New look at the “benefits” of contraception?

posted at 3:21 pm on March 20, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

Since the Griswold Supreme Court decision in 1965, contraception has become integrated into almost every facet of American culture. Whole industries have sprung up around it, and governments and schools around the nation spend millions giving contraception out for “free.” And, of course, the federal government is now saying almost every single business and non-profit organization in America must provide it for “free” to employees.

Which makes some recent noise in mainstream media sources about the harms of contraception quite interesting, and potentially very effective to spreading the word about the real harms of contraception to women. First it was former Winter Olympics hopeful and former Townhall.com intern Megan Henry — sidelined due to use of the intrauterine device NuVaRing — whose joining of a class-action lawsuit against NuVaRing parent company Merck Pharmaceuticals made news across the country.

Then there was a 10,000-word essay from Vanity Fair, which asked “why, despite evidence of serious risk, a potentially lethal contraceptive remains on the market.” And Ricki Lake’s documentary on hormonal contraception and “the unexposed side effects of these powerful medications” is getting backlash from writers at Jezebel.com and Slate.

Registered nurse and pro-life activist Jill Stanek told me this exposure is no surprise, delayed though it is:

“In 2005, the World Health Organization classified the morning-after pill as a Class 1 carcinogen — as dangerous as cigarette smoke and asbestos,” Stanek said. “With all of the studies showing links between oral contraception and greater chances of glaucoma, heart risk and breast-cancer risk, it’s amazing any women use them. And the NuvaRing lawsuit shows how dangerous hormonal contraception is.”

“The American people are belatedly finding out from the mainstream media just how far we’ve gone off the path of proper care of the bodies of women,” stated Stanek. She said media attention to the issue, as well prominent political attention to issues like the HHS contraception mandate, has created “a perfect storm for greater knowledge by women about why they should use better wisdom and responsibility in their sexual practices.”

The harm of contraception is also seen on the unborn, despite claims by the left that contraception lowers abortion rates:

Is increased contraception use related to a decline in abortion rates and occurrences? According to (Live Action’s Libby] Barnes, a look at other nations shows increased contraception use declines abortions only after decades of increasing them – and the new rate is much higher than the old one.

In other words, contraception only lowers abortion rates from abnormally high levels, not overall.

The grievous harms of contraception to the bodies of women are not just seen in the traditional physical sense. As Ed pointed out when we discussed this topic at CPAC, there is also great harm to “human dignity,” something the Catholic Church was ridiculed for predicting 45 years ago:

“If you want to know how harmful [contraception] is, go back to Humanae Vitae,” says Morrissey, “in which basically the Pope predicted everything that followed. At the time, he was ridiculed. … He basically predicted the explosion of pornography, abuse – not just abuse in the legal sense that we talk about it, but in terms of using people in a disposable sense, for fleeting moments of sensory pleasure, which is an affront to human dignity, which is at the center of our faith.”

Obviously, women won’t stop using birth control overnight — and their male sex partners aren’t likely to ask them to stop — but it’s important that young women receive all of the facts surrounding the use of contraception. This is especially true as the HHS mandate forces coverage of products with literally deadly potential.

Update (Dustin): A family physician who reads Hot Air e-mailed that my post had a couple of factual errors. In re-examining the post, I did have one, though I will address his other points as well:

1. I mistakenly said NuVaRing is an intrauterine device. It is, in fact, an intravaginal device.

2. He pointed out that many contraceptives have blood clot risks. This is true, and points to more evidence that contraceptives are harmful to the health of women.

3. According to this physician, NuVaRing has about the same risk factor for thrombosis as a number of other contraceptives. Again, this point from the doctor is well-taken, and shows more reason for women to avoid contraception.

4. The physician accused me of insinuating that Megan Henry’s joining the class-action lawsuit against Merck is an indicator of guilt, but in fact all I did was state that a woman who was harmed by NuVaRing has made news for both her illness and for joining the class-action lawsuit against Merck.

A Merck spokesperson has informed me that the settlement offer to the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit does not admit guilt.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 4:40 PM

.
Thats’ right. I reject magic as an explanation for anything.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM

.
What do you call “evolution”? … There’s more “magic” and longer “odds” with that, than there is with the Genesis record.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Now you’ve done it!

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 5:20 PM

2m
Judge strikes down Michigan’s ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional – @freep
see original on twitter.com

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 5:12 PM

.

HEY YOU (expletive) BLACK ROBED BENCH-SITTER ! ! !
.
Marriage is NOT a “Constitutional right.”

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Now you’ve done it!

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 5:20 PM

.
I hope so, Murphy’.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 5:28 PM

One of the phenomena of our modern culture is the attempt to change human behavior by the manipulation of science, precisely because of the reputation for credibility enjoyed by science. Global warming is probably one of the more egregious examples recently.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Yep. It goes back to the theories of behavioral modification (Skinner, Pavlov, etc.). If you wanted to modify the scope of behavior across society as a whole to conform to specific outcomes, mass deceit is probably one of the easiest way to succeed in doing so.

Feminism is a classic example. First wave feminist had relatively reasonable goals. Second-wavers went off into the deep weeds of sexuality and didn’t hesitate for a second to apply means of mass deceit. Third-wavers are backing away from the heavy emphasis on sexuality. (Hope it holds!!!)

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 5:36 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 5:18 PM

LMFAO! You are the very, very last person on the face of this Earth whose opinion on science is of interest to me.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Perhaps you can find consolation in the number of abortions that will not occur as a result :-)

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Ha yeah, my quip was satirical in nature.

antisense on March 21, 2014 at 6:41 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 5:18 PM

.
LMFAO! You are the very, very last person on the face of this Earth whose opinion on science is of interest to me.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 5:51 PM

.
That’s okay, my “opinion” isn’t the one that matters.
.
But then there’s His “opinion”.

