Losing virginity early or late tied to health risks by citizen

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, "uberstraw" is a strawman driven by a big wind.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 6, 2007 4:50 PM

Quote:
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.

Yes, I’m anti-Citizen. I hate your guts. Are you happy now?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
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.
But why? You don't need labels to argue issues.

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.”

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 6, 2007 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re going to need to call what you’re talking about something.

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.

Quote:
You can act highbrow about it and pretend that you don’t do it

I do not, BIPED!
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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 6, 2007 5:53 PM

Quote:
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.

You're the smartest 'Conservative' on this board, and a great foil (and the two skirts have crushes on ya I suspect..

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 6, 2007 11:33 PM

Quote:
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?

Obviously there is no 'think' about it. I merely know. :P

Quote:
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]

Is the wrong question. The right question would be, how I afforded such an expensive flat at my age...
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, I’m anti-Citizen. I hate your guts. Are you happy now?
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yes, we do. You’re going to need to call what you’re talking about something.
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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 4:53 AM

Quote:
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.

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:
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..).

I’m not sure that I agree with that sentiment, but thanks anyway.

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 expect to happen. 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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 5:45 AM

FLETCH2

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:30 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

Personally I don’t, and never have thought of Women as merely a means to my sexual gratification, maybe that’s just me though.

Quote:
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.

Demonising everyone you disagree with? Well, I guess that proves me wrong with what I said about ad Hominems.

Quote:
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

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?

Quote:
And so what is the real message here?

In your heavily loaded strawman, or the real issue?

Quote:
I’m the one that cares.

I care plenty, I care enough to look at the real issue, rather than trying to portray anyone who thinks differently as the devil.

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 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.

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.

Quote:
They are not the central message, and anyone who thinks it is, doesn’t really give a damn about my daughters’ happiness.

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 differently than, god forbid we actually listen to a word they say in the hope of actually learning something. Oh wait, education is evil and makes youngsters want to have sex like rabbits, silly me.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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

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.

Quote:
I don’t know how many times I come home from work to find either Signym or Rue throwing a fit

Whatever.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
(and the two skirts have crushes on ya I suspect..).

I just think I'm gonna barf !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

So, stop oppressing me, and stuff.

Sorry, man.

Quote:

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.

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:

Then there’s the radical New Left types who long for some strange utopia where we all screw like chimps.

That's so funny, LOL.

Quote:
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

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.

Quote:

And so what is the real message here?

I believe I just said it- are you asking me to repeat myself?

Quote:
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.

I'm down with this!

Quote:

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.

Of course not, like being aware of your seat cushion on an aircraft being a flotation device is not central to your plane ride.

Education and responsibility first Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 8:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 8:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
(and the two skirts have crushes on ya I suspect..).
I just think I'm gonna barf !

Simplistic joke get funny response...

Bad Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

SHOULD children have sex? If so, how young? Under what conditions?

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.
I would have loved that at age 13 or so....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, Rue- Amen again about advertising.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:33 AM

Quote:
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.

Accelerated incu does that to some transgenics...

452isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Accelerated incu does that to some transgenics...

Blast! You deduced my real identity!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
transgenics...

Is that like transgender?

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, no, no! I'm part human and part

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 9:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 10:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 10:22 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 11:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/frenchpolynesia.html#1

This part seems not-so-good:

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 11:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wow, you found THAT real fast!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wow, you found THAT real fast!

Haven't you read Geezer's wisdom? I always harp on the negative...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 3:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:45 PM

Quote:
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...).

You sound like a player to me.

Quote:
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.

I think you understand my feelings on this matter, but take a look at what rue thinks:

Quote:
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 ....

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 8:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
While Signym theorizes how much he would have loved sex at the age of six

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!

hee hee hee hee
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 12:02 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Rue has just proven everything I just said.

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.

Quote:
Rue evidently views teaching children responsibility and self-confidence as comparable to burkhas and Taliban style totalitarianism.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Rue has just proven everything I just said.
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 2:05 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 2:16 AM

Quote:
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.

I’m simply clarifying what you misunderstood, again.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Can you argue against my position, or do you find yourself incapable so merely prefer to attack me personally?

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 2:37 AM

Quote:
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.”.

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".

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:
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

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):

Quote:

...
Quote:
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
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?
...
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 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.
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.
Quote:
They are not the central message, and anyone who thinks it is, doesn’t really give a damn about my daughters’ happiness.
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 differently than, god forbid we actually listen to a word they say in the hope of actually learning something. Oh wait, education is evil and makes youngsters want to have sex like rabbits, silly me.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 3:05 AM

Quote:
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.

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:

citizen

Quote:
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?

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.

The very next thing you claim is even more telling:

citizen

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.

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 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!”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 3:51 AM

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.

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.

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:
And if I respond to correct you, I’m attacking you.

No, when you ignore my argument, and call me Anti-Religious I accuse you of attacking me, and I'm right.

Quote:
Basically, there doesn’t seem to be any way of reasoning with you.

If you find asking you to concentrate on my argument and not me unreasonable, it says more about you than me.

Quote:
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?

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.

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:
Originally posted by Citizen:
I sit waiting for you to ignore my position, in preference of questioning my character.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since you were arguing for Abstinence only as a preferable position,

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?

And then you accuse me of ignoring your argument. That’s rich.

Quote:
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.

“Stop attacking me!!!!”

::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::

“I’m telling.”

::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:29 AM

Quote:
And then you accuse me of ignoring your argument. That’s rich.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:30 AM

Quote:
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.

"Stop attacking me!!!"

::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"Stop attacking me!!!"

::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::

Please stop having a tempertantrum because you can't come up with a logical argument finn.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"Stop attacking me!!!"

::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::
Please stop having a tempertantrum because you can't come up with a logical argument finn.

“No. You are!!”

“Finn is attacking me!!!”

::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::

::slam::

::tears:: ::tears::

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
“No. You are!!”

“Finn is attacking me!!!”

::tears:: ::tears:: ::stomp:: ::stomp::

::slam::

::tears:: ::tears::

I guess this constitutes your logical reasonable argument, huh

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:42 AM