Losing virginity early or late tied to health risks
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Monday, December 10, 2007 06:20
VIEWED: 10121
PAGE 2 of 2
"Uberstraw" - isn't that the one that gets driven through solid wood during a tornado ?
***************************************************************
USfolkloreisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, "uberstraw" is a strawman driven by a big wind.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, I’m anti-Citizen. I hate your guts. Are you happy now?
Originally posted by citizen:
A statement straight out of the Ancient Greek movement of Sophistry. So really, while you're labelling me with an "anti-religion" bias, all you're really demonstrating is an "anti-Citizen" bias.
Quote:Yes, we do. You’re going to need to call what you’re talking about something. You can’t have a discussion without defining what you’re talking about, and as soon as you define it, you’ve labeled it. Take Signym’s little comment about how he’s too logical to demean himself with labels, as he calls everyone on the board either “type one” or “type two.” Signym can’t keep from labeling everyone on this board, even as he’s trying to convince you he above the use labels. Granted, he’s not very imaginative with his labels, but they're still there. There are entire fields of science devoted to labeling things. You can act highbrow about it and pretend that you don’t do it, but all you’ll end up doing is defining certain labels as appropriate enough not to be called “labels.”
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:But why? You don't need labels to argue issues.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I do evaluate people’s arguments based on my impression of their past positions, and that often leads to labeling positions a certain way.
I don’t know how many times I come home from work to find either Signym or Rue throwing a fit because I didn’t respond to them immediately. For two people who are so certain that I’m an idiot, they certainly do seem very eager to hear what I have to say.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The thing you're talking about, yes. But you don't need to know that I'm a 5'10' person or a white person or a Libertarian person or an Irish person to discuss an issue with me. And if you don't need to know it, but you do, and bring it into the discussion to call bias, you're using or attacking the person's background, experience etc. to further your argument, and like Cit alluded to, that's the sign of desperation during a failing presentation.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re going to need to call what you’re talking about something.
Quote:I do not, BIPED!
You can act highbrow about it and pretend that you don’t do it
Okay, so I do sometimes...but I try to keep it out of serious discussion. Except with Hero and AU...in a twisted way they sort of feel like family to me- and you're allowed to call your stupid idiot younger brothers names.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're the smartest 'Conservative' on this board, and a great foil (and the two skirts have crushes on ya I suspect..
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know how many times I come home from work to find either Signym or Rue throwing a fit because I didn’t respond to them immediately. For two people who are so certain that I’m an idiot, they certainly do seem very eager to hear what I have to say.
).
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Obviously there is no 'think' about it. I merely know. :P
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, you're all care-free about what the world thinks of you personally, meaning what? You suddenly see us as ants and you're all above us- and no one is as smart as you are? And if there's a God- you're it, 'cause no one is as righteous?
Quote:Is the wrong question. The right question would be, how I afforded such an expensive flat at my age...
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Well, if you're God, as you clearly must be saying from all this, why can't you get a cheaper flat????B]
Quote:Not really, but the assertion that you are anti-Citizen is at least as strong, if not stronger, than you're assertion that I'm anti-Religion, or for that matter the assertions that I'm anti-American. I'll criticise them both when I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I hate either, or view either’s actions through the lens of who or what they are.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, I’m anti-Citizen. I hate your guts. Are you happy now?
Quote:There’s a difference between labelling what you're talking about, and labelling who you are talking too. One is conducive to debate, the other is not.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yes, we do. You’re going to need to call what you’re talking about something.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Feigning some undefined personal attack because we find ourselves unable to understand what each other is talking about is not nearly as conducive to debate as you might think it is.
Originally posted by citizen:
There’s a difference between labelling what you're talking about, and labelling who you are talking too. One is conducive to debate, the other is not.
Quote:I’m not sure that I agree with that sentiment, but thanks anyway.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You're the smartest 'Conservative' on this board, and a great foil (and the two skirts have crushes on ya I suspect..
On the other hand, since you just called me a Conservative, even though its probably an apt description, I guess you just personally attacked me.
So, stop oppressing me, and stuff.
And also down with the Man.
This is a bit more personal then I usually get so don’t expect a lot more, but I’ll try to explain this.
As far as what a responsible decision is, let me just explain the impression I get from many critics of abstinence only program, although I’m not an advocate of any abstinence-only program, I’m far more in tune with that then I am with what I hear from many of its critics. Most people realize that children shouldn’t be having sex, but most people also don’t care. It’s just an ethical issue that is always someone else’s problem. Until you stop to seriously think about what might happen the day your daughter meets a younger you, then the chills run down your spine, because that’s when sex takes on a new dimension and becomes that thing that might destroy your daughter’s future and leave her burdened and unhappy.
Now here comes the critics. They have several reasons for their opinions. Some are just young men who see sex much as I once did and sometimes still do. It’s just something they want to get and it’s all good. I can sympathize with them the most. Then there’s the radical New Left types who long for some strange utopia where we all screw like chimps. They see abstinence as a tool of a rigid social that steals away the fun and enjoyment of sex. Then there are the anti-religious types who see abstinence as a tool of religious types to shove their religion down our throats. There’s probably someone I’m leaving out, but it doesn’t matter, because it makes no difference what the motivation is, the message is always he same. They all realize and accept that abstinence is preferable, but they also demand that children will make mistakes so we have to prepare them for that - a reasonable approach on its surface, accept the way they put it is something like this “Abstinence is the best policy, but let me show you all the wonderful paraphernalia that you can could use that will make sex completely safe and wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
And so what is the real message here? Is it really that children should avoid sex? Or is that just lip service to what is the obvious responsible choice by someone who only cares about their ideological fear of religious types shoving their dated social mores down their throats or the wonderful world that would form if we all screwed like chimps? In the end who is looking after my daughter? I’m the one that cares. I don’t want the first thing my daughter thinks about when she faces John TallDarkAndHandsome putting on the suave moves to be people telling her about all the wonderful ways condoms make sex safe and enjoyable. I want her to be thinking about how special she is and that any man that loves her and is worth her, will wait until she is really ready to share with him a very special part of herself. That’s what it should be about.
