques to assure themselves that their child will be male. It is no wonder that there is now a huge imbalance between the number of men and women in China. And men have only themselves to blame for that. Pardon me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese men who have brought on these conditions onto themselves. What should they do? How about valuing women and children. How about elevating them to be people of worth. How about reversing the reproductive selection practices that their country engages in.

So why do women and children keep getting put in the same boat?

Let me get this straight, you want all the privileges and protection of a child, with all the rights and privileges of an adult man?

Screw that.

It's not the fault of some 20 year old chinese guy that there are no women. Did you know that in America we have similar eugenic principles, only in favor of women? The vast majority of couples who get test tube babies opt for female children, because America is a matriarchal society where women have more of a chance to be successful than men.

America also has a high abortion rate.

Stop being hypocritical, America is a moral dung heap just like China. And by the way, the discrimination against girls in China from what I've read has been diminished to the point where the new Americanized generation of people are discriminating against men instead.

 

It's not the fault of some 20 year old chinese guy that there are no women. Did you know that in America we have similar eugenic principles, only in favor of women? The vast majority of couples who get test tube babies opt for female children, because America is a matriarchal society where women have more of a chance to be successful than men.

 

Considering you're a man, wouldn't you be happy with this? Isn't more women being in society giving you an advantage?

Considering you're a man, wouldn't you be happy with this? Isn't more women being in society giving you an advantage?

If my whole life philosophy was based around romantic relationships with women, this would benefit me on paper perhaps. But it's not. Besides the women who don't like me now, wouldn't like me even if there were more women than men, they would just be part of some guys harem or grow old with their cats. The problem isn't about numbers, it's about modern western (and westernized) women's mentality. Ironically, this "progressive" new ideology is bringing us back to the stone age in terms of how we relate to eachother.

Not to mention societies that have more women than men stagnate in terms of creativity as well as national power. Some say there are more men than women in China? I say there are more soldiers, inventors, and scientists in China. Without men, no nation can advance or prosper. Feminine societies like America put the capital speculator above the warrior, read Spengler's decline of the West if you want to see why historically this is the symptom of a terminally ill civilization.

Not to mention societies that have more women than men stagnate in terms of creativity as well as national power. Some say there are more men than women in China? I say there are more soldiers, inventors, and scientists in China. Without men, no nation can advance or prosper. Feminine societies like America put the capital speculator above the warrior, read Spengler's decline of the West if you want to see why historically this is the symptom of a terminally ill civilization.

Perhaps, although America's population figures are somewhat skewed in terms of male-female ratios. There are numerically more women than men, but that's because we have a huge elderly population and women have a longer life expectancy than men do. Among the youth it's 104 men for every 100 women.

Spengler wrote The Decline of the West in 1918, in the aftermath of World War I which devastated his homeland Germany. I find his perspective in that work somewhat less than objective and extremely flawed.

For what it's worth my father is an economist and my mother is a bio-tech engineer who runs her own firm. Which of the two do you think has done more to advance technology and prosperity here in the West? Sure, it's an isolated case but it should alleviate some of your more alarmist claims.

Having a penis doesn't make you a builder of civilizations.

Perhaps, although America's population figures are somewhat skewed in terms of male-female ratios. There are numerically more women than men, but that's because we have a huge elderly population and women have a longer life expectancy than men do. Among the youth it's 104 men for every 100 women.[/Quote]

 

I agree. It seems like there are more men my age than there are women in my day to day life.

 

Spengler wrote The Decline of the West in 1918, in the aftermath of World War I which devastated his homeland Germany. I find his perspective in that work somewhat less than objective and extremely flawed. [/Quote]

 

His main perspective is based off Vico's new Science which was written in the 18th century. I don't understand how WWI would affect the idea that history is cyclical, in a sense people refer to this when they say "history repeats itself"

 

For what it's worth my father is an economist and my mother is a bio-tech engineer who runs her own firm. Which of the two do you think has done more to advance technology and prosperity here in the West? Sure, it's an isolated case but it should alleviate some of your more alarmist claims. [/Quote]

 

 

Well depending on the field in which your mother works, that could be a good or bad thing. Biological engineers are behind such abominations such as cloning and GM food. I could care less about economic prosperity, the fact of the matter is that the era we live in is the ass-end of history.

 

I never said there were not brilliant women in history, just that women have a tendency towards expanding on existing references or staying within the mold, while men are more revolutionary. Women take baby steps, men make leaps and strides. Hence why most women tend to cluster around the average intelligence mark, while men are either very smart or very stupid.

Yes, it is the government's job to protect people--protect them from others, and protect them from themselves. That is why we have drug laws, prostitution laws, smoking laws, traffic laws, laws against violence, etc.

Protect from others, yes, myself, no. That's an abuse of power, and it only feels like it's not while you are in the majority and oppressing others; I hope you get to try the other shoe on soon.

If you truly think it's OK to oppress others, you are evil.