Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 88
  1. #61  
    The real issue with "Abstinence" programs is that they are sans the most important thing - masturbations.

    If you tell teens "look there are a lot of risks, but beat your meat as much as you like", then they might work.

    Instead, they make jerking off a sin, and expect people to repress a natural urge/need.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    The real issue with "Abstinence" programs is that they are sans the most important thing - masturbations.

    If you tell teens "look there are a lot of risks, but beat your meat as much as you like", then they might work.

    Instead, they make jerking off a sin, and expect people to repress a natural urge/need.
    Yes. Penn and Teller did a whole show on the "Masturbation Police" on their Showtime show, Bullsh*t, These are the people who are telling kids that masturbation will make them feel empty and lonely inside and grow hair on their palms, etc. Naturally, they did a great job at presenting a number of scientific experts who refuted every one of these claims with data. Masturbation, according to science, is healthy and good for the prostate in men (don't have the reference handy but look it up on PubMed). In women, they learn about their bodies and what is pleasurable to them The religious right wants you to deny any sexual impulses you have at all and pretend that devotion to Jesus will give you the strength to resist. Sex cannot be fun without satan being involved. It's deny deny deny.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose View Post
    ...Masturbation, according to science, is healthy and good for the prostate in men (don't have the reference handy but look it up on PubMed)....
    From your recollection, was the conclusion that the benefit came from masturbation, or from more frequent ejaculation?

    I would be suspect of a conclusion that focused on the auto-erotic deed, rather than physiological function.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose View Post
    The religious right wants you to deny any sexual impulses you have at all and pretend that devotion to Jesus will give you the strength to resist.
    Again, sources? Or is this just your opinion?
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Again, sources? Or is this just your opinion?

    Just watch your local so called Christian television station. You'll see what I am talking about. What do you believe? Do you think Jesus can SAVE you from being gay or being sexually active? My gay friends believe it's part of who they are, not a choice. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who don't feel they are damned if they don't follow the bible letter by letter. There are also Christians who aren't arrogant enough to believe that they have all of the answers. With sexual information, Christian conservatives (IMHO) promote abstinence as the only choice for teens period.
    Last edited by Brooose; 08/27/2006 at 07:40 AM.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Again, sources? Or is this just your opinion?
    Sorry...double post
    Last edited by Brooose; 08/27/2006 at 07:41 AM.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose View Post
    Just watch your local so called Christian television station. You'll see what I am talking about. What do you believe? Do you think Jesus can SAVE you from being gay or being sexually active?
    From my reading, that is not His purpose. His purpose was and is to save us from the effects of sin. And, subsequently, He provides the guidance of His Spirit to enable us to lessen our tendency to sin ("sin" simply being "missing the target")
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose View Post
    My gay friends believe it's part of who they are, not a choice. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who don't feel they are damned if they don't follow the bible letter by letter.
    I believe both of those statements are accurate. Would for their sake they were true
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose View Post
    There are also Christians who aren't arrogant enough to believe that they have all of the answers.
    The more we study, the more we realize we have so few answers
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooose View Post
    With sexual information, Christian conservatives (IMHO) promote abstinence as the only choice for teens period.
    While unpopular, and perceived by some as unrealistic, it is the healthiest choice.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Why do you call it sexual freedom when your active participation requires pills, patches, or other paraphranelia (inserted into you or vice versa) whose sole purpose is to prevent the outcomes inherent to the Activity?

    Just a thought.
    I think that the question is disingenuous and does not require or deserve an answer. However, because it is based upon false assumptions, I undertake to clarify.

    We call it sexual freedom because it is an area in which the government should have as little role as possible. When we speak of sexual freedom, we do not mean the freedom to do anything that we want. I do not have or assert the freedom to engage in coitus with my neighbor's wife; neither my neighbor or his wife will permit it. Rather when we speak of sexual freedom we mean freedom from unwarranted government interference in the sexual activity between consenting adults.

    The Constitution does not grant one freedom, in the sense of license. It does not guarantee me that my neighbors will not censor my speech. Instead it forbids the government the right to interfere. It says, "Congress shall make no law...."

    I have a similar problem with a "woman's right to choose." I think that if a woman chooses not to bear a child, she should exercise that choice before she conceives. That said, her decision is so intimate and sensitive that she must be free from government interference in it. The government can no more compel her to carry a child than it can forbid her to do so. The freedom is not to choose but, whatever she does, to be free from government interference.

