Sex Education

Agreed. Find me the passage where God speaks of monogamy. Jesus and some of the apostles might have, but God himself gave rules on how to have more than one wife.Marriage was important, but the number of wives was not. Jesus and his disciples did not necessarily overrule those laws set by God. That is not true. You can have all the promiscuous sex you want and never suffer pregnancy or STDs or even guilt. The first two are based on how you have sex, not the number of partners. The second is based on having sex consistent with your value system, and believe it or not people do not all have your value system. What does self control have to do with not having sex with another person? Or better put, why does self control not include not talking to others of the opposite sex, or not dancing with the opposite sex, or not ever being near others for which you might have sexual interests, etc?I think you would be right that people should be taught selfconfidence to follow their own beliefs, and parents should try and instill their beliefs into their children.As much as I am for promiscuous sex, I do not believe that that should be a part of sex ed, and indeed have never heard of a sex ed class promoting such a thing. Neither Monogamy nor polygamy are answers to inherently personal level issues surrounding sex, and as such should have no part in sex ed. That needs to be discussed at home and with one's friends/community.Sex ed is how to protect your sexual health, whether you wait till marriage or not. For a guy claiming such great self control, and that others should also have great self control, how can a sex ed course teaching methods of staying healthy convince you or anyone else to have sex now, instead of later?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well it depends on what one means by promiscuous. You just gave three different definitions. The third has no level of irresponsibility and is usually how people refer to "promiscuous".Of course there can be equivocation between not having much care in who your partners are and doing so in a manner which can risk your health. That seems to be what may be implied in the second definition as well as the last half of the first definition.I have had casual sex with many different partners, many anonymously, and so has more than one of my gfs. No one has ever caught anything at all. We do get tested so its not a case of ignorance. Its how you interact with those you do not know, or do not know the health of, that will determine what you can walk away with.Lack of morals does not cause anything. Engaging in certain sexual acts with people that are infected with something, will open you to transmission and so "cause" something.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a prude. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a hedonist either. They both come with risks and benefits.I would argue that asceticism (prudishness) has more risks involved, and so is more of a vice than hedonism, but that is another topic. That is just name calling. The truly immature defend their position, by calling someone of an opposite position immature if they state their position. That is patently absurd. If this were true then everyone would always become less interested in sex and there would be no porn or swingers. Believe me, breasts still look like breasts and I've seen plenty of them.But I do find this an interesting argument if accepted just for sake of debate. So you are against people becoming doctors? I mean all of them train specifically to view breasts as just glands. That is harmful in your opinion?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What do orgies and anonymous sex have to do with unsafe sex? I don't want unsafe sex promoted either. Of course promiscuous sounds negative. That is how it has been protrayed for ages, well when combined with sex. Sex itself sounds negative to most people.Look at what you just wrote. You discuss respect for "the act" and "their bodies" and "their partners", yet seem to feel that that has some connection to the number of partners they have and how well they know them.You don't want sex to be viewed negatively, yet you want it to be negative enough on what you feel uncomfortable with. Well that's just what the far right want as well. Nothing that says what they don't want, and blasts what they don't want.The ONLY THING that sex ed should be promoting is safe sex. That is a particular set of facts regarding how to retain sexual health no matter if you are a right wing monogamous bible-thumper, or a rampant horndog.There is no such thing as someone teaching any class of kids what "right" sex is. That is for parents to try and impart, and children to explore for themselves.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Did you miss my post replying to your assertion? The definition does not. There were three. The first one doesn't really, except on how you interpret the second half of the def, the second one may depending on how your interpret it, and the third has none at all. absolutely agreed then. Promiscuous does not sound bad to me, but it does to you. The definition is neutral, and so what you are experiencing is cultural effects, perhaps even personal effects. Why should we change words, instead of you just changing your attitude? But what does that mean? I would agree but what I think is respect and responsibility is something very different from what you or someone else might think.To a fundie respect and responsibility may be not engaging in homosexual acts which demeans onesself and ones partners. I might note at this time that homosexuality has a negative air to it, including irresponsibility, to many people. Should we come up for a new word for that? I am all for that, but I just do not see how that can be done in a consistent way that is acceptable to everyone, accept a basic idea that one should not violate the rights of others and try to be honest and understanding of the desires of others.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

General insults are just as much name calling as specified insults. You attempted to defend prudishness by saying that they can still be shocked, and immature people consider shock to be something only neophytes experience.Unless you have some evidence regarding immaturity and that position, I am afraid that really is namecalling. That makes no sense. A doctor sees breasts and trains him or herself to view breasts as glands. Now that is either a good thing or it is not for a person's sexual health (that is what you said). It can't suddenly be good for the doctor's sex life because in other situations he is a doctor. This may surprise you but I agree. Well nudity itself does not bother me, but when its presence feels forced, perhaps obligatory, then it bothers me aesthetically as well. That's the same for packing every single type of human emotion into every damn film. You can't just have an action picture, but you have to have a romance and a comedy as well! Gag.However when it is appropriate for the movie I am all for it. And contrary to your assertion breasts never start looking like glands to me. Yes the "shock" would wear down to nothing, but what does that mean?In case you still don't get the doctor scenario, how about nudists? They see all nudity at all times. Is their lack of shock something detrimental?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, I would not agree with that statement. Many teens feel quite good about feeling shocked, and seeming to be shocked, especially things they might like to do but are afraid others will dislike them for. What does jadedness have to do with an open sexuality? Or experience with nudity?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just to clear things up, I said my gf was in porn. I haven't said whether I make porn movies or not. I did admit that I was in a regular movie... it is definitely NOT porn (in fact it was sort of satirizing porn)... which was graphic enough to be hit by the latest laws related to porn.Over the course of my life I have done a lot of interesting and natural, and perhaps some "unnatural" (a gf once ate an entire KFC meal off my body) things. All in fun, and no one ever got hurt.The only time people ever got hurt, and it was usually me, was when emotions/relationships were involved. But then it wasn't sexual issues, only relationship issues that caused the feelings of pain and anger. You can feel betrayed by others and betray others beyond just the physical act of sleeping with someone else.But in any case, for those wondering, the last few years of my life have been pretty routine. My gf gets a lot of action, but I have not, except with guys (which I am getting tired of as I really prefer girls). I have been relatively monogamous for the last few years. Moving and a series of physical problems (nonsex related) have cut out any "action" for rather long periods.Believe it or not we really are like most people, just without the preconceptions and so hangups about what we can enjoy.Imagine how silly it might seem to you if you found a society which said no one can eat with more than one other person in their life, that eating desserts was sinful in any case (nutrition only), and cooking or eating for just onesself or more than one other person (especially of the same sex) was a mortal sin. In fact, displays of food or the mouth (especially the interior) are lascivious and forbidden.That is what most societies seem like to us. We don't have to constantly be doing wild things every moment. Just as you don't have to be eating ten courses of desserts with tons of others every moment. Its just that sometimes we can and do.Thankfully some well catered affairs may finally be peeking on the horizon for me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Boy you totally missed the point of that analogy. You most certainly can, and I assume you have at some point in your life, walked away from a meal regretting that you ate with a certain person (or people), or that you chose to eat something you would rather not have. Perhaps feeling guilty about that extra glass of wine, or slice of dessert, or that you got to have that great meal while a friend couldn't make it because they were home sick.The point was not to analogize who you were having sex with to food that you might eat. The point was to analogize sex with any other behavior (in this case eating) which you can engage in and has a social dimension.Yeah, that analysis raised my eyebrows a bit.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Fantastic analysis. You understand exactly what I was trying to say.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ben deacribed my position perhaps better than I could have. Certainly more concise.Preconceptions and hangups may come from both the culture one lives in as well as one's more immediate experiences (family and friends). They may certainly form your "tastes", but I would make the distinction that there is a technical difference between the two in that preconceptions and hangups are not analyzed and reviewed.I would also perhaps define hangup as being a limitation toward action, while taste may not curtail action at all. Well that's both true and not true. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue for here, as you have consistently ridiculed other cultures that have preconceptions and hangups you do not like, while I have only defended the existence of my own.As Ben very wisely and accurately stated there is a difference between the cultural and the individual level. Experiencing other cultures forces the individual to truly reexamine their own cultural influences.I think this is perhaps why Americans are at a disadvantage compared to most other nations. The US is geographically isolated, relatively cuturally homogenous, and does not invest in sending its citizens out to experience (beyond short holidays) other cultures. That was a major factor in shaping our original gov't, and its a shame we feel it is no longer useful.Most other nations are forced to encounter and actually deal with other cultures, and so they confront cultural bias differently. I have already stated that I do find many of my personal tastes/beliefs superior to others... for me. In any case I did not mean anything as extreme as you seem to be getting at. I actually have some preconceptions and hangups that I obtained from the culture I originated from, and perhaps a few from cultures I have experienced directly. If I have them, and know I have them, I cannot say they are necessarily bad.They are however often inaccurate or unnecessary to have a productive life. It is a shame, and in this I suppose I might come off a bit condescending, that people don't bother finding out where their beliefs come from and examine how they fit into their own and others' lives. I am saddened by the general lack of curiosity or interest in self-reflection I see.People could take what they want as far as how they live, but it'd be nice to have people be able to speak frankly about why they believe what they do. I'm sorry, this means you simply did not read my response to you in that other thread where I openly admitted that as a subjectivist I most certainly do believe many of my tastes and values are superior... for me.Yours can be for you. I truly believe there is no objective standard for moral judgements and tastes. And I have stated (admitted) I do feel mine is superior, as you clearly have expressed you feel yours is superior to others.I am not sure what more you want from me than that.What might be happening is that you are confusing my...1) rejection of factually inaccurate statements regarding where certain preconceptions have emerged in public thought, and
2) factually inaccurate statements regarding other beliefs/cultures which only stem from specific cultural bias, and
3) criticism of what effects such bias can have when merged with gov't policy,with a position on whether a specific belief system or taste can validly be held.What I find interesting is that I believe within this thread I already stated that prudes are not objectively better or worse than hedonists. Thus Robin's personal distaste for sex is just fine... for her. Robin is no better or worse in the scheme of things than I am.I have only challenged factual statements made about hedonist lifestyles, which I believe are inaccurate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

1) You called yourself a prude, which suggests something more than just being against public sex.2) You went off on promiscuity which has nothing to do with public sex,and much to do with sex.Thus, you have issues with sex, not just public sex. I did not mean to imply all sexual activity, though I can see how it might be read that way. I apologize.3) Sorry about calling you a she. I think I did that before as well. I keep confusing you and faith (as far as gender is concerned).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you want to say you changed your position, or you weren't quite clear the first time, that's fine. But here is the entire content of your post #43, and from which I derived my comment on your prudery. The above does not suggest a relative state. It suggests an objective state. A prude is one who at the very least can still be shocked, and according to your stated position, shocked about sexual things.Like I said, if you want to say you meant to advocate, or are now advocating a relative position... fine. I would still say that it is a relative issue involving a dislike of sexual actions. Would that not be correct?By the way, don't ever travel to Amsterdam. Or better yet, maybe you should. I live in the heart of the red light district and those things you find repugnant I find beautiful. Maybe you could view them differently by seeing how many countless people visit and enjoy such things all the time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You mean you don't think of that in regards to every thing else in the market place? I'd wager that there is more exploitation in the clothing industry than in all strip clubs.If strip clubs looked like sweat shops, and the women were as oppressed there as in sweat shops, they would not be as popular as they are.And the exploitation which does go on in sex industries is actually increased by attempts to outlaw it. If you care about the exploitation of women, make sure sexual work is free.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In the States it is illegal. Once again the point is made. Where sex work is illegal, there will be greater exploitation.Though I will point out that there is one state where prostitution is legal and quite regulated and there appears to be no real exploitation in it at all. It is so under the microscope its hard to see how there could be.There is also the grey area of escorting. There is exploitation by some agencies and no exploitation by others. It would be a bit odd to argue that an agency run by the woman herself would be exploitative, and you might be surprised how many self-employed escorts there are. There is a difference between provinciality and ignorance. If you dislike the practice, that can be called provinciality. To make factually inaccurate statements is ignorance.I will excuse the former, I will not the latter. There is little reason for anyone to be ignorant for long in this day and age.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)