Dancing is just dancing if your not holding the one you love but, should one have to face the possibility of dying for a dance? Should one be beaten or robbed for a chance to dance? Why do we blame the dance for were we as people put our foot wrong? HHHMMMMMM? Dirty Dancing?

Peter always holds to this cloying fantasy of religious taboos/superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy; all the invention of frightened men. In this article he falls back on his pseudo-discipline, "theological truth" (whatever that may mean) as being the only "wisdom" that constitutes the human which is where we see human standards of morality being used to establish a teddy (i.e. god) and indeed teddy's goodness.

Peter's naive assumption is that without a teddyman belief, a person is then without heart or values or morals ... and without humanity. BUT Peter's own "morality" conveniently overlooks the fact that religious belief stamping of babies and the vulnerable is false. It seems that Peter is oblivious to his teddyman belief as a perversion, a systematic control hazard, an emotional blackmail and a crude extortion of an individual's psyche. Isn't he thus in the very act of offering and devoting his talent to an unworthy cause. Isn't he then about exploitation and indeed prostitution?

Of course there is no teddyman. Before concluding that we need something more like a teddyman's magic unveiling, or a transcendence, or a gratuitousness, or a mystery of disclosure, or a need to be loved, then just intentionally study what is already here. Our lives are always about causality and this should be no surprise but be naturally understood as a learning opportunity. We can all exercise some testable implications, intuitions, feelings, analysis and rational functions of the mind unless a teddyman has expunged this ability. We can also avoid any hasty conclusions in the exercise of our moral and ethical responsibility. This realistic attitude simply means you value life and love much more than the teddyman worshipers ever will.

aqvarivs,

"Dancing is just dancing if your not holding the one you love but, should one have to face the possibility of dying for a dance?"

Agree. If directed at me, we are talking at cross purposes. I am not advocating affairs, rather I was saying that not all sexual activity with one's life partner is directed towards child birth.

Oliver, no it wasn't directed [at] you, it was in reference to your analogy, I just took it a step further to include a general happenstance that some times develops where people start referring to sex as "dirty" rather than their mindset. I personally believe sex is a responsibility and if it's done for commerce then it's a social responsibility and as a society it is incumbent upon us all to see those involved safe. No different than we would manage any other business or product. But we don't. We give victim status to the prostitutes and criminalize the men.
We keep the womans name a secret and publish the mans name on the front page as if we just apprehended a crime boss. It's Victorian, and unrelated to how people think today. It's time we dealt publicly with this issue and not continually sweeping it under the proverbial carpet. There is no doubt that prostitution is a moral hazard but, it's one that has dogged society since early days. While we're still just talking about it lets at least protect those involved while we talk. Then we wont be just talking.