    Her family may interfere, her church may, her community may, but not government. The limitation on the role of government flows from its coercive nature. Government is the only institution in our society that is sanctioned to use force; it is essentially coercive. There must be limits on its powers. We call those limits on the power of government freedom.
    Last edited by whmurray; 08/29/2006 at 02:01 PM.
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I think that the question is disingenuous and does not require or deserve an answer. However, because it is based upon false assumptions, I undertake to clarify....
    I'm not clear on what assumptions you are clarifying.
  10.    #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I think that the question is disingenuous and does not require or deserve an answer. However, because it is based upon false assumptions, I undertake to clarify.

    We call it sexual freedom because it is an area in which the government should have as little role as possible. When we speak of sexual freedom, we do not mean the freedom to do anything that we want. I do not have or assert the freedom to engage in coitus with my neighbor's wife; neither my neighbor or his wife will permit it. Rather when we speak of sexual freedom we mean freedom from unwarranted government interference in the sexual activity between consenting adults.

    The Constitution does not grant one freedom, in the sense of license. It does not guarantee me that my neighbors will not censor my speech. Instead it forbids the government the right to interfere. It says, "Congress shall make no law...."

    I have a similar problem with a "woman's right to choose." I think that if a woman chooses not to bear a child, she should exercise that choice before she conceives. That said, her decision is so intimate and sensitive that she must be free from government interference in it. The government can no more compel her to carry a child than it can forbid her to do so. The freedom is not to choose but, whatever she does, to be free from government interference.

    Her family may interfere, her church may, her community may, but not government. The limitation on the role of government flows from its coercive nature. Government is the only institution in our society that is sanctioned to use force; it is essentially coercive. There must be limits on its powers. We call those limits on the power of government freedom.
    Interesting take. I wasn't under the impression that the sexual revolution was a revolt against government regulations as much as a rejection of the social norms and the underlying ethic.

    I say that recognizing that I did not live through it, but am rather living with the results of it.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I'm not clear on what assumptions you are clarifying.
    I will settle if what I said is clear.
  12.    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I will settle if what I said is clear.
    Definitely clear, and well stated as usual.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    From your recollection, was the conclusion that the benefit came from masturbation, or from more frequent ejaculation?

    I would be suspect of a conclusion that focused on the auto-erotic deed, rather than physiological function.
    I think it was frequent ejaculation. However, the data that they used was a comparison of current prostate health with self-reported on-set and frequency of mastrubation. Other data seems to suggest that if one relies only on coitus for ejaculation, one will not ejaculate very early or often.

    "Sex is for (health), recreation, affection, and procreation" in that order. It is for recreation, mostly by oneself, affection, with those of appropriate age and gender, and procreation, only with a committed partner. I see nothing wrong with that message for young people nor with the corollary that genital-to-genital sex should be reserved for committed partners. I have even been known to tell young men that, until they are married, their most important sexual organ is the tongue.
    Last edited by whmurray; 08/30/2006 at 11:30 AM.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Interesting take. I wasn't under the impression that the sexual revolution was a revolt against government regulations .....
    Perhaps. However, it was you that stated the proposition. You said freedom, not revolution. Some people date the sexual revolution from Roe v. Wade (government), others from The Pill (the medical alteration of the relation between the act and one of the consequences). However the sexual freedom movement is much older than either of those (Griswold). It is often referred to as Privacy. Government has often, not to say always, pandered to the fear of sex and the desire of some to control what others do, even in private.
    Last edited by whmurray; 08/30/2006 at 11:35 AM.
  15.    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Perhaps. However, it was you that stated the proposition. You said freedom, not revolution. Some people date the sexual revolution from Roe v. Wade (government), others from The Pill (the medical alteration of the relation between the act and one of the consequences). However the sexual freedom movement is much older than either of those (Griswold). It is often referred to as Privacy. Government has often, not to say always, pandered to the fear of sex and the desire of some to control what others do, even in private.
    When I use the term 'freedom', "absence of government control" is way down on the list of definitions that come to mind. So, in posing the initial question, it never occured to me that this path would emerge.

