I feel this is almost a contradiction to your argument considering these are all negative things that have negative impacts.


I never picked a side on this argument, I'm just pointing out that seanc has a point that STDs are very common right now.

No it's illustrating that the fixation on STDs is disproportionate to the actual risk involved, and is more about religion than it is about statistical facts.

People for example don't think anything of reading all of the exploitative tabloid news headlines about murder, rape, etc even though studies show that constantly thinking negatively and stressful may have extreme health risks, and may even play a role in people developing depression and psychosis.

Well heck, the "safest" option is to become a Trappist monk then.

What "fixation"? sean listed half a dozen things, and that was one of them.

False dichotomy.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

No, you'd become a religious drunkard. That's as pertinent as much of this whatever it is.

<reply where I rant for six paragraphs about how backwards Puritans are responsible for prohibition>

to me, the thing about the STD and pregnancy argument is that those are always going to be risks of being sexual, obviously, but if we've learned anything from the past, it's that trying to enforce abstinence and sexual repression doesn't work, either. for example, teen pregnancy rates have actually dropped in the last few decades, steadily. less people are having kids at such a young age, and i think a huge reason for that is thanks to sex education and easier access to birth control.

basically, education and awareness seem to be more effective with these kinds of problems, because people aren't going to stop having sex.

I believe I address the things he mentioned.

Bottom line is that I and many people agree that moderation in all things is the best option. When people are adamantly against something it typically shows a different agenda.

PETA for example tries to use alleged health risks from eating meat as an argument for veganism, but we all know that no matter what the risks are they'd be against it no matter what.

For example - one day I believe all STDs will be eliminated. And one day there will be contraception which is 100% effective - and even without contraception, people can avoid the act of intercourse if they're hell bent on preventing an unplanned pregnancy.

But I don't believe that a lot of religious people would change their position regardless of the risks or facts, because religion is the number one reason for their opposition, and everything else is secondary.

That has literally nothing to do with what I just asked. Show me where sean "fixates" on STDs. He lists them as one of literally six things. And, amusingly, by taking that one thing and talking about it for several paragraphs, it makes you the one who's fixating on it.

Would you say you're "adamantly" against organized religion? :drevil:

Quite true. Also quite irrelevant for the purposes of evaluating their arguments. Logic.

The fixation is on the risks of sex in general, disproportionate to the risks of many other similarly risky activities (which aren't specifically singled out by certain religions)

There are quite a bit of health risks in playing professional football for example.

That depends on what the religion espouses.

I'm against religious beliefs which claim that science or observable facts about the world conflict with religion.

The thing I will agree with Seanc about is that sex is overly heavily marketed in the media, and due to the mass media (internet, cable TV) it's a lot easier to market it to kids than it used to be.

Similar question to the one I asked before since you brought up moderation. What do you consider moderation from a sexual perspective, and how did you come to that determination?

First: what does sean think about those other risky activities? Do you have any idea? If not, how do you know his concern is disproportionate?

Second: you didn't say the fixation was "on the risks of sex in general," and that's not what your argument was about, either.

Third, the discussion is about sex, so of course he's only listing the risks of sex. That's the topic, dude. It'd be bizarre if ash asked him to elaborate on the possible risks of promiscuity and he said "Playing football is dangerous!"

lolz

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Have to go, quite ironically to see Trainwrecked. Then I work later so I probably won't respond anymore till tomorrow.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Why are you fixating on Trainwrecked when fast food can also be bad for you?

Well man I'll touch on that later, however the thing is a lot of people seem to be under the impression that you have to either choose between monogamy or "sleeping with as many people as possible".

But the majority of people aren't "swingers" or "nymphomaniacs" who just sleep with as many people as possible with no concern for the risks. According to a study I read, the average male has 7 partners in a lifetime and the average female has 4 - and I bet a lot of these were actual relationships, not just one-night-stands or "hookups" or whatnot.

I think it's the media that's giving an overly negative perception of sexual ethos - I agree with you that sex is overly heavily marketed in the media, especially to young people (I made some points about that in my music thread - how a lot of "pop songs" on the radio are too racy for kids, yet too unintelligent for adults).

But I don't think that what you see on a cheesy sitcom like "Friends" or "2 and a Half Men" is really that representative of the average Joe or Jane - in the same vein as how all of the tabloid crime headlines aren't representative of the average person, since the majority of people wake up each day and "don't kill" someone, yet you only hear about the ones who do.

I also don't think "divorce rates" are automatically bad since divorce is only a legal matter and doesn't touch on the actual dynamics of the relationship itself - back in the day when it was much harder to divorce, it also meant that a woman who was abused would've had a much harder time ending the relationship for example.

i know this wasn't directed at me, but i'm going to respond to it anyway. specifically the bolded bit. you say this as if it's a bad thing to want to do what you like. like, i'm not going to speak for 90sAce, but during this whole discussion, i was speaking in the context that having an active sex life is fine as long as you aren't actively hurting anyone, and quite frankly, that's possible to do if you're mature about it. like, extremely communicative, non-manipulative, and very clear with your partners what your intentions are. obviously, if the person you're committed to is not in favor of this sort of relationship, then the moral thing to do at that juncture would be to choose which is more important to you. so, yes, if you're in a committed relationship with someone who is against this, and you still do it, then you and i are in agreement about that being immoral and wrong.

but the whole point of this is to do what you please. it definitely sounds like you think people should feel ashamed for acting on their sexual desires, under any circumstances, even ones where they are doing it with the consent and respective wishes of all parties involved. why?

Plus it's the burden of the person making the assertion to prove their claim, rather than simply beg the question and dismiss counter arguments as "excuses".

If a Muslim for example says eating pork is immoral, it's not the burden of the other party to "prove it isn't", it's the burden on the one making the assertion.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I don't know, but I think sean may be looking at it from the perspective of having two young sons and seeing everything from a much-broader view.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

well, OK. i can see why that would change someone's idea of what they want for their relationship. on the other hand, though, i don't think it's a bad idea to actually teach kids that having sex and wanting sex are bad things. i think it's way better than trying to ban sex altogether. that never actually works.

i'd also like to point out that poly isn't just about having sex with other people. it's about having relationships with other people. many people in poly relationships have children and share households, responsibilities, and other things that families share. though this isn't something i've necessarily had for myself, i've seen it work out for other people before, and have seen many pros to this sort of arrangement.