Now everyone makes mistakes, and my daughters might make a mistake. Obviously, I rather them make it safely then unsafely, and I‘d rather us raise an expected teen-grandchild then for her to marry some guy she doesn‘t love or abort or give it away since all of these options are much harder to deal with, but these are contingency plans for events that we don’t want or
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Knowledge is an important part of being able to assess risk. I think the problem I have with abstinance as I understand it is that it is used in place of sound sex education.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It was very well defined. Refusing to listen to other people is the thing that stalls debate more than anything else, but using obvious Ad Hominems and refusing to acknowledge the fact doesn't help too much either.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Feigning some undefined personal attack because we find ourselves unable to understand what each other is talking about is not nearly as conducive to debate as you might think it is.
Quote:Only if he used the description of 'conservative' to dismiss your argument, which he didn't but you did, and often do. You're not a moron, so you're apparent inability to grasp this incredibly simple premise would seem to be intended obtuseness. Like I said, continue to use logical fallacies, it only harms your position and not mine.
On the other hand, since you just called me a Conservative, even though its probably an apt description, I guess you just personally attacked me.
Quote:Personally I don’t, and never have thought of Women as merely a means to my sexual gratification, maybe that’s just me though.
Until you stop to seriously think about what might happen the day your daughter meets a younger you, then the chills run down your spine, because that’s when sex takes on a new dimension and becomes that thing that might destroy your daughter’s future and leave her burdened and unhappy.
Quote:Demonising everyone you disagree with? Well, I guess that proves me wrong with what I said about ad Hominems.
Now here comes the critics. They have several reasons for their opinions. Some are just young men who see sex much as I once did and sometimes still do. It’s just something they want to get and it’s all good. I can sympathize with them the most. Then there’s the radical New Left types who long for some strange utopia where we all screw like chimps. They see abstinence as a tool of a rigid social that steals away the fun and enjoyment of sex. Then there are the anti-religious types who see abstinence as a tool of religious types to shove their religion down our throats. There’s probably someone I’m leaving out, but it doesn’t matter, because it makes no difference what the motivation is, the message is always he same.
Quote:I would prefer actual education to grinding arbitrary lines brought up from moral elitists. It’s usually best; at least in the realm of personal choice, to give people the tools (i.e. education) to make their own decisions, of course that doesn’t sate the appetite of the rigid authoritarian mindset. The real position you’re caricaturing is exactly that, educate them on the subject, rather than just stand over them saying “don’t do it, don’t do it, don’t do it”. But then, what I am saying, it’s not like Teenagers find forbidden, mysterious things enticing or anything, is it? I would ask why you find educating people so that they can make informed decisions is a position that finds such a level of disdain within you that you feel it necessary to make those that do argue for it into stone structures on the side of gothic churches?
They all realize and accept that abstinence is preferable, but they also demand that children will make mistakes so we have to prepare them for that - a reasonable approach on its surface, accept the way they put it is something like this “Abstinence is the best policy, but let me show you all the wonderful paraphernalia that you can could use that will make sex completely safe and wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Quote:In your heavily loaded strawman, or the real issue?
And so what is the real message here?
Quote:I care plenty, I care enough to look at the real issue, rather than trying to portray anyone who thinks differently as the devil.
I’m the one that cares.
Quote:
I don’t want the first thing my daughter thinks about when she faces John TallDarkAndHandsome putting on the suave moves to be people telling her about all the wonderful ways condoms make sex safe and enjoyable. I want her to be thinking about how speciNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, that's not what I said. I said there are MANY types who post at this board. I also said that one type seems to use labels MORE THAN the other, not that some don't use labels at all. And you're right- in a sense, every word is a label. And that study is called ontology. But what I find problematic is that you use labels ... as an end point to a discussion, not as a beginning.
Take Signym’s little comment about how he’s too logical to demean himself with labels, as he calls everyone on the board either “type one” or “type two.” Signym can’t keep from labeling everyone on this board, even as he’s trying to convince you he above the use labels
Quote:Whatever.
I don’t know how many times I come home from work to find either Signym or Rue throwing a fit
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I just think I'm gonna barf !
(and the two skirts have crushes on ya I suspect..
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I have what many parents fear: A good looking mentally challenged oppositional teenage daughter over whom I have absolutely no legal control (anymore). Do you think I don't care about her?
Seeing as she thinks in very concrete terms, and I'm not about to give her a fuzzy message about "maybe this and maybe that" my lessons are very straightforward: If you have sex without using birth control, eventually you will get pregnant. You may also catch a fatal disease. Nobody should make you feel as if you HAVE to have sex with them. If you have a problem, tell me about it.
You DO tend to demonize people who don't agree with you, and assume all kinds of things about them that aren't true. There are really two questions here:
SHOULD children have sex? If so, how young? Under what conditions?
If not, what is the BEST way to prevent it?
Now, IMHO I don't think people younger than about 18 "should" have sex. The reason is because people younger than 18 (or in some cases 21) are at a significant legal and practical disadvantage: In many states they can't see doctors privately, can't get independent health insurance, don't understand the law, don't have enough money to be truly "equal". So I don't fall into your demon-category of saying that children should be screwing like monkeys.
But given that, children will still feel the urge to have sex, or be pressured by peers, or drink too much or get high, or be abused by someone. So, what is the BEST way to prevent sex.... or failing that, what is the best way to prevent the consequences of sex?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry, man.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So, stop oppressing me, and stuff.
Quote:Actually, a younger me is exactly what I'd want for my daughters (had I some), I was respectful, and waited for someone I loved to take that plunge with, and even later, as a broken-hearted cynic, when I was using sex as a substitute for the love I thought would eternally elude me, I was still the gentleman, and actually turned down a couple of forceful offers (funny how disinterest on one side breeds interest on the other...).
Until you stop to seriously think about what might happen the day your daughter meets a younger you, then the chills run down your spine, because that’s when sex takes on a new dimension and becomes that thing that might destroy your daughter’s future and leave her burdened and unhappy.
Quote:That's so funny, LOL.
Then there’s the radical New Left types who long for some strange utopia where we all screw like chimps.
