- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 28,659
- Reaction score
- 18,803
- Location
- Charleston, South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Here's what the man who is leading many of the presentations said
Which means exactly jack-crap. As this thread clearly demonstrates, a lot of "sex positive" Liberals have absolutely insane definitions of "safe and healthy" sexual activity. :roll:
"Promiscuous? Did it look like the plot of 'Eyes Wide Shut?' Naaaah... You're good, tiger. Knock yourself out!"
In which case, it should offered as such; not paired with a bunch of nonsense promising to teach young men how to more successfully negotiate one night stands and threesomes, or classes offering to instruct students in "O face, oral sex" techniques.
Which is, as already noted, the problem with this whole thing in the first place. It isn't teaching anything objectively useful. It isn't even pretending to do so.
It is blatantly promoting sexual deviancy and glorifying promiscuous behavior. It is doing so in the interests of indoctrinating students into a certain, "sex positive," lifestyle and way of thinking.
Again, where's "marriage week?"
Where's the "How to date a girl while still being a gentleman" class?
Is there any particular reason why the university must officially sanction classes promoting salacious and potentially dangerous behavior, but not it's counter-point?
The ideological agenda behind this farce is so completely transparent as to be utterly laughable.
Sex positive? What does that mean? Are you sex negative? Isn't that something you'd want to catch?
"My test results just came in... I'm sex positive..."
Which means exactly jack-crap. [/I]
Which means exactly jack-crap. As this thread clearly demonstrates, a lot of "sex positive" Liberals have absolutely insane definitions of "safe and healthy" sexual activity. :roll:
"Promiscuous? Did it look like the plot of 'Eyes Wide Shut?' Naaaah... You're good, tiger. Knock yourself out!"
They sleep around mainly outside of the units, even if occasionally it occurs inside the units, but it isn't always one night stands, hookups. And it isn't that different than what college students do. I would bet that college students are less likely to simply "hook up" than military members. I can find plenty of information that supports my stand on this too.
One-Night Stands In College: Are We Having Them? | Her Campus
And while they do happen, despite this, the point of the seminars really wasn't to encourage more one night stands that result in negative emotions or judgements of one or both participants, but rather, almost certainly to change these things. In fact, none of the seminars actually said "one night stands" or simply "hookups".
"absolutely insane definitions of safe and healthy sexual activity"
Really? :roll:
The conservativism hackatism is strong today.
"Sex realist," more likely.
The basic gist of the opposite position seems to be, "If it feels good, it must be good, so have as much of it as possible."
Of course not!! When what he says is the title of a presentation, it should be believed. Everything else should be ignored.
It's basically the right wing belief that we shouldn't teach kids how to cross the street because that will only encourage them to play in traffic
Come on, I think you know that no one here thinks that absolutely everything that feels good should be done. Sex can bring both a lot of joy and a lot of pain, and it's important to be responsible about it. However, the hardline Christian position that we should all wait until we're married is the furthest possible thing from realism. We're humans and we were meant to have sex, whether because we were designed that way or it happened by nature.
I think you just should realize that yes, even though this college did take it a bit too far, talking about these issues in the open and educating young people about the good and the bad of sex is better than avoiding talking about it at all or expecting them to remain abstinent. Education has shown time and time again to be more effective than avoidance and condemnation.
I mean hell, I lost my faith at 22 years old, but I lost my hardline position on waiting until I was married when I was 15. It's simply unrealistic for most people, faith or not.
I simply happen to know for a fact that the socio-cultural Left has some rather kooky ideas on what constitutes a "safe" and "healthy" sexual relationship.
Yes, like how putting an aspirin between the female's legs will protect pregnancy.
Oh, wait!! :lol:
And who here suggested that, exactly? :screwy
Public University’s Sex Week Includes ‘Negotiating Successful Threesomes’ Event
Where do I sign my daughters up for this?!
Keep in mind that a good deal of that depends on the students own definitions as well. Three, non-exclusive, one night stands with the same person basically qualifies as a "relationship" for some people these days. :roll:
In any case, the bottom line here is that no part of this thing works to accomplish better outcomes for students.
If these courses actually are selling what they claim to be selling (and I don't care how you try to spin it, that is promiscuity), it is simply going to encourage dangerous and irresponsible behavior, and promote the kinds of unhealthy sexual attitudes which make it more common in the first place.
If it's a bait and switch, on the other hand, luring students in with the promise of more sex, just to lecture them on how they should wait for relationships instead, no one is going to listen. They'll just keep right on doing what they've always done.
