Rock 'N' Roller Coaster With The Jonas Brothers?!

[Margos]

But it's not about more-intelligent creatures versus less-intelligent creatures. And it's not about "let's only have sex to have kids." It's about what you believe sex is. For the JoBros and for me, and for many celibate people, sex is more than just something "fun", and it represents the creation of life rather than the enjoyment of it. Obviously, all biological signs point to sex being something enjoyable. I'm not denying that. As Dr. Cameron said on "House, M.D.":

• "Sex could kill you. Do you know what the human body goes through when you have sex? Pupils dilate, arteries constrict, core temperature rises, heart races, blood pressure skyrockets, respiration becomes rapid and shallow, the brain fires bursts of electrical impulses from nowhere to nowhere and secretions spit out of every gland, and the muscles tense and spasm like you’re lifting three times your body weight. It’s violent, it’s ugly, and it’s messy, and if God hadn’t made it unbelievably fun… the human race would have died out eons ago."

But my whole point is that I'm glad that the JoBros are sticking to their belief/faith that sex is something much more than enjoyment. There is a responsibility that comes with sex, and they believe it comes when you find the one person who you want to share that - as well as the rest of your life - with. I believe in that as well, and so that's why I'm glad that the JoBros help promote that with their purity rings.

albert

Yes, there is a responsibility that comes with sex. This is why we have contraceptives, and condoms which have the added advantage of preventing the spread of STDs.

I'm not saying that it's OK to sleep around with, like, everyone. And if you believe that you're somehow "purer" than everyone else because you won't condescend to place your genitals on anyone that you aren't married to, then that's great.

But sex is a very good thing. It is one of the very special gifts that makes us human. It isn't something "dirty" or "wrong" or "bad," even if it does have its risks. As long as it's consensual and between two living human beings of an age to understand it (and no, I don't believe that a numerical age has much to do with that, necessarily, since people develop at different rates), then sex is something to be enjoyed.

Besides, in the case of those who already plan to wed, it really isn't a good idea to wait until you are actually married. This usually makes for a very disappointing honeymoon, with two very inexperienced people with no knowledge of each other's wants or needs. It's probably best to get that "awkard" phase out of the way before you embark on the adventure of married life.

[Maerj]

Aerosmith is a band that has been around for decades, have many hit songs and are known by a good percentage of the population. Not to mention they really do epitomize rock and roll. They were a great choice.

Now one day they will have to obviously update the ride and perhaps put another band in their place. Some ideas have included using multiple bands for different experiences. If they had to choose just one, I'd say that it would have to be Metallica. Another band thats been around for a long time and has a pretty big fan following. Their music would make a pretty cool match for the ride.

My personal choice would be Skinny Puppy. It would be an entirely different ride but I'd really enjoy it. heh

[Escapay]

We obviously have different ideas of what sex means, Margos.

Yes, there is a responsibility that comes with sex. This is why we have contraceptives, and condoms which have the added advantage of preventing the spread of STDs.

Yes, and I'm glad that schools are teaching students about it. I'm not against the teaching of contraception in high schools. I'd rather teenagers practice safe sex than unsafe sex because teenagers will be teenagers and their libido is just off the charts. I was a teenager, you were, half of UD still is. Sex is foremost on all our minds at that age (whether we admit to it or not) because that's how our bodies were wired during that particular chapter in our biological development. But just because someone's physically able to handle sex and knows the intense pleasure it brings doesn't mean they're emotionally or mentally able to handle it. Ultimately, I'd rather teenagers wait until they are much more mature than they *think* they are. And usually that age (numerical or not) happens when they decide they want to spend the rest of their life with that one particular person.

And if you believe that you're somehow "purer" than everyone else because you won't condescend to place your genitals on anyone that you aren't married to, then that's great.

I never said I felt "purer" than someone who practices pre-marital sex. Don't put words in my mouth.

I merely said that I'm glad that the JoBros have a way of telling/influencing their fans with the idea that waiting for marriage can be a *good* thing.

"Purity" makes it sound snide and pretentious and that's probably the only thing I dislike about the rings. After all, if Joe Jonas were a complete a$$hole, the fact that he's a virgin doesn't mean he's pure. Nobody's pure. We all have our imperfections irregardless of whether or not we've had sex. A person's virginity isn't always based on whether or not they've had physical sex. There's more aspects to "virginity" and "purity" than that.

But sex is a very good thing.

I never said it wasn't.

As long as it's consensual and between two living human beings of an age to understand it (and no, I don't believe that a numerical age has much to do with that, necessarily, since people develop at different rates), then sex is something to be enjoyed.

Again, I never said sex isn't something that's not enjoyable. I simply said that I believe that sex is something worth waiting for.

Besides, in the case of those who already plan to wed, it really isn't a good idea to wait until you are actually married. This usually makes for a very disappointing honeymoon, with two very inexperienced people with no knowledge of each other's wants or needs. It's probably best to get that "awkard" phase out of the way before you embark on the adventure of married life.

I don't want to come off as rude or anything, but you're not married so you have no idea how anyone's honeymoons are. And neither do I. But it's the couple's choice whether or not to wait. If they wait and have a disappointing honeymoon, so be it. Or maybe their first time ends up being the best they ever have simply *because* it's the first time, and everything afterwards is the disappointment. In today's society, it seems it's harder and harder to find married virgins. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

albert

[Margos]

Yes, we do have very different ideas about it, Scaps.

(Look, I typed out a big, well-thought out response, and somehow, my computer managed to delete the whole thing. So here's the gist of it.)

I actually am still a teenager. But I'm an informed teenager, and I'm not just referring to that joke that they call sex-ed in public high schools. I've done my own research into practical, physical, and spiritual arguements for and against premarital sex, and came to my own decisions.

Basically, there's three "levels." Irresponsibility is just sleeping around. Responsibility is sharing safe sex with another person that you feel deep affection for. Repression is denying yourself sexual gratification out of choice, no matter how committed your "non-married" relationship is. Neither extreme is good. Only responsibility is truly healthy.

And I'm sorry if you felt like I was putting words in your mouth. That wasn't my intention. But I used to go to a Catholic school, so I know that that's the general attitude of most of the people that I've met with your mindset about sexuality. And that's my problem with the rings. If, for whatever reason, you feel as though you shouldn't allow yourself sexual gratification just because you aren't married, that's your own personal choice. But when you go around broadcasting that you've chosen that, you're just being pretentious and "holier-than-thou." That doesn't make you a good role model for anyone. In fact, that makes you a very bad role model, especially if they buy into both the pretention and the repression!

And no, you don't seem rude at all. It's a fair point to make. But I've talked to enough married people to be able to compare experiences. What I've said is a generalization, but it seems fairly accurate. Of course, different couples are different, but no matter what, the first time is pretty much never the best. And it wouldn't be a very good way to kick off married life. Especially for the woman.

And no, I've never been married. But I have been deeply in love. And it's a feeling like no other. It's something intangible, indescribable, and completely unaffected by legal status.

And besides, in modern American society, "marriage" is such an arbitrarily defined thing: easily entered into and easily broken for some, damn near impossible to attain for others.

[disneyboy20022]

love....it's a feeling like no other. It's something indescribable.....

also I hear you can soar and tumble or go freewheeling through an endless diamond sky on a magic carpet ride

im sorry I couldn't reissit the plug-in of Aladdin


btw....how did a Jonas Brothers Disneyland attraction turn into a Sex ed discussion?? oh wait maybe a I'd rather not know for my own sanity...somethings are better left a mystery

[Margos]

Hooray! Aladdin reference!

But yeah, I don't know how this happened either. I've stopped question the logic of the really random discussions that break out around here.

[disneyboy20022]

Hooray! Aladdin reference!

But yeah, I don't know how this happened either. I've stopped question the logic of the really random discussions that break out around here.

Yeah....basicly when you come to UD forums here logic goes pretty much out the window and through a mac.....one minute a post about Winnie the Pooh could turn into Johnny Depp rumored to be The Riddler in the topic of Pooh....which then could turn into Tiger Woods VS Michael Moore or like talk about what cover art is for Dumbo can turn into a discussion about Heath Ledger and the Joker ....to quote a disney Channel show that I don't usually watch....It's So Random

[Escapay]

(Look, I typed out a big, well-thought out response, and somehow, my computer managed to delete the whole thing. So here's the gist of it.)

I know that feeling. That's why if I ever write a long post, before I hit preview or submit, I copy/paste it all into a word document and save it in case the internet or computer does something stupid.

If, for whatever reason, you feel as though you shouldn't allow yourself sexual gratification just because you aren't married, that's your own personal choice. But when you go around broadcasting that you've chosen that, you're just being pretentious and "holier-than-thou." That doesn't make you a good role model for anyone. In fact, that makes you a very bad role model, especially if they buy into both the pretention and the repression!

See, I don't see it that way.

With the attitudes that most people have towards sex today, "purity" rings send the message that it's okay to wait. That the person wearing it has made a promise to himself/herself that they will wait for *the one*. And that's what I'm commending the JoBros on. I mean, I'd rather the JoBros wear a ring on their hand while singing their songs than have some future Jamie Lynn Spears teenybopper give an interview to People Magazine on why she is 17 and pregnant.

Repression and your perceptions that those with rings have a "holier than thou" attitude have nothing to do with it. But if that's how you see it, well, I can't change that.

Do you consider people who wear scapulars under their clothes to be pretentious or holier-than-thou? Or those who pin a St. Christopher medal to their lapel when they travel? These are personal tokens and reminders that affect only the person wearing them. They're not out to preach to the world through jewelry and accessories. A purity ring is no different. It's the goddamn naysayers and overscrutinizing media who try to turn it into something bad when a celebrity does it.

When I did the WDW College Program in 2005, I always wore my scapular underneath my costume. I never had a need to tell anyone I was wearing it, it was simply a part of my daily wardrobe and my managers allowed it to go by unnoticed (since technically it's not part of the dress code, despite not being seen in my outerwear). It had no influence on how I did my job, I was not a better cast member than another one who didn't wear it, and a few days I went without it because I accidentally forgot to put it on.

JoBros wearing rings are no different. They're neither better nor worse musicians for them, and they're not better or worse people for them. They could go a day without wearing the ring and still be virgins. It's their own personal reminders and signs of their beliefs. And it's more than just sex. They don't drink, they don't do drugs, they don't smoke. The ring is much more than just some "no sex" thing. And what's wrong with them wearing some ring that signifies what they practice?

It's not like the JoBros start each concert with "How's everyone doing? Look, we're wearing our rings! We're still virgins! You should be too!" (at least I hope not, I've never been to a concert and I don't intend to go just to make sure my assumption is correct). They wear it as a reminder and sign for themselves. If it influences fans to do the same, then that's the fans' decision. Of course, they should be smart enough to make decisions for themselves rather than because Celebrity #19523 does it too. But if it's something as serious as sex, I'd rather they be a herd-following lamb and decide to wait because Celebrity #19523 does it instead of them ending up as either the next one profiled in MTV's "Teen Mom" or like Alfie Patten, a 13-year-old who initially believed he fathered a baby with a 15-year-old, only to learn later that he was not the father.

btw....how did a Jonas Brothers Disneyland attraction turn into a Sex ed discussion??

Well it all started when Goliath alluded that the purity rings meant the JoBros were gay and some people agreed, some disagreed, and it kinda snowballed from there.

albert

[Margos]

You definitely do have a point about the rings only affecting them, and just being a reminder....

But it doesn't make them a role model. If they want to wear them, then fine, good for them, for all I care, they can all be wearing matching chastity belts under the pants, too. But just deciding you don't want to have sex doesn't make you a role model for anyone! That's a very personal decision, that can't be made for anyone by anyone else. I personally, however, find the rings creepy. Nothing against anyone who feels the need to wear them....

In fact, maybe it's a good idea. That way, everyone can plainly see that they don't intend on fully exercising their human natures, so that any girl that falls in love with one of them would never be decieved into thinking that he'll ever give her any sort of physical pleasure. Keeps them honest.

And, as for what people ought to be, I'd rather them not be either Celebrity #19523 or Alfie Patten. People ought to have safe, responsible sex. But of course, you can't change people who feel the need to be at one ludicrous extreme or another.

And thanks for the tip about the long posts, Scaps! I'll probably try that next time I'm going to write something lengthy....

[WonderlandFever]

Those purity rings are all for publicity I mean I remember when Britney Spears had one when she came out, or maybe she just said that she'd wait (it's been too long to remember) but obviously that never happened it was to get attention.

[Margos]

Those purity rings are all for publicity I mean I remember when Britney Spears had one when she came out, or maybe she just said that she'd wait (it's been too long to remember) but obviously that never happened it was to get attention.

Maybe that would explain why she married that one guy and divorced him 24 hours later...

[blackcauldron85]

But it doesn't make them a role model.

1. They weren't the ones to initially talk about their purity rings- they were asked about why they had rings on in an interview, and it just spiraled from there.

2. Most celebrities don't seek out being role models. It just happens sometimes, especially if they have young fans.

[Escapay]

But it doesn't make them a role model.

1. They weren't the ones to initially talk about their purity rings- they were asked about why they had rings on in an interview, and it just spiraled from there.

2. Most celebrities don't seek out being role models. It just happens sometimes, especially if they have young fans.

THANK.

YOU.



albert

[Margos]

I never said that they thought that it made them role models. But I do think that some people see them as some sort of "heroes" or something that their children ought to look up to and take vows of premarital celibacy, and now it will be "cool" to do so, because the Jo Bros are doing it.

It's not that they tried to become role models, but that people have suddenly cast them as such when they're no such thing and oughtn't to be taken as such.

[DisneyJedi]

Okay, who are the two wise guys who voted to see Jonas Bros. as the ride's theme?!?!