Quote:My message to my younger self, my actual son, or my what-if daughters would be, and is: sex is wonderful with the right person, but until you're able to accurately judge who that right person(s) is, or even locate them in this big world, stick with fantasy- you can always masterbate and imagine. Pregancy and/or aids aren't worth a momentary thrill with the unknown.
They all realize and accept that abstinence is preferable, but they also demand that children will make mistakes so we have to prepare them for that - a reasonable approach on its surface, accept the way they put it is something like this “Abstinence is the best policy, but let me show you all the wonderful paraphernalia that you can could use that will make sex completely safe and wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Quote:I believe I just said it- are you asking me to repeat myself?
And so what is the real message here?
Quote:I'm down with this!
I want her to be thinking about how special she is and that any man that loves her and is worthy her, will wait until she is really ready to share with him a very special part of herself. That’s what it should be about.
Quote:Of course not, like being aware of your seat cushion on an aircraft being a flotation device is not central to your plane ride.
Now everyone makes mistakes, and my daughters might make a mistake. *** They are not the central message, and anyone who thinks it is, doesn’t really give a damn about my daughters’ happiness.
Education and responsibility first Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
How you could post the things that you do characterizing my position (and others') just shows you never read OR never understood, OR you did and are willing to misrepresent anyway.
Some observations -
First, there are some things that don't add up - your mother had more than 1 child so obviously she didn't learn the lesson you think she did (or should have) from her first one. It ruined her life so competely she kept right on at it.
Second, you need to enter the age of modern medicine and learn two words - paternity testing. That means that no man will ever have carefree sex again and therefore no woman will ever again be so 'stuck' (pun intended).
Third, you state that people who disagree with you don't care either about their own children (especially their girls) or other children. Not only do I care about the girl children in my family, I care about other people's girl children AND boy children. And you know what ? The more sex education there is the lower the rate of teen pregnancy, teen abortion and disease. You say you want to prevent those problems ? Good. Then get behind real sex ed. (Oh and your spew about how sex ed encourages sex is a load and completely unsupported by any statistic. Get out of your fantasy world.)
Fourth - you have nothing - nothing to say about the hyper-sexualization of younger and younger children to hawk products, or indeed about the pervasiveness of sex to sell sell sell in general. You seem to think it's all the 'liberals' fault when in fact it's the people you love and trust the most - the businessmen.
And btw these same haloed businessmen demand TV products (sometimes called shows) that routinely draw a young large audience - which means sex-and-violence shows, or is it violence-and-sex ? These are lessons you want your children to learn - right ?
Fifth - children should not be having sex. But the children who DON'T get that message at home aren't going to be reached by abstinence only classes. Or they might get that message but it doesn't 'take b/c they have no 'future' to 'ruin' - because they have average intelligence or less, because they come from a poor home and b/c they see no way out and realistically know they will never escape with the resources they have.
And the children who DO get that message and DO have a future don't need those classes.
I care about ALL children. And what ALL children need are neutral facts about sex-including its emotional, social and physical aspects.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good point about advert. SEX SELLS. And so we're exposed to literally hundred of sexualized messages a day.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Simplistic joke get funny response...
Originally posted by rue:Quote:I just think I'm gonna barf !
(and the two skirts have crushes on ya I suspect..
Bad Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and on a semi funny note ...
I have the perfect method for Finn to keep his girls ignorant and undefiled by education ....
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In Ira Levins' book, This Perfect Day, children were introduced to sex as soon as they felt the urges, paired up by compatible personalities, and let loose in a safe, conception-free (chemical birth control) environment to explore it. In the book, the had a 'feeding frenzy' of it, until the newness wore off (a couple of weeks), and then returned to the real world, with all that out of their systems so they could once again focus on their studies.
Originally posted by SignyM:
SHOULD children have sex? If so, how young? Under what conditions?
I would have loved that at age 13 or so....
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Confession here? I would have loved it at age 6. Altho I realize that's a bit unusual... I know 'cause I asked around later and.... Fortunately for me I lost interest around 8 y/o and didn't regain it until later.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh don't even get me started there, Rue...
I've actually been mortally offended on two occasions I'll relate to ya in a moment here, but yes, there's a serious problem with businesses attempting to sexualize children, particularly on the net - although one has to wonder that the only one who introduced legislation to try to rein it in a little bit was Mark Foley, subsequently trounced for similar conduct.
(his bill died in committee, mind)
Beyond that, not gonna go there cause that path leads straight down a rabbit hole you never, EVER wanna peek into, not if you value sleeping soundly...
Anyhows, the two things struck me to take issue with, one was certain stores selling undergarments for girls that were wholly not appropriate - but that is a parental decision, and other than informing them of my personal decision to avoid their products, it is for the parents who's kids that stuff is aimed at to hack em off at the knees for it, as an Anarchist there's strict limits to how far one believes they should go to influance others behavior...
Still, I was a bit offended by that indeed.
The other actually lit my temper and caused a phone call to the local TV network followed by a bit of rabble rousing amongst some parents.
Some cosmetic surgery clinic was airing ads aimed at young girls during saturdary morning cartoon blocks, and I about flipped when I saw that... it takes a *lot* to horrify me, given what I do, but that did it.
Public parental outrage got em to pull those ads, thankfully, which were not only inappropriate, but downright creepifyin in a way.
All of this ties in, because in a world where they're bombarded with that crap by advertisers at every possible moment, you *have* to give them some other trustworthy source of information about this kind of thing, and if you shine them on, lie to them, or distort the facts on something as dire important as this... they will never trust you ever again.
And then they will find another source of that information, which may or may not have their best interests in mind.
Again, honesty is the best policy.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, Rue- Amen again about advertising.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Accelerated incu does that to some transgenics...
Originally posted by SignyM:
Confession here? I would have loved it at age 6. Altho I realize that's a bit unusual... I know 'cause I asked around later and.... Fortunately for me I lost interest around 8 y/o and didn't regain it until later.
452isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Blast! You deduced my real identity!
Accelerated incu does that to some transgenics...
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is that like transgender?
Originally posted by chrisisall:
transgenics...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, no, no! I'm part human and part
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I just wanted to say it probably wasn't about sex per se as it was about physical stimulation. The same muscles that control peeing control the genital area and once you get those under better control and get that feedback ...
***************************************************************
ABuzzKillIsAll ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess I'll never know.
But yanno, even some very little children are capable sexual feelings. That doesn't mean they should be having sex, so... at what point does it become OK?
I guess I'm still sticking with the "sex between adults" kind of notion. There's something about sex between wildly unequal people, or when one person is at a serious disadvantage, that just really really bugs me.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's a social decision. The Native Hawaiians (before the sailors and then the missionaries got to them) were OK with any kind of sex. They figured it feels good and it gets you children, and who doesn't love children ? Children were a semi-communal responsibility.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I was curious, because I had heard that much of what M Mead heard was a hoax perpetrated on her by a bunch of mischevious teens, and decided to look up Polynesain sexual mores.
www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/frenchpolynesia.html#1
I can say for sure that I don't understand all of it, but it is very very different from us.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This part seems not-so-good:
Originally posted by SignyM:
www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/frenchpolynesia.html#1
Quote:
Suggs (1966:71-73) describes contemporary Marquesan sex as including virtually no foreplay and lasting five or less minutes.
This must be from crude and inaccurate observation, I can only conjure.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, you found THAT real fast!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Haven't you read Geezer's wisdom? I always harp on the negative...
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wow, you found THAT real fast!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, and you missed THIS....
The taure’are’a period in the life cycle is... a transitional period between childhood, to’iki (kid), and adulthood ‘enana motua (parent person). Kirkpatrick describes it as “errant youth” Taure’are’a are characterized by their sexual adventures... Taure’are’a are known for brief sexual liaisons in contrast to adult sexuality... As a period in the life cycle, taure’are’a is characterized by its pleasure-seeking goal and is looked back upon fondly by adults. Taure’are’a is regarded as a temporary status that gradually evolves into adulthood. ... It is a cultural value that both partners should desire and enjoy sex.... Most youngsters had sexual intercourse between 13 and 16 years of age.... "mutual orgasms were expected and... nearly always achieved”
... traditional Tahitians, both premaritally and maritally, experienced sexuality with great joy and gusto, and that this value was expressed in the wider culture through styles of interaction and verbal banter, religion, entertainments, mythology, etc.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You sound like a player to me.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Actually, a younger me is exactly what I'd want for my daughters (had I some), I was respectful, and waited for someone I loved to take that plunge with, and even later, as a broken-hearted cynic, when I was using sex as a substitute for the love I thought would eternally elude me, I was still the gentleman, and actually turned down a couple of forceful offers (funny how disinterest on one side breeds interest on the other...).
Quote:I think you understand my feelings on this matter, but take a look at what rue thinks:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Of course not, like being aware of your seat cushion on an aircraft being a flotation device is not central to your plane ride.
Quote:Rue has just proven everything I just said. If you want your children to be responsible, according to rue, that means you want to abuse your children. Rue evidently views teaching children responsibility and self-confidence as comparable to burkhas and Taliban style totalitarianism. So I guess the only way for me to raise my daughters in a way that would suit rue (if I gave that much of a damn about what rue thinks) is to not only allow them to do whatever they want, but to actually teach them to be promiscuous. There you have it. While Signym theorizes how much he would have loved sex at the age of six, rue accusing me of abusing my girls because I want them to wait until they are ready. I couldn’t have asked for a better example of the kind of extremism that I’m talking about.
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, and on a semi funny note ...
I have the perfect method for Finn to keep his girls ignorant and undefiled by education ....
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Wow, are YOU off-track! And it's your erroneous labeling... and all those unexamined assumptions that go along with them... that's throwing you off!
While Signym theorizes how much he would have loved sex at the age of six
hee hee hee hee
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not based on this:
Signym:
SHOULD children have sex? If so, how young? Under what conditions?
Chrisisal
In Ira Levins' book, This Perfect Day, children were introduced to sex as soon as they felt the urges, ...
I would have loved that at age 13 or so....
Signym:
Confession here? I would have loved it at age 6.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really. Even if Rue fell into one of your caricatured attacks on people you disagree with, it doesn't extend to everyone. Extending one persons actions to all individuals within some arbitrary group is called bigotry.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Rue has just proven everything I just said.
Quote:It's no more a strawman than you're insistence that education means teaching children to be promiscuous. Part of a proper education would be responsibility. Abstinence only doesn't teach responsibility, it teaches avoiding it.
Rue evidently views teaching children responsibility and self-confidence as comparable to burkhas and Taliban style totalitarianism.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, it’s called generalizing, but if you could read, you’d have found that I was not talking about everyone, just a certain critical perspective of the abstinence-only concept, of which rue is very indicative of.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Not really. Even if Rue fell into one of your caricatured attacks on people you disagree with, it doesn't extend to everyone. Extending one persons actions to all individuals within some arbitrary group is called bigotry.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Rue has just proven everything I just said.
Quote:Once again, if you could read, you’d have figure out by now that I never said education means teaching children to be promiscuous. That’s purely a figment of your imagination. Or in other words, it's a strawman.
Originally posted by citizen:
It's no more a strawman than you're insistence that education means teaching children to be promiscuous. Part of a proper education would be responsibility. Abstinence only doesn't teach responsibility, it teaches avoiding it.
Basically, you have no fathomable clue what I’m talking about.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I did read, you were the one going on about how critics of Abstinence are this that and the other. You pay lip service to "maybe I missed one", but it's a clear rhetorical technique to paint all with the same brush.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, it’s called generalizing, but if you could read, you’d have found that I was not talking about everyone, just a certain critical perspective of the abstinence-only concept, of which rue is very indicative of.
It's a good thing you realise that and wish to disavow that position, if you could stop doing it as well as realise it's wrong, then you'd be getting somewhere.
Quote:If you say so, you're the one that said Abstinence only was preferable to the critics who are "anti-religious", "promiscuous" and so on. My point was that children should be educated fully, not just told to "not do it". You tried to pass me off as merely "anti-religious", either you are guilty of what you accuse me of (not being able to read) or you are purposefully attacking me with Ad Hominems and Strawman arguments, in order to dismiss what I've actually been saying. Which would indicate that you think (beyond you actually flat out saying so) that children should not receive a full education on the subject. You've been attacking the people making that argument throughout this thread, and certainly indicated that by characterising education beyond being told not to do it as encouraging promiscuity, so on the face of it saying you're not against a full education would constitute back peddling.