Frankly, what I suspect that this is really going to be is a "perfect storm" of self-contradictory Left Wing social dogma; combining schizophrenic attitudes towards safe and responsible sex (i.e. promiscuity is fine, but make sure that it'shealthy promiscuity), hearty input on the wonders of sexual deviancy from the "sex positive" brigade (Sure! You can masturbate 38 times a day! That's good for you!) , feminist pop-cultural nonsense that complicates the above to Hell and back (sex is great, but you're a rapist if she doesn't say 'yes' exactly X amount of times, and if your BAC is above X level, you're going to jail, and also, porn is demeaning, except when it's not), and maybe some minor tid-bits about putting condoms on bananas that everyone knows already tacked on just to cover the instructors' asses.
Again, it's simply an example of misplaced progressive priorities all the way around.
I agree.
Young men and women probably do need some reminders about safe sex and about date rape legalities and the like, but it shouldn't be promoting a 'how to negotiate .....' and 'O face, oral sex' techniques or other such nonsense which isn't in these young people's best interests.
The fact these are being considered, have been considered, and received approval to proceed is a clear indicated just how far down the slippery slope the society has slid.
Why should we not teach people to have better sex? I don't understand why people want to believe that having good, more pleasurable sex is wrong somehow. It is not a "slippery slope". It is simply about teaching people to communicate with each other what makes them feel good. It can easily be shown to be an important part of psychology.
If neither student or at least one student doesn't know whether or not 3 different times hooking up with the same person is a "relationship", then perhaps they need to learn how to communicate better with the person they are having sex with, like these seminars claim to aim to do.
Actually, you are simply making an assumption that this wouldn't be good for students. It is absolutely nothing but personal opinion based on bias against, from my viewpoint, what appears to be a problem with sex in general, outside of marriage at least.
It is not going to encourage anything except actually communicating with sexual partners, and maybe practicing safe sex. There is no evidence that they would actually be encouraging anything dangerous or irresponsible. Having threesomes, despite your personal beliefs otherwise, is not dangerous or irresponsible. It can be, but it isn't guaranteed to be. Having sex outside of marriage is not automatically "dangerous and/or irresponsible". Again, it can be, but is not automatically.
Your complaints are an example of prudish beliefs trying to justify being against these talks because they deal with sex in whatever way you possibly can without knowing really anything about this subject personally.
Not against good sex, nor against good communication.
Isn't 1/2 the pleasure exploring for one's self, with your partner?
Not having every possible combination laid out for you with pictures, videos and 'How To' manuals?
Not against good sex, nor against good communication.
Isn't 1/2 the pleasure exploring for one's self, with your partner?
Not having every possible combination laid out for you with pictures, videos and 'How To' manuals?
Not against good sex, nor against good communication.
Isn't 1/2 the pleasure exploring for one's self, with your partner?
Not having every possible combination laid out for you with pictures, videos and 'How To' manuals?
And it is only your "opinion" that any of the so called "communication" this nonsense is meant to bring about would even be remotely useful in the first place.
Again, I'm not exactly sure what "communicational" or "relationship" value you think students are going to get out of courses promising to teach them how to more successfully acquire promiscuous sex, or deliver better blowjobs, in the first place. However, then again, I suppose that's roughly par for the course where Left Wing views of relationships dynamics in general are concerned. :roll:
The bottom line here is that if you think premarital sex is some great thing that breeds healthy relationships, and that people should be having more of it, both you, and the university, need to keep that kind of sh*t to yourselves, in your own bedrooms. It is not a university's place to teach someone what is, or is not, a "healthy" relationship.
Frankly, I can't imagine what kind of moron would trust any instruction such a course had to give in the first place.
After all, they're not providing any kind of "public service" here. They're simply proselytizing their own, completely subjective, sexual ideology. I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that a great many people out there believe that ideology to be fundamentally wrong, and don't want to have anything to do with it.
It is completely out of bounds for a publicly funded university to so blatantly devote resources to spreading its ideals as such.
And it is only your "opinion" that any of the so called "communication" this nonsense is meant to bring about would even be remotely useful in the first place.
Again, I'm not exactly sure what "communicational" or "relationship" value you think students are going to get out of courses promising to teach them how to more successfully acquire promiscuous sex, or deliver better blowjobs, in the first place. However, then again, I suppose that's roughly par for the course where Left Wing views of relationships dynamics in general are concerned. :roll:
The bottom line here is that if you think premarital sex is some great thing that breeds healthy relationships, and that people should be having more of it, both you, and the university, need to keep that kind of sh*t to yourselves, in your own bedrooms. It is not a university's place to teach someone what is, or is not, a "healthy" relationship.
After all, they're not providing any kind of objective "public service" here. They're simply proselytizing their own, completely subjective, sexual ideology. I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that a great many people out there believe that ideology to be fundamentally wrong, and don't want to have anything to do with it.
It is completely out of bounds for a publicly funded university to so blatantly devote resources to spreading its ideals as such.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?