Defiant rejection of Him will eventually be an unavoidable issue.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 6:41 PM

LMFAO!

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Always a d!ck. Look in the mirror . You’re a scumbag.

CW on March 21, 2014 at 7:31 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Ah yes, the old capitalized pronouns bit. It lends such an air of authority to your brand of mumbo jumbo.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 6:41 PM

.
Ah yes, the old capitalized pronouns bit. It lends such an air of authority to your brand of mumbo jumbo.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM

.
Just trying to be “dramatic” . . . . . looks like it worked.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 8:57 PM

That’s okay, my “opinion” isn’t the one that matters.
.
But then there’s His “opinion”.

Defiant rejection of Him will eventually be an unavoidable issue.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 6:41 PM

As much as I try, I can’t refute this… I’m sorry guys, but after much thought and contemplation I’ve changed sides on this issue.

Allahu akbar!

powerfactor on March 21, 2014 at 9:08 PM

I want people to be able to pursue happiness in their own way. Sex is not only an act of procreation. It is a source of pleasure and of strengthening bonds among couples.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Now that’s just too damn funny. I am sure you are doing everything you can to strengthen high school age and college age “couples” emotional bonds.

On a related note. I have never seen an episode of Sex in the City. Is there an episode where one spends 4 days in the hospital with PID?

WryTrvllr on March 22, 2014 at 12:24 AM

I want people to be able to pursue happiness in their own way. Sex is not only an act of procreation. It is a source of pleasure and of strengthening bonds among couples.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM

.
Now that’s just too damn funny. I am sure you are doing everything you can to strengthen high school age and college age “couples” emotional bonds.

On a related note. I have never seen an episode of Sex in the City. Is there an episode where one spends 4 days in the hospital with PID?

WryTrvllr on March 22, 2014 at 12:24 AM

.
. . . . . O U C H ! . . . . .

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 2:47 AM

WryTrvllr on March 22, 2014 at 12:24 AM

Because adult married couples who do not want children should not enjoy sex, right?

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 8:27 AM

I recently overhead two students talking in a dining hall at the university where I teach. “Yeah, I might get married, too,” one confided. “But not until I’m at least 30 and have a career.” Then she grinned. “Until then? I’m going to party it up.”

This young woman was practically following a script. An increasing number of studies show that many millennials want to marry — someday.

Generation Y is postponing marriage until, on average, age 29 for men and 27 for women. College-educated millennials in particular view it as a “capstone” to their lives rather than as a “cornerstone,” according to a report whose sponsors include the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.

Yet for all of their future designs on marriage, many of them may not get there. Their romance operandi — hooking up and hanging out — flouts the golden rule of what makes marriages and love work: emotional vulnerability.

[...]Research led by the social psychologist Sara H. Konrath at the University of Michigan has shown that college students’ self-described levels of empathy have declined since 1980, especially so in the past 10 years, as quantifiable levels of self-esteem and narcissism have skyrocketed. Add to this the hypercompetitive reflex that hooking up triggers (the peer pressure to take part in the hookup culture and then to be first to unhook) and the noncommittal mind-set that hanging out breeds. The result is a generation that’s terrified of and clueless about the A B C’s of romantic intimacy.

In “The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture Is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy,” Donna Freitas chronicles the ways in which this trend is creating the first generation in history that has no idea how to court a potential partner, let alone find the language to do so.

If this fear of vulnerability began and ended with mere bumbling attempts at courtship, then all of this might seem harmless, charming even. But so much more is at stake.

During class discussions, my students often admit to hoping that relationships will simply unfold through hooking up. “After all,” one student recently said, “nobody wants to have The Talk,” the dreaded confrontation that clarifies romantic hopes and expectations. “You come off as too needy.”

This fear sets up the dicey precedent Dr. Brown warns us about: Dodging vulnerability cheats us of the chance to not just create intimacy but also to make relationships work.

Then there’s the emotional fallout of hooking up. This kind of sexual intimacy inevitably leads to becoming “emotionally empty,” writes Dr. Freitas. “In gearing themselves up for sex, they must at the same time drain themselves of feeling.”

This dynamic is about more than simply quelling nerves with “liquid courage” at college parties or clubs. It’s about swallowing back emotions that are perceived as annoying obstacles. And this can start a dangerous cycle.

“We cannot selectively numb emotions,” writes Dr. Brown. “When we numb the painful emotions, we also numb the positive emotions.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/education/edlife/teaching-generation-y-the-basics-of-a-strong-relationship.html?_r=0

Murphy9 on March 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

The Church is right. Shocker…/

Of course The Church is right. Jesus promised to send the Paraclete and He does not lie. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you….

I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

I have known this without an inkling of doubt since reading Humanae Vitae, and more about the circumstances leading up to it and following it. For a man who seemed so ‘progressive’ in his friendships (Rembert Weakland) and failure to defend against the liturgical destroyers as Paul VI was to be the one to uphold the timeless teaching of The Church on contraception, in the face of so much opposition, was all the proof I needed that Jesus protects His Church from doctrinal error. Deo gratias!

pannw on March 22, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Murphy9 on March 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

A very good strategy and I am heartened by it. Too many couples get married too young. Over time they tend grow apart more often than they grow together. I think it is wiser for people to mature and become the who they will be before committing themselves to marriage. It should reduce the divorce rate dramatically.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM

You completely overlook some very sane reasons for birth control. Families would like to control when they have children. This allows, for example, women to pursue careers without concern about interruptions from unexpected and unwanted pregnancy. This is just one example among many for why BC helps families plan for and control the course of their lives.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 9:17 AM

.
Reminds me of an old saying, ”Life is what happens when you are making other plans.”

Of course people like to plan ahead, in fact not much is accomplished without a plan. But-the first fact of life is that intercourse is how babies are made. Do what you want to try to prevent it, but making the choice to engage in the behavior that causes it will have consequences.

2L8 on March 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM
.

I want people to be able to pursue happiness in their own way. Sex is not only an act of procreation. It is a source of pleasure and of strengthening bonds among couples. Thanks to BC, the “consequences” need not include bringing unwanted children into the world, or the alternative which most here abhor.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM

.
Now that’s just too damn funny. I am sure you are doing everything you can to strengthen high school age and college age “couples” emotional bonds.

On a related note. I have never seen an episode of Sex in the City. Is there an episode where one spends 4 days in the hospital with PID?

WryTrvllr on March 22, 2014 at 12:24 AM
.

Because adult married couples who do not want children should not enjoy sex, right?

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 8:27 AM

.
Before I continue, I must restate my position that “I’m NOT against the use of contraceptives” . . . . . but I am against taxpayer’s paying for contraceptives for others, and I am against insurance companies having a government mandate imposed upon them to pay for contraceptives for policy holders, unless the policy holder and insurance company previously agreed to include that within the “coverage”.

No one, including yourself, mentioned the word “married” or “marriage” in the re-posted comments, until your last comment.
You did invoke the word “families”, but that should not be accepted as an ‘absolute’ implication of marriage.
.
Now then … the problem is NOT “enjoying sex”.

Us Christians with our “antiquated” standards of morality that came from the “Dark Ages” can NOT escape the fact, that sexual intercourse IS a pleasurable experience, and that it was deliberately designed that way, by One (there’s that “capitalized” pronoun, again) who is the greatest of ALL architects/designers/engineers.
I don’t believe any of us Christians are trying to escape that fact.

Sexual attraction is the main (not necessarily the only) reason people seek to “pair-up” together.

The problem is people, who only want to live for themselves, … and that’s the “legacy” of the 1970s culture/lifestyle of unbridled hedonism.

In refrencing and going back to your 9:17 AM comment from yesterday, I’m going to make the following “outrageous” statement :
.

“There’s no justification for any adults who consent to be married, to also DEMAND to pursue a career that is incompatible with motherhood/fatherhood”

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Babies are “time-sucking monsters,” according to a feminist blogger who says she considers abortion “kind of my jam.”

Amanda Marcotte, in a recent post at Rawstory.com that blasted Republicans and “anti-choicers,” said abortion “may roll itself into the world of obsolescence.”

“Let me just put a stop to this **** right now,” Marcotte wrote. “You can give me gold-plated day care and an awesome public school right on the street corner and start paying me 15 percent more at work, and I still do not want a baby. I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding.

“No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness,” she declared

Marcotte said she is pleased with her present life, which gives her the “ability to do what I want when I want without having to arrange for a babysitter.”

“I like being able to watch True Detective right now and not wait until baby is in bed. I like sex in any room of the house I please.”

Akzed on March 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM

The problem is people, who only want to live for themselves,

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Who do you suggest we live for?

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Murphy9 on March 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

.
A very good strategy and I am heartened by it. Too many couples get married too young. Over time they tend grow apart more often than they grow together. I think it is wiser for people to mature and become the who they will be before committing themselves to marriage. It should reduce the divorce rate dramatically.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM

.
COMMON GROUND ! (sort of) . . . . . ‘Brutus, I totally agree with you as pertains to the point Murphy’ and yourself made as regards “maturity”.

But the issue of persons (kids) not “maturing” until they’re past 28 or more years of age is ONE example (symptom, actually) of “the ‘legacy’ of the 1970s culture/lifestyle of unbridled hedonism.”
.
Children should reach a sufficient level of psycho-emotional maturity by age 18, to be able to handle going off on their own, and . . . . . yes, get married.

But thanks to “the 1970s culture/lifestyle of unbridled hedonism,” we have a multiple generations of (here it comes again) “hedonism practicing, fantasy indulging, responsibility dodging, candy-assed spoiled BRATS”, who can’t handle REAL LIFE . . . . . just like that girl Murphy’ overheard in the university dining hall.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Babies are “time-sucking monsters,” according to a feminist blogger who says she considers abortion “kind of my jam.”

Amanda Marcotte, in a recent post at Rawstory.com that blasted Republicans and “anti-choicers,” said abortion “may roll itself into the world of obsolescence.”

“Let me just put a stop to this **** right now,” Marcotte wrote. “You can give me gold-plated day care and an awesome public school right on the street corner and start paying me 15 percent more at work, and I still do not want a baby. I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding.

“No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness,” she declared

Marcotte said she is pleased with her present life, which gives her the “ability to do what I want when I want without having to arrange for a babysitter.”

“I like being able to watch True Detective right now and not wait until baby is in bed. I like sex in any room of the house I please.”

Akzed on March 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM

.

The problem is people, who only want to live for themselves,

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

.
Who do you suggest we live for?

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM

.
Between the quotes of Amanda Marcotte (thank you, Akzed), and your question poised to me, I can’t think of anything new to say.
.
I rest my case.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 2:25 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 2:25 PM

It is customary to actually, you know, make a case before resting it. I will happily continue to live for myself, thank you.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 4:56 PM

You’re welcome for the links. I knew Kinsey was a fraud, but I was unfamiliar with the contributions of the others.

In case anyone else is interested, Dr. Miriam Grossman did a series on the history of sex ed, and it’s a great backstory to this post. This thread is certainly an example of the consequences.

A Brief History of Sex Ed: How We Reached Today’s Madness – Part I

A Brief History of Sex Ed: How We Reached Today’s Madness – Part II

A Brief History of Sex Ed: How We Reached Today’s Madness – Part III

This is from her conclusion:

What’s so astonishing is these men, these very disturbed men, using fraudulent data and theories that have been discredited, succeeded in transforming much of society. Today’s sexuality education is based their teachings.

Once I understood who the founders were — Kinsey, Calderone, Pomeroy, Money, and others — I understood how we got to today’s “comprehensive sexuality education.” I knew how we reached today’s madness.

It came from disturbed individuals with dangerous ideas – radical activists who wanted to create a society that would not only accept their pathology, it would celebrate it!

These men were pedophiles. It was in their interest to see children as miniature adults who enjoyed sexual contact, and had the right to consent to it, without other adults, or the law, interfering….

Bottom line: Sexuality Ed began as a social movement, and it remains a social movement. Its goal is for students to be open to just about any form of sexual expression. Sex ed is not about preventing disease, it’s about sexual freedom, or better – sexual license

But I am here to tell you that we have a secret weapon, like David’s sling. The secret weapon is 21st century science: biological truths about the body’s design, and how the mind is wired to respond to intimate behavior.

The fundamental premises if sexuality education – the radical theories of Kinsey, Pomeroy, Money and others – are easily debunked with 21st century science.

Dr. Grossman started writing on sexuality and sex ed because she was a psychiatrist on staff with UCLA’s Student Counseling Services. Her concern grew as she saw the aftermath of wreckage in students’ lives.

INC on March 22, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Who do you suggest we live for?

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM

I live for myself. For my husband. For my child. For God. All decisions I make take their needs, wants and preferences into account.

I used to live for myself only. It was lonely and awful. I had no one to share my love, my efforts, my joy, my pain, my hopes, my dreams, my crushed dreams, my sorrow with.

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Good for you. I do not talk about my family or even if I have a family on public chat boards so it will remain a mystery for H/A readers, I’m afraid.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Turn about is fair play. Who do you suggest we live for?

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Ourselves and those we love.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Ourselves and those we love.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Placing that in the context of this discussion, living includes having sex for the sheer pleasure of it without the intent of making babies.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM

.
Good for you. I do not talk about my family or even if I have a family on public chat boards so it will remain a mystery for H/A readers, I’m afraid.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM

.
But us ASD/Aspergians can’t handle unsolved mysteries !
.

.

YAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH …..

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:23 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM

.
Ourselves and those we love.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM

.
I didn’t originate this quote, but :

1) – God is first,

2) – my friends are second,

3) – I am third.
.
I believe the originator would have intended family to be included with #2

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Placing that in the context of this discussion, living includes having sex for the sheer pleasure of it without the intent of making babies.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM

TMI: I have sex for the sheer pleasure of it. I just don’t take the possibility of making babies out of it either.

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 4:34 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:31 PM

I call your priorities fu–ed up, as in completely immoral.

I am reminded of what made me see the fundamental immorality the Judaism and its offshoots. The story of Abraham which placed obedience to a disembodied, imaginary voice above the life a man’s own child. So much that he was willing to murder his own son (no, I’m talking about a month old fetus, but a real child) to please that voice. Monstrous!

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:35 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 2:25 PM

.
It is customary to actually, you know, make a case before resting it. I will happily continue to live for myself, thank you.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM

.
The fact that you’re claiming to be imperceptive to something as self-evident as that, is a whole, new second “case”, unto itself.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:37 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:37 PM

I told what I thought of self-evidence. Either you can provide evidence or you’re talking out of your rectal cavity.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:31 PM

.
I call your priorities fu–ed up, as in completely immoral.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:35 PM

.
I do consider them to be the correct priorities. But like I said, I’m not the originator of the quote.
You could try putting it into the “search engine” of your choice to see whose name(s) comes up.
.

I am reminded of what made me see the fundamental immorality the Judaism and its offshoots. The story of Abraham which placed obedience to a disembodied, imaginary voice above the life a man’s own child. So much that he was willing to murder his own son (no, I’m talking about a month old fetus, but a real child) to please that voice. Monstrous!

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:35 PM

.
You didn’t (still don’t) understand why God put Abraham through that experience … stopping him at the last possible second.
.
Abraham approached the experience fully intending to carry it out, and fully BELIEVING … that God was going to resurrect Isaac from the ashes of that burnt sacrifice.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:51 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 4:51 PM

I don’t care who laid out those priorities first. You said it and I find it disgusting.

Both the god and Abraham characters were depraved. The first by demanding it the second for actually going to carry it out. Of course, the god dude went on to do a whole lot worse, but most of the stories were just too silly to take seriously. However, the Abraham story impressed me as something that a sick mind could have plausibly done. The fact that he is revered and not reviled is a testament to the brainwashing power of religion.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:58 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 4:34 PM

I was surprised earlier in this thread to hear from a number of people who still going around thinking that sex, even in the context of marriage, for recreation or pleasure was immoral or sinful or whatever. I thought I had stumbled upon some lost civilization trapped on an isolated island that time forgot.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Placing that in the context of this discussion, living includes having sex for the sheer pleasure of it without the intent of making babies.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM

It is quite possible to live without sex.

Cheshire_Kat on March 22, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Placing that in the context of this discussion, living includes having sex for the sheer pleasure of it without the intent of making babies.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM

It is quite possible to live without sex.

Cheshire_Kat on March 22, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Absolutely. Abstinence is not only possible, but has a lot to offer. On the other hand, sex outside of a committed relationship isn’t far removed from masturbation. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but it’s nothing I’d celebrate.

This idea that recreational sex is some sort of great boon to society cracks me up. It makes me think I woke up in the 70′s. I’m just waiting for MJB to drop the mask and tell us he’s REALLY Austin Powers. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, BAY-BEE!

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 7:05 PM

This idea that recreational sex is some sort of great boon to society cracks me up. It makes me think I woke up in the 70′s.

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 7:05 PM

.
Yeah … the ’70s . . . . . : (

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 7:27 PM

It is quite possible to live without sex.

Cheshire_Kat on March 22, 2014 at 6:41 PM

It is quite possible to live on a diet of broccoli and water.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Sex, drugs and rock and roll, BAY-BEE!

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Of course. It’s all good. Life is for living.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Sex, drugs and rock and roll, BAY-BEE!

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Of course. It’s all good. Life is for living.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I think we can all agree that life is for living. It’s just that most of us don’t think that drunken, stoned, indiscriminate sex is living. And we especially don’t want that for our kids, lest they grow up to be… you.

Silly us.

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Who is talking about indiscriminate sex or even being drunk or stoned? Perhaps it is just the music you object to.

Believe it or not, people are able to enjoy alcohol (and even pot among other things), music and sex responsibly. Jefferson and our other founders understood this when they declared the pursuit of happiness on a par with life and liberty as the aspirations for a free people.

Surely you don’t wish AJ a dull, dreary sexless life :-)

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Believe it or not, people are able to enjoy alcohol (and even pot among other things), music and sex responsibly. Jefferson and our other founders understood this when they declared the pursuit of happiness on a par with life and liberty as the aspirations for a free people.

Surely you don’t wish AJ a dull, dreary sexless life :-)

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

.
Our respective definitions of “responsible” are contrary, one to another.
.
Human sexual activity outside the ‘one man/one woman’ marriage relationship is irresponsible … period.

Using chemical stimulants or depressants to artificially induce a sense of “pleasure” is irresponsible … period.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:13 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Yeah, I know. When it comes to women, if she aint churning butter she aint really be happy. Wine, women and song is the devil’s playground. I said it before and I’ll say it again, it sucks to be you.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Surely you don’t wish AJ a dull, dreary sexless life :-)

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

I wish AJ a happy, exciting, fulfilling life, and surprise, surprise, that doesn’t require alcohol, drugs or casual sex!

The really sad part is that you think it does.

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:18 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Yeah, I know. When it comes to women, if she aint churning butter she aint really be happy. Wine, women and song is the devil’s playground. I said it before and I’ll say it again, it sucks to be you.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Oh give it a rest, MJB. Nobody said anything about women being subordinate or subjugated. In fact, that’s the point – sexual activity does NOT mean liberty.

Quite the contrary. Indiscriminate sexual activity tends to make true intimacy that much more difficult. But I suspect you already know that, and thus your unending efforts to try and denigrate those who avoid such a life.

It must be a hollow place where you live.

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:22 PM

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:18 PM

So we’ve gone from indiscriminate sex to casual sex. How about casual, mind blowing, earth shaking sex within the marital context for no other purpose but the joy of the act? And while substances are not required, they sure can help to turn a dull gathering into a very good time. And music, well it leads to dancing so I suppose I won’t even try to run that by you again.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:25 PM

So we’ve gone from indiscriminate sex to casual sex. How about casual, mind blowing, earth shaking sex within the marital context for no other purpose but the joy of the act? And while substances are not required, they sure can help to turn a dull gathering into a very good time. And music, well it leads to dancing so I suppose I won’t even try to run that by you again.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:25 PM

You two are using “casual sex” in two different contexts. Casual sex in my vocabulary means hooking up with random person at the bar, not in the marital context.

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 11:36 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:13 PM

.
Yeah, I know. When it comes to women, if she aint churning butter she aint really be happy. Wine, women and song is the devil’s playground. I said it before and I’ll say it again, it sucks to be you.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:17 PM

.
I can’t wait to show my wife how “subordinate” (maybe ‘subjective’ is a better word) you must think she is.
She’s gonna laugh at you … then kick me in the butt, and demand to know what I’ve been y’all about her.
.
You can’t buy … this kind of entertainment !

That’s why I come to hotair … : )

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:38 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 11:36 PM

(Psssst: I hate to give the game away, but I am mocking him and his Victorian attitudes)

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:38 PM

“. . . . . been telling y’all about her.”
.
. . . s i g h . . .

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:18 PM

So we’ve gone from indiscriminate sex to casual sex. How about casual, mind blowing, earth shaking sex within the marital context for no other purpose but the joy of the act? And while substances are not required, they sure can help to turn a dull gathering into a very good time. And music, well it leads to dancing so I suppose I won’t even try to run that by you again.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Red herrings everywhere! Casual and indiscriminate, it’s really not a big difference. If it’s not within the context, as you put it, of a committed relationship than it’s just masturbation. Fun, I suppose, if you’re into that sort of thing, but that’s about it. And while I may have mind-blowing, exhilarating intimacy with AJsMommie, I can assure you that it’s NEVER casual. But see, that’s what intimacy gets you – it’s always more than physical. :)

And if you need substances to have a good time, you have my sympathy on how truly empty your life is.

P.S. While I will do everything in my power to keep AJ from alcohol, drugs and casual sex, he’s already an accomplished electric guitar player, and he can shred 12-bar blues. Good rock n’ roll is truly a way to liberate the soul. :)

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:43 PM

cptacek on March 22, 2014 at 11:36 PM

.
(Psssst: I hate to give the game away, but I am mocking him and his Victorian attitudes)

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:38 PM

.
They are not “Victorian” . . . . . they’re from the “Dark ages” … you said that yourself, at least once.

That’s pre-Renassaince, for the love of Pete.

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:45 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:38 PM

You’re the one who was informing us of how happy those Amish women were. I was simply following your lead.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM

(Psssst: I hate to give the game away, but I am mocking him and his Victorian attitudes)

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:38 PM

Psssst… I hate to tell you, but you’re failing pretty badly at the mocking thing. :)

And by the way, YOUR attitudes are no more revolutionary than mine. Libertines have been with us forever, and they’ve always been the same: dissolute and debauched. And always, always convinced that they’re SO modern. Heh.

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:45 PM

And men were enjoying wine, women and song long, long before the 1970′s. In fact people have been enjoying them in one form or another for about as long as there have been people.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:50 PM

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM

Oh contraire on the modernity thing. Refer to what I just told your prude pal.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:51 PM

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM

Oh contraire on the modernity thing. Refer to what I just told your prude pal.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Are you drinking now? That doesn’t even make sense. I said your attitude is as old as mine, and you say I’m wrong by referring to yourself saying how old it is.

Do you actually comprehend the conversation, or do you just answer contrarily to anything you don’t like?

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:51 PM

LOL. I meant Au contraire, of course :-)

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM

Oy vey, I’ll take it slow for you. Attitudes like mine have been around for as long as there have been people. So pretending that they are the product of the 70′s, women’s lib, Elvis or whatever other cockamamie notion of yours is ridiculous. Humans have always enjoyed sex, drugs and rock-n-roll in one form or another for as long as there have been humans. Prudes are the exception and a rather sad and dreary exception at that.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:59 PM

Ah well, this tires me. I and others have consistently and repeatedly debunked your assertion that drugs and recreational sex are somehow required for a happy life. We’ve instead made the common sense statement that enjoying life without mind-altering substances but with a committed partner is just about as fulfilling as life can get.

You disagree? Cool. Go on with your life. But don’t try to paint our position as one that’s out-of-touch, unevolved or unenlightened. Morality is very modern, and we’re pretty happy with it.

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:00 AM

AJsDaddie on March 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM

Oy vey, I’ll take it slow for you. Attitudes like mine have been around for as long as there have been people. So pretending that they are the product of the 70′s, women’s lib, Elvis or whatever other cockamamie notion of yours is ridiculous. Humans have always enjoyed sex, drugs and rock-n-roll in one form or another for as long as there have been humans. Prudes are the exception and a rather sad and dreary exception at that.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:59 PM

Heh. Like the rest of your attempts at snark, your condescension is completely off-base. I didn’t say Libertinism started in the 70s, just that the 70s were the last time in our lifetimes that it reared its sodden, self-involved head.

And despite your rather derivative That 70s Show comments (see what I did there?), plenty of humans have enjoyed life to its fullest without drugs or indiscriminate sex!

Anyway, as I said, this is tiring and correcting you over and over again isn’t really worth the effort.

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:05 AM

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:00 AM

Self congratulatory back slapping is not debunking. Get over yourself.

Of course, nobody said that recreational sex (Thought you would try a new adjective? There is no escaping that this one is certainly applicable to enjoyment with one’s spouse), drugs and rock were required. You made that sh=t up. I have said, of course, that for many they contribute to our happiness and I consider that to be a good thing.

Morality and immorality are as old as people. Did I say get over yourself?

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 12:08 AM

listens2glenn on March 22, 2014 at 11:38 PM

.
You’re the one who was informing us of how happy those Amish women were. I was simply following your lead.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM

.
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE IS NOT JUST FOR MJBRUTUS’ EYES ONLY :
.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding of just who and what the members of the Amish Church are really like. They really aren’t that different from you and I, except for the clothing, the horse and buggy, no commercial electricity in the house … but they are leaders in the ‘LED lights, powered by batteries’ technology. The more affluent Amishers have solar panels that recharge storage batteries, just for house lighting.
Amish women at home are more industrious and productive than most “English” woman who work in factories.
Amish men … well, there are very few “English” who can work alongside them and keep-up. I have met a few who can … but they are few.
.
Bottom line; … if everything you know about Amishers came from watching the movies “Witness”, “For Richer or Poorer”, or the Al Yanchovic music video parody “Amish Paradise”, then you don’t know SQUAT.
Amish Mafia ? . . . . . those other three productions I listed above, come closer than that.

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 12:22 AM

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:00 AM

.
Self congratulatory back slapping is not debunking. Get over yourself.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 12:08 AM

.
I’m holier than thou . . . . . nyeah nyeah . . . . .
.
How ’bout that … was that debunking ?

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 12:25 AM

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 12:22 AM

I got a fridge and pantry full of Amish foodstuffs purchased from teh Amish settlements in So. ILL. around Anna.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 12:35 AM

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 12:08 AM

You do consistently say that people who don’t engage in recreational sex like to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen, or whatever other insult you can hurl at them. It’s like you need us to approve of your lifestyle but won’t acknowledge that our lifestyles are healthy and stable and great for us. And society.

cptacek on March 23, 2014 at 12:37 AM

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 12:08 AM

You do consistently say that people who don’t engage in recreational sex like to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen, or whatever other insult you can hurl at them. It’s like you need us to approve of your lifestyle but won’t acknowledge that our lifestyles are healthy and stable and great for us. And society.

cptacek on March 23, 2014 at 12:37 AM

This. +100

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:45 AM

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 12:22 AM

.
I got a fridge and pantry full of Amish foodstuffs purchased from teh Amish settlements in So. ILL. around Anna.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 12:35 AM

.
For the most part, you’ve got the best.

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 12:49 AM

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:00 AM

Self congratulatory back slapping is not debunking. Get over yourself.

Of course, nobody said that recreational sex (Thought you would try a new adjective? There is no escaping that this one is certainly applicable to enjoyment with one’s spouse), drugs and rock were required.

I have said, of course, that for many they contribute to our happiness and I consider that to be a good thing.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 12:08 AM

No, you said you encourage them, or at least the casual sex part and you imply that those who don’t are somehow less evolved than you. The condescending dismissal of a healthy, wholesome lifestyle is what we object to.

And no, recreational sex does not mean sex within a marriage. It means sex outside of a marriage purely for recreational purposes, and everybody here, including you, knows that. It’s that sort of disingenuous word parsing that makes you seem like the bratty kid in sixth grade.

And I reiterate – if drugs make you happy, then I pity you.

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:52 AM

It’s like you need us to approve of your lifestyle but won’t acknowledge that our lifestyles are healthy and stable and great for us. And society.

cptacek on March 23, 2014 at 12:37 AM

LMAO. No, I don’t need or want your approval. I find the attitudes around here to be so foreign and silly that it amuses me greatly to hear y’all espouse them.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 6:38 AM

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:52 AM

In the case of college kids, you bet. Marriage can wait and only an anachronism like yourself would want a society of 30 year old virgins. One reason we have so many divorces is because kids get married far too early.

So can one engage in recreational tennis with one’s spouse or is that term reserved only for playing with strangers? We’ve determined that one cannot play a casual game with their spouse, apparently.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:52 AM

.
In the case of college kids, you bet. Marriage can wait and only an anachronism like yourself would want a society of 30 year old virgins. One reason we have so many divorces is because kids get married far too early.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

.
Marriage can wait . . . . . sexual intimacy can not . . . . .
placing a ‘demand’ upon unmarried pubescent, and post-pubescent people to “keep their testosterone under control” constitutes an “anachronism” … got it.
.

So can one engage in recreational tennis with one’s spouse or is that term reserved only for playing with strangers? We’ve determined that one cannot play a casual game with their spouse, apparently.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

.
If you were suffering from a runny nose, and found yourself needing but missing a handkerchief, would you ask to borrow the one from the guy who next to you who also has a runny nose?

Would he even lend it to you, if you did ask?

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Attitudes such as yours are as morally wrong as they are impractical.

Sexual gratification is the worst reason for to people to commit to marriage. But by withholding access to sex without that commitment strongly encourages people, especially the young and inexperienced to form such marriages. Marriages that quite commonly serve only to add to human misery. Nothing could be more immoral than perpetuating such misery.

Young people who have left the supervisory eyes of their parents will have sex. You can cry about it but you cannot deny it. This conclusion is far from self-evident. It is supported from even a cursory observation of any college campus or social gathering you care to name.

And these facts, yes facts, of life are why availability of contraception is so important among people of all ages, but especially among young adults.

Too bad if that pisses off your magical, imaginary friends.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Moral relativism is a hell of a drug.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Any system of supposed morality that is yields an increase in human suffering is not moral at all.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting.

All truth is relative.
A. If all truth is relative, then the statement “All truth is relative” would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that “All truth is relative” is false.
There are no absolute truths.
A. The statement “There are no absolute truths” is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and “There are no absolute truths” is false.
B. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you – including relativism.
What is true for you is not true for me.
A. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
i. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
ii. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
A. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then
i. I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
ii. am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
a. If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory.
b. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn’t true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
c. If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn’t true since it states that all views are equally valid; and by not being at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
B. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
i. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
C. If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true – even if it is only for me.
i. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.
No one can know anything for sure.
A. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure, which is self-defeating.
That is your reality, not mine.
A. Is my reality really real?
B. If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?
We all perceive what we want.
A. How do you know that statement is true?
B. If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
i. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived?
ii. Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.
You may not use logic to refute relativism.
A. Why not?
B. Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
C. If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth.
D. If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality.
A. If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
B. Is truth self-contradictory?
i. If it were, then it wouldn’t be true because it would be self-refuting. If something is self-refuting, then it isn’t true.
C. If it is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
D. If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted.
i. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
E. If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.
i. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.
Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting.
A. On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic?
i. Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position?
ii. If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
B. To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Kneel at the alters of Hedon and Mammon neo pagan. Commiserate with teh temple prostitutes. Just don’t deceive yourself when you lie to the rest of us when you pretend to have a logical or moral framework from which to do so.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Self-serving strawmen such as the screed you posted and labeling as “moral relativism” everything that is not in accordance with your favored book of horrors makes you look as unthoughtful and superficial as you appeared at first glance.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM

AJsDaddie on March 23, 2014 at 12:52 AM
.

In the case of college kids, you bet. Marriage can wait and only an anachronism like yourself would want a society of 30 year old virgins. One reason we have so many divorces is because kids get married far too early.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

.
Marriage can wait . . . . . sexual intimacy can not . . . . .
placing a ‘demand’ upon unmarried pubescent, and post-pubescent people to “keep their testosterone under control” constitutes an “anachronism” … got it.

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM
.

So can one engage in recreational tennis with one’s spouse or is that term reserved only for playing with strangers? We’ve determined that one cannot play a casual game with their spouse, apparently.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

.
If you were suffering from a runny nose, and found yourself needing but missing a handkerchief, would you ask to borrow the one from the guy who next to you who also has a runny nose?

Would he even lend it to you, if you did ask?

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM
.

Attitudes such as yours are as morally wrong as they are impractical.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM

.
? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
.

Sexual gratification is the worst reason for to people to commit to marriage. But by withholding access to sex without that commitment strongly encourages people, especially the young and inexperienced to form such marriages. Marriages that quite commonly serve only to add to human misery. Nothing could be more immoral than perpetuating such misery.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM

.
Translation : . . .

“The urge for sexual gratification is much too powerful and overwhelming to expect teens and young adults to abstain from it until they are ‘mature’ enough to responsibly take on marriage.”

We’ve been hearing that same old tired line since the 1970s.
.

Young people who have left the supervisory eyes of their parents will have sex. You can cry about it but you cannot deny it. This conclusion is far from self-evident. It is supported from even a cursory observation of any college campus or social gathering you care to name.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM

.
Girls/women are (and always have been) the ONES … IN … “CONTROL” … when it comes to pre-marital sex.
I’m not in denial over the premise that there are always going to be “adventuress” girls (there’s another more vulgar word, but I’ll stick with ‘adventuress’ for now ), but those kind of girls were in a distinct minority.
Pre-marital pregnancies have been occurring since . . . . . well, a very, very, very looong time.
But they used to be MUCH less frequent, and when they did occur there was always a genuine social ‘stigma’ on both parties involved (but mostly the girl).
.

And these facts, yes facts, of life are why availability of contraception is so important among people of all ages, but especially among young adults.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM

.
WHO ? ? ? . . . . . on this thread has been arguing FOR contraceptives being LESS available or accessible ?
.

Too bad if that pisses off your magical, imaginary friends.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM

.
Uh oh … look out . . . . . I can see Him (capitalized pronoun again ) sitting on His (another one ) throne, in the heavens, holding a lightning-bolt with your NAME on it . . . . .
.
. . . . . TAKE COVER !

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 2:08 PM

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

.
If you were suffering from a runny nose, and found yourself needing but missing a handkerchief, would you ask to borrow the one from the guy who next to you who also has a runny nose?

Would he even lend it to you, if you did ask?

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM

.
HEY ‘BRUTUS ! . . . . . You never did answer this “handkerchief” question

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Like so many other time wasters, it deserves to be ignored.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

.
Like so many other time wasters, it deserves to be ignored.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM

.
Awwwwwwwwoohhlllllll . . . . . . . . . . . . . : (

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 3:22 PM

So can one engage in recreational tennis with one’s spouse or is that term reserved only for playing with strangers? We’ve determined that one cannot play a casual game with their spouse, apparently.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 7:18 AM

.
If you were suffering from a runny nose, and found yourself needing but missing a handkerchief, would you ask to borrow the one from the guy who next to you who also has a runny nose?

Would he even lend it to you, if you did ask?

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM

.
Are there any other promoters of “pre-marital sex” who would like to tackle this ?

listens2glenn on March 23, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Because adult married couples who do not want children should not enjoy sex, right?

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Wait, wait, let me think……

Your studies on effectiveness of different methods of contraception,for married couples,are based on the guy saying, “of course, dear, I pulled out in time”?

NowI’m gonna go have a double. Get real.

WryTrvllr on March 23, 2014 at 10:48 PM

A very good strategy and I am heartened by it. Too many couples get married too young. Over time they tend grow apart more often than they grow together. I think it is wiser for people to mature and become the who they will be before committing themselves to marriage. It should reduce the divorce rate dramatically.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM

That’s funny, cause every time I see a story of a couple married for 60 years or more, they were high school sweet hearts. People don’t “become who they will be” and get married. (you can’t be married and say that), they grow around each other, and nurture each other.

And, even though it’s obviously anecdotal, several kids, each planned, no “preventative” help needed, ever. almost 30 years. And from what I read, we’re a pretty active couple.

Not trying to brag.

WryTrvllr on March 23, 2014 at 10:56 PM

It is quite possible to live on a diet of broccoli and water.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Yes, and the animals that do it, have to eat all day, and for the most part, have sex once per year, often dying for the chance, get this part……..to make babies.

funny that.

WryTrvllr on March 23, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Any system of supposed morality that is yields an increase in human suffering is not moral at all.

MJBrutus on March 23, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Right!!!! Ice cream for all the kiddies at the bedside of anyone who dies! Enough. Your own arguments are becoming self defeating.

WryTrvllr on March 23, 2014 at 11:06 PM

WryTrvllr on March 23, 2014 at 11:03 PM

No silly. I was talking about it being possible for people to subsist on a diet of broccoli and water. Just as people can subsist without sex, only a handful of joyless, dour, religious fanatics would choose to. Enjoy your broccoli.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 8:17 AM

WryTrvllr on March 23, 2014 at 10:56 PM

Yes, well when people live 75 years and are married for 60 that pretty much means they got hitched when young. The reason it is remarkable is because very few people who wed so early stay wed for that long.

Mazel tov and L’Chaim to you and Missus Trvllr.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 8:19 AM

WryTrvllr on March 23, 2014 at 11:06 PM

Your strawmen never stood a chance.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Your strawmen never stood a chance.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Don’t need em. All the evidence shows marriage rates on the drop, so I guess that would translate to fewer divorces. The fertility rates across the western world are plummeting. And of the fewer children a higher percentage are to single parent homes.

Your argument style is so disjointed, it’s almost as if you applaud these changes.

Cause you certainly know what caused them.

WryTrvllr on March 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM

WryTrvllr on March 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Fail. I said that the problem of broken homes can be reduced by promoting marriages later in life. That denial of sex is a cause of these social ills and that accommodation of safe premarital sex will improve upon our social conditions.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db19.htm

Fail. I said that the problem of broken homes can be reduced by promoting marriages later in life. That denial of sex is a cause of these social ills and that accommodation of safe premarital sex will improve upon our social conditions.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Right. So with that in mind, notice the statistic that they don’t tell you, for chart 2. Of the 20% of women not married (first time) by age 35, only 6 of those 20 will subsequently marry. What did you call that? “becoming who they are”? Sounds more like sclerosis.

And again,

That denial of sex is a cause of these social ills and that accommodation of safe premarital sex will improve upon our social conditions.

Fail.
There is no lack of access to birth control in this country. (Unless you happen to consider tubal ligation or uterine ablation the only true forms of birth control). The pill and condoms are ubiquitous.

And look at all the wonderful changes to our society over the last 25 years. Julia would be proud. And definitely not lonely.

I mean, seriously, ….total fail.

WryTrvllr on March 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Anyway, this was fun. Thanks for the well wishes. We’ll spar again later, no doubt.

WryTrvllr on March 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

gig. a job.

WryTrvllr on March 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7