    That's why I ask these questions. I like to get understanding of other views.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    When I use the term 'freedom', "absence of government control" is way down on the list of definitions that come to mind. ..............
    If you say so. However, without political freedom, the others barely count. Political freedom is the most dearly won and held. It is the only freedom that warrants a capital F, the only one that is a proper noun.
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    If you say so. However, without political freedom, the others barely count. Political freedom is the most dearly won and held. It is the only freedom that warrants a capital F, the only one that is a proper noun.
    I find that true Freedom remains even where political freedom is absent.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I find that true Freedom remains even where political freedom is absent.
    Do you? Perhaps you are a courageous soul. Whether or not that is so, it does not trump political Freedom.

    Courageous souls notwithstanding, Freedom died for a generation in Nazi Germany and for four in the Soviet Union. One was free to die with minimal dignity in concentration camps and gulags. Generations of national populations lived and died in fear and millions had to die to restore it. Do you really believe that such courage and dignity as survived justified all those deaths? Perhaps you are one of those naifs who believe that it cannot happen here.

    Perhaps you do not believe that what happens (to others) in this life is important; that is one kind of personal courage. However, I think that it is a dangerouis proposition that as long as personal courage endures, (other people's) political freedom is unimportant. In order to so hold, one has to believe that human history and culture are unimportant.
  19.    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Do you? Perhaps you are a courageous soul. Whether or not that is so, it does not trump political Freedom.

    Courageous souls notwithstanding, Freedom died for a generation in Nazi Germany and for four in the Soviet Union. One was free to die with minimal dignity in concentration camps and gulags. Generations of national populations lived and died in fear and millions had to die to restore it. Do you really believe that such courage and dignity as survived justified all those deaths? Perhaps you are one of those naifs who believe that it cannot happen here.

    Perhaps you do not believe that what happens (to others) in this life is important; that is one kind of personal courage. However, I think that it is a dangerouis proposition that as long as personal courage endures, (other people's) political freedom is unimportant. In order to so hold, one has to believe that human history and culture are unimportant.
    As demonstrated in your mention of Germany and the Soviet Union, one can take my property, my rights, even my very life. But none can take my Freedom.

    Knowledge of this truth in no way diminishes my concern for political freedom Quite the opposite. It emboldens my stance. It steels my resolve. For only when I am truly Free, am I well-positioned to ascertain and maintain political freedom for myself and others.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    As demonstrated in your mention of Germany and the Soviet Union, one can take my property, my rights, even my very life. But none can take my Freedom.

    Knowledge of this truth in no way diminishes my concern for political freedom Quite the opposite. It emboldens my stance. It steels my resolve. For only when I am truly Free, am I well-positioned to ascertain and maintain political freedom for myself and others.
    You still seem not to get it. Political freedom is not about you. It is not about your belief or conviction that you are free. It is not about your courage, the quality or the quantity. It is not about your steel or your resolve. It is not about any or all individual's conviction that they are free. It is not about the individual or individual courage. It is about us.

    Do you think that those who voted for Hitler had any less courage than you? That they felt any less "free" than you do? While individual freedom may be necessary to preserve political freedom, it is not sufficient.

    The Germans fell victim to Hitler not because they were any less noble, courgeous, or "free" than we are but because they were not concerned with political freedom, because they were not committed to the Rule of Law, because they were worried about their own freedom but not that of their neighbors.

    They did not understand that their individual freedom was not separable from that of their neighbors, from that of the community. They thought that they could be free while the Poles were in thrall, that "Aryans" could be free while Jews were in chains.

    They did not understand that there had to be limits on the power of the state. They did not understand that not even the leader is above the law. They did not understand that the enemy was not beyond their borders but in their corridors of power. They did not understand the difference between patriotism and blind obedience to the state.

    But for a constitution that limits the term of our President, that limits his powers while in office, that makes his acts subject to judicial review, there go we. Without our knowledge of and commitment to that constitution, there go we. No individual's feeling or conviction that he is free will make him so.

    Now one may protest one's integrity, one's courage, one's dignity, and one's "freedom" all one likes. One may dismiss political freedom as way down the list of freedoms that one cares about. However, without one's neighbors and our collective commitment to the Rule of Law, one may well find oneself exercising one's freedom from the end of a rope.

    Freedom is more than an individual's conviction that he is free.
    Last edited by whmurray; 08/30/2006 at 06:15 PM.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions