rcrocket wrote:a couple had James Bond's type of sex in public at a party...
Pardon? I don't know what you mean here. Are you refering to the poster who uses this name? How do you know anything about "his type" of sex? I haven't seen him advocate public sex, or any particular sexual position, or fetish. I honestly don't know what you mean.
So, argue all you want that vulgarity is acceptable and something to admire. It ain't, and I don't admire Mr. Bond. If you or your friend Mr. Bond think they can influence on-the-fence Mormon or Evangelical readers with your brand of shameful vulgarity, then by all means proceed. I am not offended; I comment upon the weakness of your argument for all to see. rcrocket
I never said "vulgarity" was acceptable or admirable, I just attempted to imply with my reference to Catullus (whose sexual puns are still anything but mainstream) and Shakespear (bet I could still find something in there 'twood make a barrister blush!) that the category itself was historically variable and rather subjective.
Further, I wish to influence no one, just contribute to open discussion.
I didn't think I had been vulgar, let alone shamefully so. I admit to some insinuating and smirking remarks, but wouldn't shameful vulgarity be obviously brazen? I would appreciate it if you would point out examples of this to me so I can learn from them.
And finally, I have formed no board alliance with Bond of which I am aware ; )