UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (18) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: alstroemeria Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 60455  
Subject: No sex for you! Date: 3/13/2013 8:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30
The Sex Nazi sez no sex for you!

The right-wing Family Research Council — which uses its advocacy muscle to try to block comprehensive sexual health programs in public schools — is now going a step further, suggesting the young Americans who have premarital sex should be punished because they don’t deserve the right to engage in sexual intercourse.

...

FRC fellow Pat Fagan: "It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. "


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/13/1714551/frc-prema...

Such a policy could only be promoted by those with too much shame and guilt over making use of their libido outside marriage (or maybe they have no libido and don't understand what all the fuss is about-)
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48392 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/14/2013 2:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well, as a conservative, I agree with you that this is a ridiculous notion. Family Research Council, just stop it!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48393 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/14/2013 3:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Obviously the writer got confused. It's not the good old fashioned "up with morality" Family Research Council. It's the Taliban.

I wonder how they made that mistake?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48394 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/14/2013 7:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<The right-wing Family Research Council — which uses its advocacy muscle to try to block comprehensive sexual health programs in public schools>>



The left wing has it's agenda of conditions in which sex is approved and so does the FRC council.


Neither the left nor the right approves of unfettered sex without any conditions.

Well, the left and homosexuals came pretty close to that in the 1970s aqnd early 1980s, but of course that behavior led to a partial extiction of homosexuals in San Francisco and other major cities from AIDS. The left and even homosexuals learned from that.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48398 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/15/2013 2:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
The left wing has it's agenda of conditions in which sex is approved and so does the FRC council.

Neither the left nor the right approves of unfettered sex without any conditions.


No kidding. But just because there should be some reasonable conditions backed by rational thinking (no rape or sex with children, for example) it does not follow that knee-jerk stupidity is somehow equivalent.

Explaining the outcomes and repercussions of sex to people who are going to have sex regardless if you explain it to them or not is both reasonable and rational. And studies show beyond any doubt that the youth who have comprehensive sex education delay sex and make better choices when they do decided to engage.

So what would anyone support the FRC? I'll let you fill in the blank.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48409 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/15/2013 4:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<The left wing has it's agenda of conditions in which sex is approved and so does the FRC council.

Neither the left nor the right approves of unfettered sex without any conditions.

No kidding. But just because there should be some reasonable conditions backed by rational thinking (no rape or sex with children, for example) it does not follow that knee-jerk stupidity is somehow equivalent.

>>


You mistake your own prejudices for "reason."

Enforcing rape laws between a husband and wife is more a matter of popular prejudice and politics than "reason."

Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers. Rather arbitrarily, sex with post pubescent children and older adults is criminalized for no particularly good reasons.


Such laws aren't produced by appeals to "reason." but by appeals to politics.

I'm not at all surprised that sykesix can't tell the difference.


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: icono5 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48412 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/15/2013 9:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
SP: "Enforcing rape laws between a husband and wife is more a matter of popular prejudice and politics than 'reason.'" Interesting: I hadn't realized that, from a "reasonable" perspective, marriage entailed forfeiting one's individual, circumstantial right to withhold consent. Do your married acquaintances subscribe to an unlimited-sex-on-demand approach?

Steve

-----------------------------


You mistake your own prejudices for "reason."

Enforcing rape laws between a husband and wife is more a matter of popular prejudice and politics than "reason."

Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers. Rather arbitrarily, sex with post pubescent children and older adults is criminalized for no particularly good reasons.


Such laws aren't produced by appeals to "reason." but by appeals to politics.

I'm not at all surprised that sykesix can't tell the difference.


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48413 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/15/2013 10:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 29
Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers. Rather arbitrarily, sex with post pubescent children and older adults is criminalized for no particularly good reasons. --SP

What the heck is he talking about?

Seattle Pioneer seems to be quite familiar with all kinds of sexual deviation and the laws therein.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MissEdithKeeler Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48414 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers.

Uh, really?? Please point to sources for this assertion!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48416 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 3:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers.

Uh, really?? Please point to sources for this assertion!
>>


Oh, my! The left has been enabling and often promoting sex between children for generations now. It's often a subject taught in schools.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MissEdithKeeler Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48417 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 4:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Oh, my! The left has been enabling and often promoting sex between children for generations now. It's often a subject taught in schools.


I must have missed that in the local elementary, middle and high school cirriculums. I don't have kids, but I imagine that some of my friends would have mentioned that.... You work with boy scouts: are they taking "Sex with Children A and B?"

Seriously, you can't expect to be taken seriously when you make assertions like this without backing them up.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: icono5 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48418 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 5:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Lol. I've been waiting for this, um, clarification. Apparently SP meant "sex by children," rather than "sex with children."

But the tweak isn't much of an improvement. The former is an instance of what I consider a conceptual fault line between social conservative and more progressive thought. Information is not advocacy. We do kids an injustice by conflating the two and cowering in fear. Yes, we should be cognizant of age-appropriate approaches to complicated subjects, but failing to provide practical information with perspective is an _abdication_ of educational responsibility--especially in the internet era.

Of course, we can continue to defame and defund public schools, prioritizing sectarian frameworks over a common scientific and logical vocabulary. But in that case, we should beware the hard lessons of reverse psychology.

Steve

-------------------------------

<<Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers.

Uh, really?? Please point to sources for this assertion!
>>


Oh, my! The left has been enabling and often promoting sex between children for generations now. It's often a subject taught in schools.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48419 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 6:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 32
Oh, my! The left has been enabling and often promoting sex between children for generations now. It's often a subject taught in schools.

I gave SP a rec this post. This illustrates the difference between liberal and conservative issues in one sentence about as perfectly as you'll ever see.

In this particular issue, sexuality is an important and wonderful component of being a human being, but there are also consequences and potentially negative outcomes as well.

The liberal approach is to have a fact-based discussion explaining how everything works, including explaining the potentially negative outcomes and how to avoid them. All this under the assumption that human beings will wind up having sex regardless of what you tell them, so they might as well be informed. If this approach is used, statistically young people delay having sex, and when decide to engage in sex, they are less likely to wind up with unintended consequences such as pregnancy or STDs, and are less likely to have abortions.

The conservative approach is to throw up a big smoke screen of BS. They teach, or want to teach, BS like condoms don't prevent AIDs, abstinence based sex education, being gay is wrong but a curable condition. etc. If this approach is used, statistically young people engage in sex earlier, are less like to use contraception, and more likely to wind up with unintended consequences such as pregnancy or STDs, and are more likely to have an abortion. As an aside, when I was in high school (which was a long time ago, but not that long) pregnant girls couldn't attend school. The rationale was you needed to punish the trollip. Or something. Actually, preventing pregnant girls from attending school is a bunch of BS, which probably why they don't have the rule anymore.

A couple take home messages from this, besides that BS doesn't really work. A lot has been made of the GOP's demographics problem. They are trying to appeal to Latinos and such. But their real demographics problems is with young people who vote Democratic in huge numbers. Young people just aren't buying the anti-gay fountain of BS the GOP is pushing.

And even the politicians like Portman and Cheney aren't willing to buy into the anti-gay BS when it affects them personally. That right there shows thin the rationale behind it all is. They don't have the courage of their convictions, because their convictions are BS. And they know it. And you can apply that to damn near every issue, straight down the line.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48420 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 6:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 44
A couple take home messages from this, besides that BS doesn't really work.

My takeaway is that SP doesn't know how to read evidence, nor is he interested in trying.

Virtually every survey taken shows that school age kids who get sex education begin having sex later, get pregnant less often, have fewer STD's, and have fewer abortions, but that doesn't matter. It's better to keep them in the dark, because as long as you tell them "sex is dirty" they won't try it, never mind those hormones.

It's a capsule example of truthiness: SP (and the like) think it "sounds good", so it must work, because how could it not? And since it must work, there's no point in even considering any evidence one way or the other.

And, oh I forgot, it's all the liberals' fault.
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48422 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 7:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Linda: Seattle Pioneer seems to be quite familiar with all kinds of sexual deviation and the laws therein.

Especially as related to libruls, no?

Count No'Count

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48423 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/16/2013 7:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
MEK: Seriously, you can't expect to be taken seriously when you make assertions like this without backing them up.

<blink>

Hint: SP doesn't intend to be taken seriously. He just likes to provoke the likes of you into a response. Don't do it.

Count No'Count
... is a double "seriously" like a double negative?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: culcha Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48429 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/17/2013 12:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The left has been enabling and often promoting sex between children for generations now. It's often a subject taught in schools.

What's "it"? Sex between children?

Are you talking about sex ed? That's something different.

A somewhat similar case exists where I teach: a state college. We teach a number of subjects: e.g., chemistry, accounting, religion, history, English, math, etc. In teaching religion, we follow the same academic approach that we follow in teaching chemistry or accounting or anything else. The point is to learn about the subject matter. A very beginning course is REL 101: Intro to Religion. But we also have more advanced courses in Judaism, the Old Testament, the New Testament, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Again, the point is the subject matter; the point is not to preach any one of these religions, or to make converts.

The phenomena of sex between children is probably taught in sociology courses (though that's pretty much of a guess on my part). But it's not "promoted"! Other social problems are also covered in sociology (and psychology, political science, etc.). In fact, I just looked in the catalogue and found a specific course -- Sociology 203 -- that is titled "Social Problems." I would guess that this course also looks at solutions to the problems -- both those that have actually been applied, and those that have only been suggested. I'm confident that the course looks for what works (or might work). So, yes, the social problems course is taught, but I really don't think it is taught with a view toward promoting social problems.

Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers.

If that's true, it probably would qualify as part of the subject matter of the Social Problems course -- I mean it's a problem that we have with children who commonly engage in it and it's also a problem that we have with it being widely approved. (Perhaps this is connected to child pornography rings -- I don't know.)

culcha

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 48452 of 60455
Subject: Re: No sex for you! Date: 3/18/2013 8:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<And, oh I forgot, it's all the liberals' fault.

>>



Heh, heh! I'm always willing to acknowledge when Goofyhoofy gets something right!



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (18) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement