Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 306 (313795)
05-20-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by ReverendDG
05-20-2006 1:53 AM


it's late & the nincompoopery is getting to me
...you are still making the leap that knowing about sex leads to the act of sex, this is nonsense.
If you're going to represent what I supposedly said, QUOTE ME!
I never said a thing like what you are attributing to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ReverendDG, posted 05-20-2006 1:53 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ReverendDG, posted 05-22-2006 1:24 AM Faith has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 212 of 306 (313806)
05-20-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
05-19-2006 4:53 PM


Re: My view confirmed in spades
Holmes, if you are talking about AIDS specifically I might agree with you somewhat.
It is true that the main focus of my frustration and commentary is with HIV. That is because it is currently a lethal pandemic which is identifiable through testing.
However I would include other STDs. Along with the common sense issue that sexual health includes containment of all diseases including nonfatal ones, there is mounting evidence that HIV tends to coincide with other STDs and follow other STD epidemiologiogical "trails".
But I think that unprotected sex is the problem for STDs in general. I mean, people are going to have sex with people and not know what they may or may not be infected with. I think that's just a fact of life.
Okay I want you to think about that statement. Your argument was that people should not be having unprotected sex. Isn't it just as much a fact of life that people are going to have sex with people without condoms? Many if not most people really prefer direct contact, over condoms.
The point I am trying to make is that the first and most important step is people need to get their sexual health status into the "known" category. Not to mention societies need to accurately need to identify the scope of the problem. Especially with regard to HIV, but also for others which may help spread HIV along with their own negative health conditions.
The second is that there needs to be a way for people, or society, needs to deal with the health status of potential partners who have HIV. I won't get into how that is done here as that is pretty long and drawn out.
After those two (which would drastically reduce infection rates more than condom use), changes in sexual behavior become the next important factors. In a 2005 discussion on transmission of HIV, some top researchers identified simply convincing people to switch away from unprotected and protected anal sex to oral sex (protected or not, with ejaculation in mouth or not) would reduce infection rates by up to 95%. That's right, even unprotected oral sex involving the swallowing of sperm is less risky than protected anal or vaginal sex (whether top or bottom).
Switching to mutual masturbation as an alternative would result essentially in elimination of its spread via sex (HIV or other STD).
Obviously for those that will not get tested and will not change their sexual behavior when engaging in sex with those of unknown or known positive status, then condom use CERTAINLY adds protection and is DEFINITELY advised.
But to me that seems like advocating people wear seat belts and crash helmets as the BEST SOLUTION to car injuries, instead of simply taking off the blind fold and using the steering wheel while driving (which for some reason people are doing en masse).
huge percentage (might have been 70%?) of people have HPV, but most don't show symptoms
While that is true, HPV is not a condition similar to HIV nor other STDs (especially if asymptomatic as you suggest) in its direct effect on health. And this does not reduce the fact that people can go in and get tested to find if they are infected (even if not all will be correctly diagnosed) and so reduce its spread. Ironic to your point, while condoms may help, they do not do so with the same degree that they would protect people from HPV with regard to other STDs.
Okay, again I'm not trying to come down hard on you or anything. Advocating condom use is great. You are not wrong in trying to do this. I am simply getting at the fact that there are still much better alternatives. Ones that truly address the problem, rather than trying to live as best we can without having to deal with the problem.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-19-2006 4:53 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 213 of 306 (313810)
05-20-2006 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Jazzns
05-19-2006 5:04 PM


Re: My view confirmed in spades
Nice to see you are still hanging around holmes.
Ironically one of the major reasons I am writing these days is that I'm sick! I caught some damn nonsexually transmitted cold so I can't work as I have been (thankfully it did come when I had a slight break from work anyway). My guess is in the next couple days I'll be back into lurking mode.
Of course when I lurk, yours will be posts I'll look at.
Although treating some STDs like we might an outbreak of bird flu does not quite sit well with me. We have no problem putting a quaranteen on people with some kind of fatal flu even though it is their personal medical information yet a potentially malicious person could keep their HIV, HPV, Herpes status secret under the guys of dr patient confidentiality.
Yes, I don't think all STDs must be treated as seriously as fatal contagions. Indeed I would not be so concerned except right now we have a fatal contagion that often moves with other STDs. If we are going to do one, we might as well get as many as we can. At least with regard to identification.
To be honest, while there may be malicious people (like Gaetan Dugas) who will continue to have sex despite knowing their status, and hiding it under medical confidentiality (like plague carrying is some right), I don't think that's the major issue.
Most of the spread comes from well meaning people who will change their behavior once they know their status, but simply do not know it and do not want to know it. Its sort of like the child who believes that covering their eyes means others aren't there or can't see them. Maybe its part of our instinctual makeup. We have to overcome this and identify the scope of the problem.
Right now HIV is beating the black plague as an historical epidemic. People today usually look back to think how silly it was for people not to have figured out how it was spread and the silly kinds of stop-gap measures they put in place. My guess is people in the future will have to view us in the same way. We know what the cause is, we can identify its presence in the population... but we just WON'T!
I am glad to see that Clinton is now pushing plans that involve that. Some major leader finally sees the light. Condoms merely slow the progress and allows the disease to creep around as a hidden menace to everyone.
What route do you think is acceptable for dealing with the problem more as a contagion and less like a sociopolitical problem?
There are many ways of dealing with this, and in the end I think it will depend on the individual nations to figure out what method is best for them. HOWEVER, at the very least some sort of "registry" is necessary at the very least at the top gov't level. Those carrying the virus must be identified so that they may receive treatment and become responsible for containing the spread.
Obviously hard physical quarantine (like leper colonies) is an option, and maybe it'd work great, but I don't think it's necessary at all.
To my mind one of the best methods would be introduction of mandatory testing (for HIV) of all people that seek medical treatment for anything. It should be routine, and there is no reason not to do this. In addition free testing should be available to the public and backed with some sort of incentive. Compulsory would be better, but being a rights buff I agree that might be a bit over the top, except in communities where it has become a rampant problem (some African communities might fit that).
Okay so that would start identifying the scope of the problem in a routine way. Those that have it should be placed on a list of some kind which is available to medical officials. That way tracking and treatment become easier. I do think serious sentences should be imposed on those who know they have the disease and continue to engage in risk activity with noninfected persons.
In any case, it would be a great idea to set up a system so that people can understand the health status of their partner. One of the best solutions would be quick and accurate home tests people can use themselves. At least one test already exists but is restricted because doctors fear the psychological result of an HIV positive person finding out they are positive without a counselor right there MORE than the physical and psychological results on an HIV negative person who becomes positive via the resulting sexual activity because they lacked the knowledge which would have definitvely prevented the act.
Alternatives would be a sort of dial up (or online) database. An individual would obtain a health id #. It would technically not even need names or addresses (on the public end). One partner reveals their id # and the other may check the current status (last date tested and its result) via phone or internet. This can be improved using a password system, so that it may be assured a person is not hijacking another person's health id#.
In lower tech societies neither might be available and so a simple card with last test date and result could be handed out. While someone could destroy the card so as not to have others discover their status, in this and the previous method it is encouraged that people do not have sex with anyone who does not allow them to see a card or ID for proof of recent testing. In societies where illiteracy is rampant color codes or some sort of symbology code be used.
This way it is not a red lettering of HIV positive people, but a way to white letter HIV negative people to prospective sexual partners... that could even and especially help prostitutes. I do believe this should be done for other STDs, that is to say include results for any and all STDs. And the system could be used for future pandemics of a nonsexual nature.
On a smaller community level, any open (multi-partner) sexual community ought to be putting such devices in place themselves. They could screen people impersonally (anonymously) using such a system at the doors of saunas and clubs, thus people within would not have to further screen for each individual circumstance (though they could).
I do believe the gay and bi community (which still has a bad track record for STD prevention) ought to be encouraging mass testing and change in sexual habits to stop the spread of STDs. Instead of whining about the complacency of republicans, focus their ire on the complacency of fellow gays and bis for not doing THEIR part which would solve more problems than anything someone in washington (or any other seat of gov't) could ever do.
I say this as a part of the bi and open sex community. It shocks me to see what goes on there, even with condom usage. That is not enough. You find people who are sexually active while fearing they might be positive and yet NEVER getting tested.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Jazzns, posted 05-19-2006 5:04 PM Jazzns has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 214 of 306 (313811)
05-20-2006 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by nator
05-19-2006 11:04 PM


Re: I'll explain it to you AGAIN, Faith
relationship health.
I have already asked you this. Why should this be a part of instruction on sexual health? That is a psycho-social item that will differ based on cultures and essentially come down to the individual.
Is there some objective and teachable FACTS regarding relationships that have any similarity to the objective and teachable FACTS regarding how sexual systems function and are impacted by disease?
How would such an ideal instruction deal with masturbation (within and without relationships), prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, child sex, marriage, polygamy, love and lack of love?
You are conflating two separate issues in support of an ethnocentric idea of what sex is about. To my mind it is just the same as what Faith is arguing. If you believe that people can be instructed on cultural beliefs, then abstinence only becomes viable. It will all depend on your point of view.
Lets say after such programs prostitution, extramarital sex, and acceptance of porn is seen to increase (and by the way I believe there is evidence to that effect) would you view those involved in that as having failed to understand a good message being taught, or a failure in trying to teach people not to do such things in the first place?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by nator, posted 05-19-2006 11:04 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by nator, posted 05-20-2006 9:28 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 224 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-20-2006 10:55 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 215 of 306 (313814)
05-20-2006 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by macaroniandcheese
05-19-2006 5:41 PM


Re: misunderstanding
a properly designed sex-ed course will deal with preparing children for the emotional, physical and psychological reprocussions of sexual activity without moral judgement.
How can that be done? Indeed why don't you explain what the objective emotional and psychological repercussions of sexual activity are.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain this idea and how it relates to actual sexual health to me.
it is acceptable to discuss the wisdom of early sexual activity (or the lack thereof) but you must share this information without berating and shaming people. we're trying to prevent abuse, not perpetrate it ourselves. often, honest sexual information will succeed in delaying sexual activity.
If you don't think that has anything to do with shaming people into not having sex, you are not being honest. It is often the case that an antisex message, particularly with regard to early sex, is sent along with the facts. It is not surprising to see that this is acted on.
The reason abstinence only may not work as well (with regard to delaying sex) is that it may leave a bit of mystery and sense of rebellion intact. Pointing to something and saying "don't do it" often increases its appeal. Or at the very least it draws attention to it as something to be excited by.
Though I should say that some of the evidence is not that there is so much an increase in sex with abs-only as compared to other methods, just that it does not seem realistically more effective in doing so.
The biggest problem, and I think where criticism actually hits home is what abs-only does for the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I find it funny to watch left and right try and point to WHEN kids start having sex as some sort of objective marker. The reality is whether earlier or later, married or not, with abs only there appears to be a greater level of STDs and unwanted pregnancies due to the ignorance of preventing these physical issues.
Although I like you, I have to back up Faith's statement that the types and amount of issues you detailed fall far outside the realm of sex education. Personal emotional counseling seems much more appropriate and I don't see why you should take that as an offensive statement. Unless you believe most people go through the traumas you apparently had?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-19-2006 5:41 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by iano, posted 05-20-2006 7:38 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 223 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-20-2006 10:44 AM Silent H has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 216 of 306 (313819)
05-20-2006 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Silent H
05-20-2006 6:45 AM


The power of Cool...
Pointing to something and saying "don't do it" often increases its appeal.
I haven't followed the thread much but would agree that telling folk "don't do it" does increase the appeal of something perceived as being enjoyable and increases the likelyhood it being done (no surprise: that was the reason biblical law was given in the first place - to cause 'sin' to increase!).
I imagine a well designed abstinance programme wouldn't fall for this obvious error (we talked in the past about the failings of prohibition - as well as free for all when it came to drink and drugs). Health dangers are one thing but they pointlessly attempt to circumvent the "it won't happen to me" syndrome of youth. A syndrome which has our youth kill themselves in car wrecks and take up smoking ("I won't get addicted like my sap of a parent")
An different approach to the current Abstinance/free for all ones might be to investigate and analyse (with the young) the methods by which they will be influenced so as to partake in various activities that are 'cool'. Not just sex. All kinds of things. 'Cool' is powerful enough for a person to persevere with the distasteful process of learning to smoke. It has kids wanting the right clothes, the right car, the right education, the right everything. "Fitting in" is the most powerful propellant sitting in a teens tank. It informs their decisions on all kinds of stuff.
An ongoing school course from an age whereby kids can comprehend how they are influenced by peers, by the media, politicians, family etc might just open them up to recognise when this is being done to them. And allow them to make informed decisions. "Homework: Write an essay on a decision you made this week and discuss the ways in which your decision was affected by the influence of others". By bringing out into the open (and thus normalising) that our decisions ARE influenced by peers (education starting from an early enough age so that there is less embarrassment/resistance to the idea) you can perhaps dismantle some of the power of blinded-by-peer-influcence. There is nothing wrong with choosing to take on peer views but something inappropriate about following them in order to simply conform.
Attempt to make more chiefs and less indians.
The big corporations would, of course, have a complete mickey-fit - which would only add to the fun!
All without invoking the fatal "don't do that".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2006 6:45 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by CK, posted 05-20-2006 7:49 AM iano has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 217 of 306 (313820)
05-20-2006 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by iano
05-20-2006 7:38 AM


Re: The power of Cool...
I never quite buy the "coolness" argument - many teenagers have sex because it's a lot of fun. I didn't have sex because my friends used to tell me to sleep with a girl, I used to do it because I enjoyed it.
I'm not saying that peer pressure does not play a part but I don't think it is as big an influence as it sometimes claimed.Even if you make more "leaders" - I still don't see how that stops them saying "hey this sex stuff is fun!" or even how that presents a reason they should not have sex.
Edited by CK, : No reason given.
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by iano, posted 05-20-2006 7:38 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by iano, posted 05-20-2006 8:06 AM CK has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 218 of 306 (313824)
05-20-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by CK
05-20-2006 7:49 AM


Re: The power of Cool...
We know that big corporations scan the globe looking the 'cool' They analyse what they (for instance) wear and the environment they hang out in. Then they set their advertising around those things. And before you know it the kids are walking around with jeans going south and tops going north. It doesn't seem to matter that all you have is a spare tyre hanging out - that the trend and follow it zillions do.
Then you see 40 year olds in the supermarket dressed the same way as their kids only their are stretch marks and caesarian section scars added to the spare tyres. This is cool at work
I never quite buy the "coolness" argument - many teenagers have sex because it's a lot of fun. I didn't have sex because my friends used to tell me to sleep with a girl, I used to do it because I enjoyed it.
Drugs are fun, so is careering around in a stolen car, so is smoking (or at least you think so) so is getting pissed (getting sick is not an issue so long as getting sick is deemed part of what it is to be cool)
How would you not buy the coolness argument unless you were well educated enough at that age and were shown in which ways the influence was working on you. Its a bit late now for you to look back and suppose you weren't influenced.
Anyway its not about 1 individual - its whether large numbers of people can be influenced to take a course of action aided by the culture operating on them or whether they are taking it due to own decision

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by CK, posted 05-20-2006 7:49 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by CK, posted 05-20-2006 8:12 AM iano has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 219 of 306 (313827)
05-20-2006 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by iano
05-20-2006 8:06 AM


Re: The power of Cool...
I don't get the connection between smoking, drugs and stealing cars. Those are all to do with external man-made objects. Sex is do to with two people in an emotional or physical process.
I still don't get what your programme is teaching in regards to sex? Let me pose some questions and see where we get.
1) Would you teach about the use of condoms?
2) Would you teach that sex before marriage is right/wrong/not a part of the program?
I don't understand how teaching people about outside pressure is going to stop them having sex? Unless you are teaching them "wanting to have sex is wrong".
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by iano, posted 05-20-2006 8:06 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by iano, posted 05-20-2006 8:27 AM CK has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 220 of 306 (313829)
05-20-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by CK
05-20-2006 8:12 AM


Cool and the gang
I don't get the connection between smoking, drugs and stealing cars. Those are all to do with external man-made objects. Sex is do to with two people in an emotional or physical process.
You'd have to take a hi-speed cops and robbers car chase with your best buddy to understand. For myself, sex at an early age had nothing at all to do with her. She was an object - just like the car was. At least with the car chases I had someone to bond with.
Down my way you only have to look at the plethoria of single mothers to understand that the bonding gained through young sex had, for many, more to do with the physical than the emotional.
As to your questions. The education I was suggesting had to do with "how you will be influenced by others". It would I would suggest begin at an early age. Why not from school start? Its a separate thing from sex or drug or car driving education. Your questions are more relevant to those who are discussing sex education.
Having said that, if a person did chose to have sex then whatever you could teach them so as to reduce risk is the loving thing to do. Few mothers want their sons climbing up on a motorcycle - but if they do then by all means get them trained.
Sex before marraige. That is a question which stems purely from worldview in which case my world view would teach that it is a sin and like all sin it is designed to steal something from them. It wouldn't be taught in a vacuum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CK, posted 05-20-2006 8:12 AM CK has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 221 of 306 (313844)
05-20-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
05-20-2006 1:08 AM


Re: I'll explain it to you AGAIN, Faith
quote:
Technically you are correct, but in spirit what I said is the truth.
I am not against abstinence if that is what someone decides is right for them. In fact, I heartily support anyone who decides to remain abstinent. It would be silly to do that because that would be how I chose to live for many years as a teenager and a young adult.
I doubt very much that most here would actively oppose abstinence as a valid choice.
Now, can you explain to me, please, how that makes me anti-abstinence?
quote:
I've pointed out that on this thread everybody thinks there's nothing wrong with sex outside marriage and all the traditional moral boundaries.
There isn't anything wrong with sex outside of marriage if that is what the individual person so believes and freely chooses.
Also, there isn't anything wrong with remaining abstinent until marriage if that is what the individual person so believes and freely chooses.
There are also "traditional moral boundries" against having sex in any position except missionary, for women to initiate sex, for sex to ever be engaged in for non-procreative reasons, against masturbation, against interfaith and interracial marriage, etc., etc.
So, it very much seems to me that you have your own particular moral code that you believe everyone else should follow.
quote:
That's like being against abstinence as such.
I am not against abstinence if it is chosen freely within the context of knowledge rather than ignorance and fear.
quote:
Even if technically it is presented as an option, a rather weakly defended option I'm sure.
Why are you sure? You yourself have made it perfectly clear that you have no knowledge of sex education programs at all.
quote:
But yes, technically you are correct. Mea culpa.
I don't want you to be sorry.
I want you to stop misrepresenting the position.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 1:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 1:01 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 222 of 306 (313847)
05-20-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Silent H
05-20-2006 6:29 AM


Holmes, I am not going to comment upon this line of argument other than to say that you are the only person in the world I could ever imagine thinking it's a bad idea to teach children in our culture (which is the culture they live in and will likely continue to live in) that respect for one's self and one's chosen sexual partner is a bad thing.
Honestly, this is what I take away from your posts, and I am aghast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2006 6:29 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2006 3:29 PM nator has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 223 of 306 (313863)
05-20-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Silent H
05-20-2006 6:45 AM


Re: misunderstanding
you're both missing the point.
a well designed sex ed course would first cover a very detailed, medical discussion of sex, sexual arousal, and sexual desire. then it would discuss stds and pregnancy. how, what, etc. then contraceptives and profilactics.
but the course is not complete without finishing with a discussion of how to make the decision to start having sex. how to analyse if you are ready and how to say no if you are not. have people discuss how sex can affect your emotions. have people discuss how sex can change the way you think. don't give kids timelines, don't suggest that they are too young. but prepare them to make that judgement.
if you haven't given them all the information, you are not being honest. if you only tell kids the medical information, you're not preparing them. sex can immensely affect your brain. it releases MASSIVE neurotransmitters. and if you don't prepare them for that, then you are lying. you can very easily tell someone that 'you might think you're in love with someone after you have sex' without shaming them. you can also honestly tell people that 'people will try to coerce you and that is not acceptable' without shaming them.
if my sex-ed class had been designed this way, i would have been much better prepared for dealing with sexuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2006 6:45 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2006 4:02 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 224 of 306 (313866)
05-20-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Silent H
05-20-2006 6:29 AM


Re: I'll explain it to you AGAIN, Faith
what exactly is wrong with porn?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2006 6:29 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by iano, posted 05-20-2006 1:16 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 306 (313901)
05-20-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by nator
05-20-2006 9:18 AM


Re: I'll explain it to you AGAIN, Faith
Sigh. Everything you said is exactly what I was talking about. The sum total of your relativistic view -- leaving the choices up to the individual -- is that sex is OK outside all the moral and cultural standards that used to be respected. That was my point. That's the position everybody here holds that I was trying to answer. Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by nator, posted 05-20-2006 9:18 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024