Once again, if you could read, you’d have figure out by now that I never said education means teaching children to be promiscuous. That’s purely a figment of your imagination. Or in other words, it's a strawman.
Basically, you have no fathomable clue what I’m talking about.
I'm not the one trying to pass off anyone that disagrees with me as people so wrapped up in their idealogical hatred, that they want to harm my daughters.
In other words most of your argument is based entirely on strawmans of the opposite position, and you obviously haven't a clue of what I'm talking about.
Neatly evidenced by the fact that your responses to me haven't formed a questioning of my argument, but merely calling me anti-religious, and trying to make the case that such an Ad Hominem is a reasonable argument.
Can you argue against my position, or do you find yourself incapable so merely prefer to attack me personally?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m simply clarifying what you misunderstood, again.
Originally posted by citizen:
It's a good thing you realise that and wish to disavow that position, if you could stop doing it as well as realise it's wrong, then you'd be getting somewhere.
Quote:It’s a huge red herring. Accusing me of ad hominems over and over again, because you don’t seem able to understand what I’m saying is not a “position.” If you have a position and can articulate it in some mature way, then maybe we’ll have something to talk about, but if all you intend to do is come back with this tired assertion that I’m attacking you, then there’s probably no argument to be made against that. In fact that’s probably the whole point of such an assertion - to avoid dealing with a counter argument.
Originally posted by citizen:
Can you argue against my position, or do you find yourself incapable so merely prefer to attack me personally?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Describing calling someone "anti-religious" and ignoring the reams of on topic writing they've posted as 'not being an Ad Hominem', indicates you either don't know know what an Ad-Hominem is, or your argument is based too heavily on them to admit to it. A strawman backed by Ad Hominems, and a constant insistence that attacking the arguer rather than the argument isn't an Ad Hominem, despite being a text book example, isn't a "position".
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s a huge red herring. Accusing me of ad hominems over and over again, because you don’t seem able to understand what I’m saying is not a “position.”.
Funny how I'm giving reasoning as to why it is, while you're saying "no it isn't".
I've made my position quite clear, you have ignored a rather long post where I outlined my position, preferring to concentrate on how attacking my character isn't really an Ad Hominem. It's clearly you who is concentrating on the Ad Hominem, since I've made several on topic posts that you've simply ignored while going after my character.
Quote:I have done, several times, and you've ignored it, several times. But that's the point of an Ad Hominem, attacking an argument you find yourself incapable of refuting. Here's a quote of the relevant portions of the post that you ignored, preferring to keep up with your insistence that my argument is worthless because I'm anti-religious (which of course is not a personal attack):
If you have a position and can articulate it in some mature way, then maybe we’ll have something to talk about, but if all you intend to do is come back with this tired assertion that I’m attacking you, then there’s probably no argument to be made against that. In fact that’s probably the whole point of such an assertion - to avoid dealing with a counter argument
Quote:
...Quote:I would prefer actual education to grinding arbitrary lines brought up from moral elitists. It’s usually best; at least in the realm of personal choice, to give people the tools (i.e. education) to make their own decisions, of course that doesn’t sate the appetite of the rigid authoritarian mindset. The real position you’re caricaturing is exactly that, educate them on the subject, rather than just stand over them saying “don’t do it, don’t do it, don’t do it”. But then, what I am saying, it’s not like Teenagers find forbidden, mysterious things enticing or anything, is it? I would ask why you find educating people so that they can make informed decisions is a position that finds such a level of disdain within you that you feel it necessary to make those that do argue for it into stone structures on the side of gothic churches?
They all realize and accept that abstinence is preferable, but they also demand that children will make mistakes so we have to prepare them for that - a reasonable approach on its surface, accept the way they put it is something like this “Abstinence is the best policy, but let me show you all the wonderful paraphernalia that you can could use that will make sex completely safe and wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
...Quote:And a proper education should be geared towards that, and I simply don’t accept that teaching children that sex is mysterious and forbidden would be in anyway a substitute.
I don’t want the first thing my daughter thinks about when she faces John TallDarkAndHandsome putting on the suave moves to be people telling her about all the wonderful ways condoms make sex safe and enjoyable. I want her to be thinking about how special she is and that any man that loves her and is worth her, will wait until she is really ready to share with him a very special part of herself. That’s what it should be about.Quote:And the only person suggesting that it should be the central message if actual education were used, is you. But it’s much more fun to demonise anyone who thinks differentl
They are not the central message, and anyone who thinks it is, doesn’t really give a damn about my daughters’ happiness.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, what you’ve done is mischaracterized what I’ve said, accused me of attacking you and tried to pass that off as a position. All you’ve done is made it quite clear that you’re not listening to me, and don‘t have any intent to. Let’s take a look at some of your responses. This is a question you asked me:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've made my position quite clear, you have ignored a rather long post where I outlined my position, preferring to concentrate on how attacking my character isn't really an Ad Hominem. It's clearly you who is concentrating on the Ad Hominem, since I've made several on topic posts that you've simply ignored while going after my character.
citizen
Quote:This is a bullshit question, which presumes a position I’ve never taken. The only way to respond to that is tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about, to which you’ll insist I’m attacking you.
I would ask why you find educating people so that they can make informed decisions is a position that finds such a level of disdain within you that you feel it necessary to make those that do argue for it into stone structures on the side of gothic churches?
The very next thing you claim is even more telling:
citizen
Quote:You openly agree to what I say, but then turn around, in the same sentence and act as if I’m saying something different in direct odds to the very statement I made, which you agreed to. There is nothing more irrational then this, except for maybe rue. You’re entire so-called “position” is nothing more then contrarian rhetoric. You are absolutely committed to disagreeing with me, even if you agree with me.
And a proper education should be geared towards that, and I simply don’t accept that teaching children that sex is mysterious and forbidden would be in anyway a substitute.
And if I respond to correct you, I’m attacking you. Basically, there doesn’t seem to be any way of reasoning with you. And I see the exact same thing in Rue. You can’t reason with rue either. The question is why? Why do you and rue insist upon accusing me of being some sort of religious misogynistic fanatic, when nothing I‘ve said even begins to suggest that? What is it about what I’m saying that threatens you so much?
Now my guess is that your response will be something on the order of “Stop attacking me!”
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My position is that Abstinence only is not adequate, and that full education would include something besides "don't do it". I'm not openly agreeing with you, I'm partly agreeing with you, but also saying that I prefer full education. Since you were arguing for Abstinence only as a preferable position, and since Abstinence only is in no way shape or form a full education on the subject, all you are doing here is purposefully mischaracterising what I said. Which truly is irrational, and a strawman.
You openly agree to what I say, but then turn around, in the same sentence and act as if I’m saying something different in direct odds to the very statement I made, which you agreed to. There is nothing more irrational then this, except for maybe rue. You’re entire so-called “position” is nothing more then contrarian rhetoric. You are absolutely committed to disagreeing with me, even if you agree with me.
I don't agree that Abstinence only is preferable to a full education, that includes contraception. You're entire so called “position” is nothing more than attacks on people you disagree with.
Quote:No, when you ignore my argument, and call me Anti-Religious I accuse you of attacking me, and I'm right.
And if I respond to correct you, I’m attacking you.
Quote:If you find asking you to concentrate on my argument and not me unreasonable, it says more about you than me.
Basically, there doesn’t seem to be any way of reasoning with you.
Quote:Rubber Glue? I've never once alluded to or implied you are a religious misogynistic fanatic. I note that when I said you accused me of being anti-religious, I provided quotes where you said just that. Where as in return all you've provided is an unreasoned baseless accusation. However, if I have no right to say calling me anti-religion is an Ad Hominem, and just an attempt to dismiss my argument, I fail to see how calling you a “religious misogynistic fanatic” can be considered bad. Unless of course you're running with the tired old “it's ok when I do it” nonsense. This constitutes a flat out lie of what I have said, and if you are unprepared to debate honestly, I am unprepared to continue to enable your behaviour.
The question is why? Why do you and rue insist upon accusing me of being some sort of religious misogynistic fanatic, when nothing I‘ve said even begins to suggest that? What is it about what I’m saying that threatens you so much?
You have successfully turned this thread into an attempt to prove people you disagree with are evil, yet again. You're inability to argue against my position, and thus desperation to prove that I don't have one, speaks only of yourself.
Though I do note that my previous statement:
Quote:Has proven to be entirely correct. You've not touched on my position once (save to say I don't have one), and used your entire post to question me as person.
Originally posted by Citizen:
I sit waiting for you to ignore my position, in preference of questioning my character.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually I’m arguing it as being referable to the fanaticism of some of its critics, like rue, but I was quite clear in pointing out that I’m not an advocate of any abstinence-only program. Or do you not understand what “I’m not an advocate of any abstinence-only program” means?
Originally posted by citizen:
Since you were arguing for Abstinence only as a preferable position,
And then you accuse me of ignoring your argument. That’s rich.
Quote:“Stop attacking me!!!!”
Originally posted by Citizen:
Has proven to be entirely correct. You've not touched on my position once (save to say I don't have one), and used your entire post to question me as person.
::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
“I’m telling.”
::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, it's true. I was very clear that you said prefered, not advocated. You're agreeing with me, then turning it around, as you accuse me of earlier. So again, you lie about what I said.
And then you accuse me of ignoring your argument. That’s rich.
Funny how the more you try to prove me wrong, the more you prove me right.
One day you'll be able to have a discussion without lying about the opposition, but not today.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"Stop attacking me!!!"
Originally posted by citizen:
Funny how the more you try to prove me wrong, the more you prove me right.
One day you'll be able to have a discussion without lying about the opposition, but not today.
::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please stop having a tempertantrum because you can't come up with a logical argument finn.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"Stop attacking me!!!"
::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
Resorting to trollish behaviour at all attempts at reason, I'm curious as to how this disproves anything I've said.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:“No. You are!!”
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Please stop having a tempertantrum because you can't come up with a logical argument finn.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"Stop attacking me!!!"
::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
“Finn is attacking me!!!”
::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
::slam::
::tears:: ::tears::
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess this constitutes your logical reasonable argument, huh
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
“No. You are!!”
“Finn is attacking me!!!”
::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
::slam::
::tears:: ::tears::
Wow, you are actually trying to prove me right! Thanks man, I don't need your help, but I do appreciate it.
Bubbye, I let ya have the last immature word, here's a length of rope, do with it what you will
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
::tears:: ::tears:: ::pout:: ::pout::
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL....you guys are KILLIN' me here!!!!
*wipes away tears*
Okay...now THIS exchange would REALLY surprise me...
*image swirls cuing the dream sequence*
Finn:
Sorry Citizen, if I'm not as clear as I could be sometimes, I just don't respond well to animosity, and I'm feeling sort of attacked here. I basically like you guys- but it seems like you want to see me as the one who's wrong here...
Citizen:
Sorry Finn, I guess I just needed to hear that my logic isn't faulty...I guess I do understand that your position isn't as extreme as I'm seeing it as. I sometimes demand too much precision from people...
Finn:
Friends?
Citizen:
Always have been, mate.
*dream sequence ends*
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym: SHOULD children have sex? If so, how young? Under what conditions?
Chrisisal: In Ira Levins' book, This Perfect Day, children were introduced to sex as soon as they felt the urges, ...
I would have loved that at age 13 or so....
Signym: Confession here? I would have loved it at age 6.
--------------
That's not the part that you misunderstood. But it's a known fact that some children... yes, those innocent little angels... can have intense sexual arousal. And yep, that's what I was experiencing. I know it's a horrifying thought (to you) but I'm not about the deny the truth because it doesn't fit into your view of the way things "should" be.
But you're under the assumption that I'm a horny old guy who just wants to defile your daughters, which is why you assume that I'm making the argument that all kids should screw like monkeys. 'Cause yanno, there's my entre. I'm not a horny guy. Chris had it figured out but you are too blinded by your own assumptions to notice what's right in front of your face. Go re-read his posts and become enlightened.
BTW- You've entirely mischaracterized my position, and have once again decided to attack the person and not discuss the points. You have NO idea what I think. Get out of your own head, Finn. Take a deep breath, open your eyes, look around, stop that yammering list of "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" and just SEE what is out there.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' 'bout!
Originally posted by SignyM:
Most youngsters had sexual intercourse between 13 and 16 years of age.... "mutual orgasms were expected and... nearly always achieved”
Evil
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, that‘s not my impression of you at all, nor has it ever been. I’m not arguing the reason why you said what you said, I’m using it to demonstrate the way some critics of abstinence only view what is appropriate with regard to sex and children. I’m painting a picture of the allowable limits of what is deemed appropriate in this discussion. In this discussion, debate about six year olds having sex is deemed appropriate, but even the mention of responsibility with regard to sex, gets ridiculed even as far as to compare it to Taliban style totalitarianism. And it’s not unique to just this discussion. It is one that I have to deal with in almost every discussion on teen sexuality or almost anytime I bring up the idea of responsibly with regard to sex. As our culture seemingly moves further and further towards quick and easy fun, we may be becoming too overly critical of responsibility with regard to sexuality and family. And it’s a pretty sad picture to paint.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signym: SHOULD children have sex? If so, how young? Under what conditions?
Chrisisal: In Ira Levins' book, This Perfect Day, children were introduced to sex as soon as they felt the urges, ...
I would have loved that at age 13 or so....
Signym: Confession here? I would have loved it at age 6.
--------------
That's not the part that you misunderstood. But it's a known fact that some children... yes, those innocent little angels... can have intense sexual arousal. And yep, that's what I was experiencing. I know it's a horrifying thought (to you) but I'm not about the deny the truth because it doesn't fit into your rigid view of the world.
But you're under the assumption that I'm a horny old guy who just wants to defile your daughters, which is why you assume that I'm making the argument that all kids should screw like monkeys. I'm not a horny guy. Chris had it figured out but you are too blinded by your own assumptions to notice what's right in front of your face. Go re-read his posts and become enlightened.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I never tried to paint Finn as an extremist, though he certainly did so to me, he in fact flat out said I was. I said he preferred Abstinence to what it's critics argue for, which again are his words more or less. He then implied that he didn't think measures such as teaching children contraception should be included, right here:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
LOL....you guys are KILLIN' me here!!!!
*wipes away tears*
Okay...now THIS exchange would REALLY surprise me...
*image swirls cuing the dream sequence*
Quote:I get he doesn't support abstinence only, but neither does he appear to support full education. Instead of trying to explore that issue he tries to paint me as Anti-Religion, then denies that an obvious attack is one, and spends the entire thread trying to push it further off course. He's been entirely unreasonable, and I don't care for his complete disrespect for people who have a different opinion to him.
“Abstinence is the best policy, but let me show you all the wonderful paraphernalia that you can could use that will make sex completely safe and wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You do sometimes have a knack for summing things up.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn:
Sorry Citizen, if I'm not as clear as I could be sometimes, I just don't respond well to animosity, and I'm feeling sort of attacked here. I basically like you guys- but it seems like you want to see me as the one who's wrong here...
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really. He indicates that you 'basically like you guys', which is obviously as far from the truth as you can possibly get. It's nothing to do with wanting to see you as the one in the wrong, it's that you are, but want to see me as the one in the wrong.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You do sometimes have a knack for summing things up.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Instead of trying to explore that issue he tries to paint me as Anti-Religion
*Mal voice*
Well he did a bit.
Everybody's fussin'...
Peace n' understandingisall
to BDN
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What you're saying is that the conversation lacks balance. One side of the spectrum gets ridiculed, the other side is taken seriously.
Actually, that‘s not my impression of you at all, nor has it ever been. I’m not arguing the reason why you said what you said, I’m using it to demonstrate the way some critics of abstinence only view what is appropriate with regard to sex and children... In this discussion, debate about six year olds having sex is deemed appropriate, but even the mention of responsibility with regard to sex, gets ridiculed even as far as to compare it to Taliban style totalitarianism.
Okay, I get it. I like to look at ALL arguments 'cause I might be missing something, so let's look at your end. Tell me if I'm wrong. You prefer abstinence until marriage. That is your ideal. I'm not sure that a lot of people would vehemently disagree. Heck, everyone's entitled to a preference. But the point that I'm not clear on, and I suppose a lot of other people aren't clear on either is.... are you a proponent of abstinence ONLY education? Or do you favor also teaching about sex, birth control, masturbation, the reasons why kids have sex all that other stuff?
FWIW, I feel a little envious of all those kids who grew up with sex ed. I went to a Catholic school and grew up in the household where nobody talked about sex. Everything I learned I had to figure our on my own. I sometimes wonder if sex ed would have eliminated some experiments and maybe saved me a few mistakes.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think I explained myself pretty well already. I am not a proponent of abstinence only and I am in favor of teaching "sex education," meaning sex, birth control and masturbation. Although I don’t have any intentions of getting into discussion of why 6-year olds have sex, because that’s just a little too damn bent.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, I get it. I like to look at ALL arguments 'cause I might be missing something, so let's look at your end. Tell me if I'm wrong. You prefer abstinence until marriage. That is your ideal. I'm not sure that a lot of people would vehemently disagree. Heck, everyone's entitled to a preference. But the point that I'm not clear on, and I suppose a lot of other people aren't clear on either is.... are you a proponent of abstinence ONLY education? Or do you favor also teaching about sex, birth control, masturbation, the reasons why kids have sex all that other stuff?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay then, I think you and everybody else in this thread pretty much agree. And in THIS culture, sex at 6 IS "bent".
It seems to me that our commercialized view of sex and Islam have something in common: it's all about dominance. We've tied violence and sex so closely it will take years to disentangle. It seems to me that Muslims look down SO far on women that hetero sex approaches bestiality. So I guess it's all about context, which we have to take into accoutn when forming our decisions.
But OOC- Is there anything about this culture that you would change with regards to sex?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah, Finn, just scrolling though the first third of the thread I found many instances where you either attacked the person or misrepresented their argument.
So here is a small sampling, for your edification:
Allow children to do whatever they want without supervision and you as a parent deserve to have your skin flayed and strung up by your nose hairs. Don’t play this game with me, Chris. No good parents allows their children to go to amusement parks without supervision of some sort or allows them to watch TV unabatedly without concern for what they are watching, so why do people advocate that children should be allowed to have sex at will without parental consideration?
You’re absolutely right. Since sex by it’s nature is generally a private thing and parents aren’t allowed to be directly involved in the children’s sex life, the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being.
In other words, you don’t really have a rational response.
Spoken like a single guy without daughters.
Blah blah Blah. As usual, you can’t deal with the issues, so you attack the person you don’t agree with or take someone’s words out of context. (This one is particularly ironic.)
I see, so 15 year old girls should screw all they want, because they can always kill or give away the pregnancies? Man that’s some cold shit.
I doubt it. Even those who buy into your general ideology aren’t stupid. They know damn well you’re full of shit, even if they don’t confront you on it.
Or you could just try to instill in your children a since of self-pride and responsibility, so that they can always make the best effort to enjoy all of life’s riches, without becoming bitter and cynical. I guess telling them to live life to the lees with carefree abandon is easier, but failing to inform them of what might very well happen if they do, seems like a real asshole thing to do to your children.
I don’t think I have been secretive about what my views are. I’ve been talking about them all through this thread. If you can’t have a conversation with someone without putting words in their mouth, then I can’t do anything about that, but I don’t have to participate. When you decide you’d like to know what I think instead of the thoughts you want to attribute to me, then my posts will still be here for you to read.
***************************************************************
I leave you to decide which is which. If you have any problems, I'll be able to help you out.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It seems to me that Muslims look down SO far on women that hetero sex approaches bestiality. So I guess it's all about context, which we have to take into accoutn when forming our decisions.
I think this is a mischaracterization. I don't pretend to be a Muslim scholar, but I have read the Koran and a few potted histories of the life of the prophet. Mohammed was in effect a kept man, he married a rich widow and her money gave him the freedom to travel and preach. She was educated and it seems to have been a relationship that was equitable. Later on in the Koran he sets forth rules that give women rights to inherit property, requirements on men for the fair treatment of women etc. This was FAR short of equality, which should be the standard we all aim for today but for it's time and in that culture it was screamingly progressive and certainly better than we had in Europe at that time where a woman was effectively the property of her father and then her husband.
The problem comes with the underlying Arab culture. In theory a girl wearing a full Burka on a London street is breaking the rules of Islam with regards to modest dress. She is drawing attention to herself and being different from those around her, which the Koran says Muslims should not do. The fact that her family forces her to wear it is Arab culture trumping the intent of Islamic teaching, much how a car salesman can lie and cheat during the week, go to church on Sunday and think of themselves as a good Christian.
Arab culture sees women as the responsibility of men, her own father and brothers while she is unmarried and her husbands family when she weds. They are seen in effect as children who should follow the rules set by their menfolk. The irony of the Burka is that on some level it comes from the desire by the family to "protect" the woman's reputation (and by extension their own.) It's an example of how protection can become oppression if used excessively.
So no, Muslim men don't view women as animals, they view them as something they have a responsibility to protect even when the result of that "protection" is stupid and misguided.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Rue, I try not to engage in the same behavior. Which means I really try to stick to the topic despite provocation. Yes, Finn demonizes the opposition. But then, sometimes so do you. And I personally don't want to get into who started it first.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Read JUST MY POSTS.
If you can find an example, please let me know.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Being a lazy guy from a corrupt western culture, I prefer my women to be able to think for themselves. Makes for less work for me & better conversation after sex.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Arab culture sees women as the responsibility of men, her own father and brothers while she is unmarried and her husbands family when she weds.
Lazy Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The infamous dbl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay Rue, I re-read the whole thread. I DID find several instances where I think you rather purposefully took Finn's statements out of context, where it was pretty clear what he meant, and that was
Are you saying that the abstinence-only crowd invites their parents along on the honeymoon ?
Wait a minute. I thought the reason to not teach sex-ed in schools was because the parents are teaching it at home. So the parents are NOT now allowed to be directly involved in their children's sex lives ? That means the schools better start teaching sex-ed. Right ?
And the burqa, which was a joke but Finn took it seriously.
OTOH.... Finn, no wonder people get pissed at you. You REALLY put words in people's mouths. You spent a lot of time arguing with the phantoms in your head, not the posters. IN EVERY POST you called a lot of names: fanatic, uncaring, "bent", advocating promiscuity, interested only in screwing young girls, irrational, full of shit, anti-religious (as if that's part of the discussion), irresponsible... Hell, you almost called some folks sexual predators. And for what? For advocating sex education! Which, it turns out, you agree with!
I'm beginning to see why so many discussions with you go downhill so fast. You can dish it out but....
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
so why do people advocate that children should be allowed to have sex at will without parental consideration?
Because it's none of the parent's damn business, that's why!!!
I don't have kids myself, and don't plan to, but I really hate people that assume that parents have the right to be dictators to their kids. Kids are humans too, last time I checked, and while they do need people to teach them how to function in society, they have the right to make their own decisions.
That was just from that part of the thread; now I've read the rest of it, and...
I am getting way confused by what you guys are all saying. I think everyone is just getting mixed up with all these accusations and counter-accusations. Why don't you all just state your opinions, and nothing else, and lets go from there.
My opinion is that we need to teach kids everything about sex, and that abstinence only is not enough.
@)~*~*~*$)~*~*~*)~(*~*~*~($*~*~*~(@
Gots to get away from the green, nasty dragon
\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/
I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!
#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#
My favorite quotes:
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I won’t say I agree, but I will say that I really appreciate your honesty. It’s very refreshing given the approach I’ve seen in this thread so far.
Originally posted by RiverFlan:
Because it's none of the parent's damn business, that's why!!!
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh poor Finn! He's the only one being straightforward in this whole thread! Pobrecito!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Simple and concise. You must be in your teens....
Originally posted by RiverFlan:
My opinion is that we need to teach kids everything about sex, and that abstinence only is not enough.
Never trust anyone over thirty Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME