Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 88
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't mean to speak for Shop, but the original question seemed pretty clear:

    Is there such a thing as free sex when there's always a risk/cost associated with it?
    The short answer is, no, every activity caries a risk, and there is no such thing as complete freedom. At the simplest, the person may carry a risk of losing out on the emotional benefits of bonding long term in a monogamous relationship. This does not mean they are not having a lot of fun however.

    Surur
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I'm completely lost actually. Could you just lay out your position in plain language, without beating around the bush.

    Surur
    I thought I had.

    Here is a synopsis: absence of restraint is not necessarily freedom
  3. #43  
    Actually, by definition, freedom = absense from restraint.

    If the argument you are making is that, currently, to practice "sexual freedom" you still need to take many special measures, and is therefore not really free, its simply because people are not free enough. As MikeC said, in the future people may be a lot more free than now, both emotionally and even physically.

    If where you are heading (I always get in trouble for trying to interpret people's hidden agenda) is that in a committed, monogamous relationship you do not have to worry about contraception and barrier protection, and that you therefore have more freedom there, thats clearly not what everyone else means by sexual freedom.

    Surur
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Actually, by definition, freedom = absense from restraint.

    If the argument you are making is that, currently, to practice "sexual freedom" you still need to take many special measures, and is therefore not really free, its simply because people are not free enough. As MikeC said, in the future people may be a lot more free than now, both emotionally and even physically.
    The trend seems to show that the "freer" people become, the more restrictive the practices become (for those interested in longevity that it)
    Quote Originally Posted by surur

    If where you are heading (I always get in trouble for trying to interpret people's hidden agenda) is that in a committed, monogamous relationship you do not have to worry about contraception and barrier protection, and that you therefore have more freedom there
    Not where i was headed, but an excellent observation on your part. kudos
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    , thats clearly not what everyone else means by sexual freedom.
    Agreed. That is why I raise the discussion in the first place. My observation is that the practice of "sexual freedom" is requiring increasing levels of restriction (again, for those interested in longevity).
    Quote Originally Posted by surur

    Surur
    shopharim
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    As human residents of the First World we have come to believe that we have the luxury to determine if we have sex for recreation and if we have it for reproduction.
    Not only have we come to believe that, it even is so.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Not only have we come to believe that, it even is so.
    And not just for the First World either. What an odd distinction to make. Condoms and other contraceptive devices/drugs are available all over the world aren't they? Even Ireland now!
    Animo et Fide
  7. #47  
    It's called Sexual Freedom because those "paraphernalia" free you from the consequences of those actions.

    My understanding is this really came to be, because all these items allowed women to have the ability to have a similar role in the bedroom as men. Men could have sex, get some one pregnant and still not have to be an active participant in the raising of a child, OR taking responsibility for giving her a STD.

    Now women could hold the same amount of cards in that deck and have sex with a guy and not be thinking, do I really want to spend the rest of my life with this person.

    It's more than just sex being referred to when using the term "sexual freedom". It's also the emotional and social.
    Cingular GSM Treo 650, Apple PowerBook G4, iQue 3600, iPod Photo 60GB
    PalmPilot > Palm Vx > Palm M505 > Garmin iQue 3600 > Treo 650


    Seek first to understand, then to be Understood
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnmunch
    It's called Sexual Freedom because those "paraphernalia" free you from the consequences of those actions....
    I suggest that the paraphrenalia did not enable what is called "sexual freedom" but became necessary as the consequences of "sexual freedom" came to fruition. "Sexual freedom" brought unwanted pregnancy and an increased proliferation of disease, necessitating some sort of defense.

    The poor pattern that I see is the tendency to overcome the consequences rather than re-assess the actions.
  9. #49  
    The only STD which the pill (which epitomized sexual freedom) prevented was pregnancy.

    Surur
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Any "freedom" requires effort. That's why we pay journalists for exercising the "freedom" of the press.
    That's a joke now here in the US where the Corporate media filters everything we see and hear. Truthiness is everywhere but the truth is harder to find on tv and in print media now. Sorry to thread-jack...now back to Sexual Freedom, something I wholeheartedly believe in but sadly don't get to practice (I'm married ).
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I suggest that the paraphrenalia did not enable what is called "sexual freedom" but became necessary as the consequences of "sexual freedom" came to fruition. "Sexual freedom" brought unwanted pregnancy and an increased proliferation of disease, necessitating some sort of defense.

    The poor pattern that I see is the tendency to overcome the consequences rather than re-assess the actions.
    Well then let's just teach kids not to have sex. How's that working out? Oh yeah, those abstinence only programs....uh, they don't work. In fact, when the "abstinent" kids give in, they are far more likely to not use a condom and, therefore, are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies etc.....what do we do? Hmmm.... Well, if people are going to want to have sex for pleasure, they gotta get the paraphernalia. Teach them how to use it properly and, hey, make it part of the fun of foreplay and BOOM, sexual freedom is fun, not a burden. It's only a burden if you make it a burden. Otherwise, stay at home with some hand lotion and a Hustler magazine.
    Last edited by Brooose; 08/21/2006 at 10:59 AM.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose
    Well then let's just teach kids not to have sex. How's that working out? Oh yeah, those abstinence programs....uh, they don't work. In fact, when the "abstinent" kids give in, they are far more likely to not use a condom and, therefore, are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies etc.....what do we do?
    Sources?
  13. #53  
    So we are nothing but byproducts of disease? Or maybe we are the disease?
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Sources?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b6e7b3d5c9f53e
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter
    So we are nothing but byproducts of disease? Or maybe we are the disease?
    At the risk of sounding like an Environmental radical, the Earth probably sees us that way.
  16. #56  
    This is from one of the sources to your source:

    When it comes to delaying first sex among teens, progress is clearly possible. The percentage of high school teens who report ever having had sexual intercourse declined from 54.1 percent in 1991 to 46.7 percent in 2003 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003).
    and:

    Because there have been so few rigorous evaluations of abstinence education programs to date, and because the evaluations that have been conducted do not reflect the diversity of abstinence education programs now available, readers are cautioned about concluding that abstinence education programs, in general, are not effective in delaying first sex for teens. More evaluations are currently underway that should provide additional data.
    http://www.teenpregnancy.org/works/pdf/NotYet.pdf

    Anyway, one of the, I believe, many problems with your statement is that it assumes there are only two types of programs: those that promote abstinence-only and those that don't promote abstinence at all. When, in fact, the majority of programs do include some sort of abstinence message. And your links prove that it is possible to delay the onset of sexual activity.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    This is from one of the sources to your source:


    and:


    http://www.teenpregnancy.org/works/pdf/NotYet.pdf

    Anyway, one of the, I believe, many problems with your statement is that it assumes there are only two types of programs: those that promote abstinence-only and those that don't promote abstinence at all. When, in fact, the majority of programs do include some sort of abstinence message. And your links prove that it is possible to delay the onset of sexual activity.
    You are correct. My main beef is with Abstinence Only programs. I have no problem teaching abstinence in the broader context of sex education that also teaches about contraception and disease prevention. I did not mean to imply one or the other. I have 2 daughters and, believe me, I want them to put off having sex for as long as possible but I don't believe that denying them information, which many abstinence only programs do, will help them at all. And I do want them to make informed choices and to be prepared if they should decide that they want to be sexually active in their teenage years. I remember seeing This Week with George Stephanopoulos where Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader and a doctor, was a guest. Stephanopoulos held up information from a couple of Abstinence Only programs' literature which stated categorically that AIDS and HIV can be transmitted through tears and sweat. Almost all scientific literature refutes that statement and Frist, as a doctor, knows this. Instead of giving a straight answer that these programs were giving out false information, he hedged and dodged the question putting the politics of appeasing so-called Christian conservatives ahead of being forthright with the American public. Only after being asked 3 times, did he begrudgingly admit that it would be very difficult to transmit HIV via tears and sweat. Politics trumps facts in Abstinence only programs and hurts the people it is supposed to protect.
    Last edited by Brooose; 08/21/2006 at 12:06 PM.
  18. #58  
    Responsibility, does not hinder people from being free and enjoying something.

    There was a reply that I do not see here now that came through in my email notification of responses.

    "In what other area's of life do we encourage the separation of one's actions from their consequences?".
    The use of guns. I'd assume most of us know how to use them responsibly but the fact that people are injured or killed by accident and on purpose everyday, shows how much people have separated their action from the consequence.

    Credit Cards. We're encouraged to build credit, to buy now and pay later. That worked so well we have a whole country of people living off them.

    Food. Fast food, junk food. Tastes great going down, we see adds showing the pleasures of eating potato chips and sour cream dip for the big game. Yet we don't see following that the commercial on not eating the whole bag and going out and exercising.

    The problem would seem to be more of what is NOT said than what is said. Teaching kids about sex and teaching them that it is something special to be enjoyed but responsibly can still allow for sexual freedom and the use of the "paraphernalia" is an extra measure.

    What is being defined as sexual freedom?

    The freedom to have it as much as possible? OR the freedom to have it without any constraints?

    Sex does not have to equal diseases and pregnancy. But if you want to argue that by using protection prohibits nature from taking it's course and reducing population your right. But then you'd also be arguing that sex is just for reproduction and that there is no spiritual side to it at all.
    Cingular GSM Treo 650, Apple PowerBook G4, iQue 3600, iPod Photo 60GB
    PalmPilot > Palm Vx > Palm M505 > Garmin iQue 3600 > Treo 650


    Seek first to understand, then to be Understood
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose View Post
    You are correct. My main beef is with Abstinence Only programs. I have no problem teaching abstinence in the broader context of sex education that also teaches about contraception and disease prevention. I did not mean to imply one or the other. I have 2 daughters and, believe me, I want them to put off having sex for as long as possible but I don't believe that denying them information, which many abstinence only programs do, will help them at all....
    Abstinence is the most effective method of maintaining health and avoiding unwanted pregnancy. For "Abstinence-only" programs to be most effective, though, they need not simply promote the practice of abstinence, but need to provide a quality philosophical premise for being abstinent.

    If the purpose of abstinence is presented simply as a means of avoiding disease, it may not provide participants the type information needed to commit to the lifestyle. Because, contraceptive technology has greatly reduced those risks. The premise must present the case for why sex should be reserved for a given context. Then participants can decide if they want to live accordingly.
  20.    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnmunch View Post
    Responsibility, does not hinder people from being free and enjoying something.

    There was a reply that I do not see here now that came through in my email notification of responses.



    The use of guns. I'd assume most of us know how to use them responsibly but the fact that people are injured or killed by accident and on purpose everyday, shows how much people have separated their action from the consequence.

    Credit Cards. We're encouraged to build credit, to buy now and pay later. That worked so well we have a whole country of people living off them.

    Food. Fast food, junk food. Tastes great going down, we see adds showing the pleasures of eating potato chips and sour cream dip for the big game. Yet we don't see following that the commercial on not eating the whole bag and going out and exercising.
    That was my quote, which I removed because I thought the tangent might veer too far from the topic. But, your examples demonstrate the concern I was alluding to, namely the real danger of separating actions from their consequences.

    I dare say, we have become so confident in our prescriptions, that we have lost sight of the value of prevention.

    If anything, these examples alone should serve as a call to action to no longer attempt to disassociate action and consequence. Yet, on the topic at hand, a significant number of responses advocate continuing the high risk behavior and rely on technology to minimize the inherent consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnmunch View Post

    The problem would seem to be more of what is NOT said than what is said. Teaching kids about sex and teaching them that it is something special to be enjoyed but responsibly can still allow for sexual freedom and the use of the "paraphernalia" is an extra measure.

    What is being defined as sexual freedom?

    The freedom to have it as much as possible? OR the freedom to have it without any constraints?

    Sex does not have to equal diseases and pregnancy. But if you want to argue that by using protection prohibits nature from taking it's course and reducing population your right. But then you'd also be arguing that sex is just for reproduction and that there is no spiritual side to it at all.
    I'm arguing that when sex occurs between those who are prepred to experience all it's inherent outcomes (one of which is pleasure I might add) no paraphrenalia is needed. And, truthfully, likelihood of pregnancy can be reduced without paraphrenalia simply by conscientous action, thus allowing the fully prepared couple to experience the inherent pleasure.

    On the other hand, paraphrenalia becomes necessity to those who are only prepared for pleasure.
    Last edited by shopharim; 08/23/2006 at 08:15 AM. Reason: grammar
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions