Does this indicate a problem in America?

Does this indicate a problem in black America?

How does this mesh with Borg's argument that there is nothing wrong with permiscuous sex?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html

How does this mesh with Borg's argument that there is nothing wrong with permiscuous sex?
Lovely spelling of "promiscuous", there, Mr. Webster. How does something being risky make it wrong?

Incidentally, something like 75% of America is infected with HPV: Often called an STD. You can also get herpes--another STD--without having had sex. There are, similarly, other routes of infection for HIV, hepatitis C, and so forth. The term "STD" is really lacking in value.

This is why it's a good idea for protection to be made widely available. Doesn't stop everything, but it sure as hell helps.

i wonder if this will hinder the kiddie fuckers?

historically woman died at a younger age than men did. I heard the presumption was lack of hygienes capabilities. (lack of water).

Lovely spelling of "promiscuous", there, Mr. Webster.

Thank you for the spellcheck.

How does something being risky make it wrong?


Well, it's pretty simple. You see, there are things that involve an unacceptable amount of risk, like DWI, firing guns into the air in an urban area, etc. There are many such examples where taking such a risk is widely regarded as morally wrong.

Now, I understand you consider the contraction of STD's an acceptable amount of risk. I'm just wondering if you stick by that when there's a 25% chance that a random sex partner has an STD.


Incidentally, something like 75% of America is infected with HPV: Often called an STD.

According to the CDC, about 20 million Americans have about HPV. (With an American population of about 300 million - that would be less than 10%)

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#common

Maybe you should try getting your facts straight before you adopt this smarmy attitude in correcting my spelling errors.

You can also get herpes--another STD--without having had sex. There are, similarly, other routes of infection for HIV, hepatitis C, and so forth. The term "STD" is really lacking in value.

Thank you for advising of the exceptional nonsexual means of transmitting STDs, but let's try not to lose focus of the primary means of transmission.

Well, it's pretty simple. You see, there are things that involve an unacceptable amount of risk, like DWI, firing guns into the air in an urban area, etc. There are many such examples where taking such a risk is widely regarded as morally wrong.
You're confusing "personal risk" and "putting others at risk".
Now, I understand you consider the contraction of STD's an acceptable amount of risk. I'm just wondering if you stick by that when there's a 25% chance that a random sex partner has an STD.
Add that to 98% (success rate of condoms) and you get a rather low risk of contracting something. 0.5% assuming 100% infection if the other person is infected and the condom fails. Again, there's a difference between being an idiot, and being informed and accepting a risk.
According to the CDC, about 20 million Americans have about HPV. (With an American population of about 300 million - that would be less than 10%)

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#common

Maybe you should try getting your facts straight before you adopt this smarmy attitude in correcting my spelling errors.
"It has been estimated that 75% or more of sexually active Americans will contract HPV sometime in their lives." http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_men.cfm

Instead of having wildly unsafe crazy sex with everyone you can find, you should try my (http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=35088) method!

You're confusing "personal risk" and "putting others at risk".

You don't think promiscuous sex puts others at risk?

Add that to 98% (success rate of condoms) and you get a rather low risk of contracting something. 0.5% assuming 100% infection if the other person is infected and the condom fails. Again, there's a difference between being an idiot, and being informed and accepting a risk.

98% success rate!? Man, I need to find out what condoms you're using!

Without doing the research, I'm pretty certain you're using the pregnancy prevention rate (for immaculate use). Disease prevention rate is generally lower and highly variable depending on the type of disease.

"It has been estimated that 75% or more of sexually active Americans will contract HPV sometime in their lives." http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_men.cfm

(emphasis added)

So you're going to stick by this weak statement over the CDC's facts? I think I would count that as deliberate ignorance - not only that, but you're trying to spread that ignorance to others.

Thank you MTV... and your ilk.

You don't think promiscuous sex puts others at risk?
If you're uninfected, of course it doesn't. (Except for pregnancy, but that's a whole other ballgame.) The problem is not sex itself; the problem is irresponsibility vis-a-vis getting tested and staying disease-free.
98% success rate!? Man, I need to find out what condoms you're using!

Without doing the research, I'm pretty certain you're using the pregnancy prevention rate (for immaculate use). Disease prevention rate is generally lower and highly variable depending on the type of disease.
Then what is the disease prevention rate? And why does it have any bearing on the morality of the act?
So you're going to stick by this weak statement over the CDC's facts? I think I would count that as deliberate ignorance - not only that, but you're trying to spread that ignorance to others.
They're not contradictory. Viral diseases aren't necessarily permanent like HIV and hep C; the two percentages are measuring two different things. As it happens, I originally misremembered the statistic, but my point still stands. STD is a vague term, and sometimes having an STD just ain't a big deal. The bacterial ones can be fought quite easily with antibiotics. There's a vaccine for HPV, only some strains of which cause cervical cancer. The STD scare is way overblown, to the point where the very term causes people to cringe in fear. If you're smart about sex, you run fairly low risks for STDs. Whether or not to accept that risk is up to the individual; taking a risk for a potential gain (having some fun in life) does not make a person immoral. Life is risky. That's how it is.

Instead of having wildly unsafe crazy sex with everyone you can find, you should try my (http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=35088) method!
socially imposed celibacy? (sorry-your link didn't work)

Does this indicate a problem in America?

Does this indicate a problem in black America?

How does this mesh with Borg's argument that there is nothing wrong with permiscuous sex?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html
it's not a good thing, but it could be worse-that's running about the same as the general female population's herpes infection rate.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm#common

socially imposed celibacy? (sorry-your link didn't work)

No, Nappy's into sex with produce these days. It's no wonder that boy can't get a g/f.

:banana:

(OMG, I used a banana!!!!)

:banana:

(OMG, I used a banana!!!!)
very punny:lolhit:

:drinktoth If you're uninfected, of course it doesn't. The problem is not sex itself; the problem is irresponsibility vis-a-vis getting tested and staying disease-free.

You understand that you don't always know you're infected, right? And how many people get tested regularly? I'm guessing less than 5%.


And you bitched at me for not getting my facts straight! 98% is the average use case for, yes, pregnancy. The rates are the same for fluid-borne diseases like HIV, etc. Studies show that viruses such as HIV can't pass through unbroken condoms very well.


You still don't have your facts straight.

Effectively, you're saying condoms are 98% effective against AIDS. You even say they're 98% effective on "average." Well, neither statement is true. Condoms are somewhat effective against AIDS, but not as effective against pregnancy. And "average" condom use is about 90% effective against pregnancy, depending on what study you look at.

Here's your wikipedia sources (citations are available through wikipedia):

"The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied, ranging from 10–18% per year. The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year."

"According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health, correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years. [citing the National Institute for Health] The same review also found condom use significantly reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men.

A 2006 study reports that proper condom use decreases the risk of transmission for human papilloma virus by approximately 70%. Another study in the same year found consistent condom use was effective at reducing transmission of herpes simplex virus-2 also known as genital herpes, in both men and women."

(emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#_note-17

I will, however, agree that bacterial diseases are not much of a concern anymore, at least not on a more-than-superficial level (i.e. they're a concern if you're afraid of juice uncomfortably leaking from your genitals without any permanent harm)


They're not contradictory. Viral diseases aren't necessarily permanent like HIV and hep C; the two percentages are measuring two different things. As it happens, I originally misremembered the statistic, but my point still stands.

You sure did. You said 75% of the population is infected - That's very different from some people estimate that 75% of sexually active people will become infected. Oh well, as long as we're clear that you "misremembered," I can move on from this one.


Whether or not to accept that risk is up to the individual; taking a risk for a potential gain (having some fun in life) does not make a person immoral. Life is risky. That's how it is.

Justified like your typical DWI case.

I don't mean to completely knock you on this topic Borg - I value "fun in life" more than most people in a cost-benefit analysis. I just think your opinions on sex are far too cavalier, and I think the disease rates reflect the prevalence of this cavalier attitude.

If you're uninfected, of course it doesn't. (Except for pregnancy, but that's a whole other ballgame.) The problem is not sex itself; the problem is irresponsibility vis-a-vis getting tested and staying disease-free.

Then what is the disease prevention rate? And why does it have any bearing on the morality of the act?

They're not contradictory. Viral diseases aren't necessarily permanent like HIV and hep C; the two percentages are measuring two different things. As it happens, I originally misremembered the statistic, but my point still stands. STD is a vague term, and sometimes having an STD just ain't a big deal. The bacterial ones can be fought quite easily with antibiotics. There's a vaccine for HPV, only some strains of which cause cervical cancer. The STD scare is way overblown, to the point where the very term causes people to cringe in fear. If you're smart about sex, you run fairly low risks for STDs. Whether or not to accept that risk is up to the individual; taking a risk for a potential gain (having some fun in life) does not make a person immoral. Life is risky. That's how it is.


Well I would think the only true way to be smart...as mother like as it sounds...would be to not have sex until you are married and only having sex with that person for the rest of your life.

Otherwise it's not smart sex...even with a condom. I would hate to think people honestly feel a piece of latex will be their saving grace against a STD. It might help but isn't bulletproof. And let us not forget how often people lie about their sexual history and cheating.

Too bad it's so enjoyable huh?

:drinktoth

You understand that you don't always know you're infected, right? And how many people get tested regularly? I'm guessing less than 5%.
Well yeah, that's my point. If you're having promiscuous sex, you really should be getting yourself tested regularly. And if you have some sort of infection, you sure as shit better disclose it to the other party(ies) in the interest of full disclosure.
You still don't have your facts straight.

Effectively, you're saying condoms are 98% effective against AIDS. You even say they're 98% effective on "average." Well, neither statement is true. Condoms are somewhat effective against AIDS, but not as effective against pregnancy. And "average" condom use is about 90% effective against pregnancy, depending on what study you look at.

Here's your wikipedia sources (citations are available through wikipedia):

"The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied, ranging from 10–18% per year. The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year."

"According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health, correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years. [citing the National Institute for Health] The same review also found condom use significantly reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men.

A 2006 study reports that proper condom use decreases the risk of transmission for human papilloma virus by approximately 70%. Another study in the same year found consistent condom use was effective at reducing transmission of herpes simplex virus-2 also known as genital herpes, in both men and women."

(emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#_note-17

I will, however, agree that bacterial diseases are not much of a concern anymore, at least not on a more-than-superficial level.
Unfortunately, you quoted my pre-edit post. The more I racked my memory, the more I started to realize that the 98% was indeed a perfect-use statistic. I'm not going to go to that Wikipedia page on a school computer in a lab as I am, but I'm pretty sure that you're right.

I don't see how that has any bearing on morality, however.
Justified like your typical DWI case.

I don't mean to completely knock you on this topic Borg - I value "fun in life" more than most people in a cost-benefit analysis. I just think your opinions on sex are far too cavalier, and I think the disease rates reflect this cavalier attitude.
I don't think my opinions are cavalier at all. I'm saying that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it--not that it's risk-free. If you want to take a risk, I don't see how it's anyone else's concern that you take that risk.

Well I would think the only true way to be smart...as mother like as it sounds...would be to not have sex until you are married
That's a rather arbitrary point, isn't it?
and only having sex with that person for the rest of your life.
That sounds awfully dull. I don't think that monogamy is quite the ideal state people make it out to be. But if it works for you, go for it.

I think morality is the wrong tack to take on this issue. Moral argument is quite possibly the most ineffective method we have to dissuade unsafe sexual activity. Humans, it has been shown time and time again, simply will not listen. Or they will only pay lip service to chastity. The seamy underbelly of human nature may only be repressed, it cannot be eliminated.

Biology will not be denied.

That's a rather arbitrary point, isn't it?

That sounds awfully dull. I don't think that monogamy is quite the ideal state people make it out to be. But if it works for you, go for it.


LOL@ dull.

yeah I've lead a very dull life...just don't ask SMW...she might tell a few good stories on me!

;)

So, Borg... are you arbitrarily removing posts you don't like now? Wasn't enough to bitch me out via PM?

How utterly juvenile of you... must've hit too close to home, eh?

And here DF nearly had me convinced you'd never take advantage of your position as a mod.

;)
SMW

No, Nappy's into sex with produce these days. It's no wonder that boy can't get a g/f.

:banana:

(OMG, I used a banana!!!!)

I think you're banana is safe. He prefers melons.

I think you're banana is safe. He prefers melons.
:o i read that different.

:o i read that different.

I thought she was talking about his story in Gold Members forum about having sex with a melon.

Ooops....guess we better get back on topic...:rolleyes:

I thought she was talking about his story in Gold Members forum about having sex with a melon.

Ooops....guess we better get back on topic...:rolleyes:


I think Mike was being naughty.

Very unlike him I know.

:p

I think Mike was being naughty.

Very unlike him I know.

:p

Not Mikey, no way.:rolleyes:

I think morality is the wrong tack to take on this issue. Moral argument is quite possibly the most ineffective method we have to dissuade unsafe sexual activity. Humans, it has been shown time and time again, simply will not listen. Or they will only pay lip service to chastity. The seamy underbelly of human nature may only be repressed, it cannot be eliminated.

Biology will not be denied.
I think this is the wrong tack to take, actually. That biology suggests we behave in a certain fashion does not mandate that we behave that way. If sex were terrible and awful and all that, then one would be justified in saying that we shouldn't do it except to procreate. (Not justified in prohibiting the action, but justified in condemning it.) The thing is, it isn't.

That biology suggests we behave in a certain fashion does not mandate that we behave that way.
Yes, actually it does. You try telling people differently. They will not listen. Morality is a terrible tool for enforcing compliance. You can attach consequences to actions, certainly, but people will continue to act as they are impelled by biology irregardless.

Yes, actually it does. You try telling people differently. They will not listen. Morality is a terrible tool for enforcing compliance. You can attach consequences to actions, certainly, but people will continue to act as they are impelled by biology irregardless.

Sometimes biology mandates men to rape young, fertile women. Assuming you object to rape, what's your basis for your objection?

Rape is a violent crime.

Well yeah, that's my point. If you're having promiscuous sex, you really should be getting yourself tested regularly. And if you have some sort of infection, you sure as shit better disclose it to the other party(ies) in the interest of full disclosure.

I would agree that STD risk is not a basis for a moral objection if the individual (I phrase it like this because I still object if there is still an unacceptable risk of an unwanted pregnancy) gets tested in between casual sexual encounters.

Unfortunately, you quoted my pre-edit post.

Doh!

I don't see how that has any bearing on morality, however.

It ups the risk (see the calculation you made). The higher the risk, the more morally objectionable.

I don't think my opinions are cavalier at all. I'm saying that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it--not that it's risk-free. If you want to take a risk, I don't see how it's anyone else's concern that you take that risk.

My concern is not for you but the risk of spreading disease to others(as well as unwanted pregnancy, but that's digressing). If you were only taking risks for yourself, I would agree with you.

Rape is a violent crime.

So you don't object to rape for any reason other than it's illegal?

Risky = Morally objectionable now?

And BTW, this study was of teenage girls, not teenagers in general. I'd think the rates are a bit lower among boys, for various reasons (e.g. teenage boys are generally less successful at getting laid if they want to, and teenage girls often sleep with guys who are not in their teens).

Personally I'm not sure this is excessively alarming. I bet the rates have been pretty much the same in the past too - STDs aren't a new thing, and teenage sex certainly isn't. It does speak to the need for better sex education. Teenagers have been told over and over in sex ed (like I was, although I knew better) that condoms don't work, etc. A lot of them think that oral sex isn't sex, and they can have all the oral and even anal they want while still maintaining their precious "virginities". Vaccines like the one for HPV should be used extensively if and when they are developed. But honestly STDs aren't going to become less of a problem until parents are more open with their children; a lot of girls won't get tested because they know their parents would be informed if they ended up testing positive. Kids are too embarrassed to buy condoms (stupid as that is - I always said if you don't have the balls to go to the store and buy 'em you don't have the balls to have sex either ;)). And don't give me the "giving kids condoms will encourage them to have sex!" crap. They're already having sex, buddy. It's better for them to have one and use it then get caught up in the moment without one.

p.s. - Just for some perspective here, I have had an STD. Had an asshole ex boyfriend who would put a condom on while I was looking and then slip it off later, so he gave me chlamydia... He also slept with my best friend later and gave it to her too...

So you don't object to rape for any reason other than it's illegal?
I don't think Nappy said that we should encourage promiscuity because it's biologically desirable. He said that morality is the worst tool for discouraging it. You can tell people that promiscuous sex is wrong all you want, but that's not going to make them listen - people do the "wrong" thing ALL THE TIME.

So you don't object to rape for any reason other than it's illegal?
I believe I also said, "violent."

I believe I also said, "violent."

A) Not all rape is violent.

B) Violence is often biologically driven as well.

I don't think Nappy said that we should encourage promiscuity because it's biologically desirable. He said that morality is the worst tool for discouraging it. You can tell people that promiscuous sex is wrong all you want, but that's not going to make them listen - people do the "wrong" thing ALL THE TIME.

A) Nappy implied that something shouldn't be morally objectionable if it's biologically driven.

B) No one said I expected anyone to listen.

C) Just because people do "wrong" things "all the time," that doesn't justify other people doing "wrong" things. The issue isn't whether promiscuous sex is more or less immoral than other immoral activities (it's pretty low on my scale of immoral activity), the issue is whether it's immoral at all.

Risky = Morally objectionable now?



Risky to others - yes. (see the last sentence in my most recent response to Borg)

Viral diseases aren't necessarily permanent like HIV and hep C; the two percentages are measuring two different things. As it happens, I originally misremembered the statistic, but my point still stands. STD is a vague term, and sometimes having an STD just ain't a big deal. The bacterial ones can be fought quite easily with antibiotics. There's a vaccine for HPV, only some strains of which cause cervical cancer. The STD scare is way overblown, to the point where the very term causes people to cringe in fear. If you're smart about sex, you run fairly low risks for STDs. Whether or not to accept that risk is up to the individual; taking a risk for a potential gain (having some fun in life) does not make a person immoral. Life is risky. That's how it is.

It's not only the bacteria causing non-STD type infections that have become resistant to antibiotics. Those causing STDs have become just as resistant.

In late 1974 I was stationed at Ft. Hood. There were 45,000 troops based there. If a soldier came down with a dose of the clap (gonorrhea) here's how it typically went: 7-9 days for a mild burning sensation experienced when urinating, another 3-5 days and there will be pus evident. Treat with 4.8 million units of Procaine-Penicillin (2 shots) and 7 Benemid tablets. The benemid to be taken once daily, to help retain the penicillin in the system. Don't drink alcohol for a week. Done. Within 10 days or so, the young stud is healthy enough to jump back on that horse and ride. We just didn't see a whole lot of STDs stateside.

Early 1975, I was in Korea. There were 10,000 troops where I was. If a soldier came down with the clap, here's how it typically went: within 24 hours a significant burning sensation experienced when urinating. Within 48 hours copious pus flowing freely. Treat with 9.6 million units (4 shots) come back if the symptoms aren't gone in 48 hours. I think that's where the phrase "poke & hope" originated. A great many came back for further treatment. A good many of those wound up being hospitalized with IV's in their arms pouring antibiotics straight into the veins and still not curing that STD. We saw STD's (VD in those days) on a daily basis.

The bacteria had become strengthened over time as a result of inadequate treatment. Prostitutes would take antibiotics until the symptoms went away then discontinue treatment. A great many soldiers being treated on an outpatient basis didn't follow the rules of no drinking for a week or no sex for 10 days and as a result their own infection got worse and they in turn potentially spread an already resistant strain of bacteria to someone else. Very nasty stuff.

STD's don't necessarily infect only the genitals, either. I've taken swabs of tonsils that were infected and in one case, a young soldier's eyes had become infected (always wash those hands!!). Any mucus membrane or break in the skin can be a method of transmission.

Lots of water under the bridge since my time in Korea. What's not changed is the ongoing battle with bacteria which has only continued to strengthen so well as a response to our continuing insistence that the docs give antibiotics for every sniffle.

A) Not all rape is violent.

Bullshit! The very word "rape" encompasses violence.

U.S. Syphilis (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004278267_apsyphilisincreases.html?syndication=rs s) up for the 7th straight year.

Bullshit! The very word "rape" encompasses violence.
Thank you.

I don't believe statuatory rape is rape, though I don't think it should actually be legal. I just don't feel it should be treated the same way rape is. A misdemeanor crime at best. Max penalty a year in jail for repeat offenders.

A) Nappy implied that something shouldn't be morally objectionable if it's biologically driven.
No. I didn't.

Thank you.

I don't believe statuatory rape is rape, though I don't think it should actually be legal. I just don't feel it should be treated the same way rape is. A misdemeanor crime at best. Max penalty a year in jail for repeat offenders.

I've seen a case where a middle aged counselor screwed one of his 8th grade clients for 2 or 3 years, billing her parents the whole time. He did her at school, during sessions, pulled her out of school for it, etc.

She was a willing participant the entire time, and only stopped when she realized he didn't really love her. At first, they couldn't do it, because "it didn't fit." But he kept trying and they managed to get past that.

But according to you, this guy should get off with a misdemeanor charge. After all, he's just driven by biology, right Nappy?

I think both of you don't know what you're talking about.

I think morality is the wrong tack to take on this issue. Moral argument is quite possibly the most ineffective method we have to dissuade unsafe sexual activity. Humans, it has been shown time and time again, simply will not listen. Or they will only pay lip service to chastity. The seamy underbelly of human nature may only be repressed, it cannot be eliminated.

Biology will not be denied.

A) Nappy implied that something shouldn't be morally objectionable if it's biologically driven.



No. I didn't.

What exactly is the point of your original post then, Nappy? It sounds to me as if your saying a morality-based argument is an inappropriate argument when the behavior in question is biologically driven.

Feel free to clarify.

What exactly is the point of your original post then, Nappy? It sounds to me as if your saying a morality-based argument is an inappropriate argument when the behavior in question is biologically driven.

Feel free to clarify.
I didn't say inappropriate. Read it again.

I've seen a case where a middle aged counselor screwed one of his 8th grade clients for 2 or 3 years, billing her parents the whole time. He did her at school, during sessions, pulled her out of school for it, etc.

She was a willing participant the entire time, and only stopped when she realized he didn't really love her. At first, they couldn't do it, because "it didn't fit." But he kept trying and they managed to get past that.

But according to you, this guy should get off with a misdemeanor charge. After all, he's just driven by biology, right Nappy?

I think both of you don't know what you're talking about.
A misdemeanor charge for every instance. 2-3 years, multiply that by the number of sessions, should add up to quite a few charges, and a multi-year sentence. You're really quite thick-headed, aren't you?

A misdemeanor charge for every instance. 2-3 years, multiply that by the number of sessions, should add up to quite a few charges, and a multi-year sentence. You're really quite thick-headed, aren't you?

Lol. So you would charge the guy with a dozens of misdemeanors?

And you said a max year in jail for one instance. Now it's 2-3...you're talking a felony sentence (more than a year) now.

And I assume you want to prove up every instance beyond a reasonable doubt? Yeah, once you get past the need to expand your staff multifold to deal with that many charges, defense attorneys throwing the Double Jeopardy Clause in your face, the media firestorm that would erupt for charging a guy with that many misdemeanors, the fact that your victim/star witness will not be able to remember each instance in detail, and the time it would take to get the guy docketed for all of the charges, that might be a workable solution.

Why do every one? You can't well charge him for three hundred instances. Ten should be enough. The guy's a crook, throw the book at him. Ergregious repeat offenses could earn a year for each offense. Get him on five or ten, and you'll have an acceptable sentence. Why do you insist on taking my words and inventing all kinds of cuckoo scenarios to discredit?

And you said a max year in jail for one instance. Now it's 2-3...you're talking a felony sentence (more than a year) now
No, the crook was screwing the girl for two-three years, I apologize for the lack of clarity. Still a year sentence (max!) for each offense.

Why do every one? You can't well charge him for three hundred instances. Ten should be enough. The guy's a crook, throw the book at him. Ergregious repeat offenses could earn a year for each offense. Get him on five or ten, and you'll have an acceptable sentence. Why do you insist on taking my words and inventing all kinds of cuckoo scenarios to discredit?

Because your suggestion is cuckoo. You would flood the court system and you would lose a good chunk of your cases because your victim can't rememember every instance in detail. Not to mention it's arguably unconstitutional....kindof like charging a thief with a separate crime for each dollar he steals.

Oh yeah, you probably don't know about this, but most sentences run concurrently, which means if you have 10 1-year sentences, you will serve only one year. (i.e. they all run at the same time)

If the suggestion were so cuckoo, you could use a standard scenario to prove it, not some front-page sensation that gets talked about in the two horse town it happens in for years.

If we can do it for drug offenses, we should be able to do it for morally unconscionable sexual offenses. And before you get on your high horse, the moral issue here is the abuse of the client-therapist relationship, flouting of school, and so on. If it were just some random dude boinking an eighth grader for two-three years, as is usually the case in stat rape cases, there's no need to get medieval. Let the judge use discretion.

If the suggestion were so cuckoo, you could use a standard scenario to prove it, not some front-page sensation that gets talked about in the two horse town it happens in for years.

That wasn't a front-page sensation Nappy. I just used my most recent example.


If we can do it for drug offenses, we should be able to do it for morally unconscionable sexual offenses. And before you get on your high horse, the moral issue here is the abuse of the client-therapist relationship, flouting of school, and so on. If it were just some random dude boinking an eighth grader for two-three years, as is usually the case in stat rape cases, there's no need to get medieval.

Fair enough, but you need to understand that stat rape cases are often someone a parent has entrusted. If the circumstances aren't so bad, then the judge/jury can give probation.

Let the judge use discretion.

But your proposal removes the judge's discretion! Felons CAN be given probation.

Anyways, the original point is that children are often non-violently
victims of rape. These cases often involve biologically-driven motives and are morally objectionable.

In that case, your assertion that a morality-based argument is ineffective against biologically-driven behavior is bogus.

But your proposal removes the judge's discretion! Felons CAN be given probation.
And misdemeanors can be given slaps on the wrist.

Anyways, the original point is that children are often non-violently
victims of rape. These cases often involve biologically-driven motives and are morally objectionable.

In that case, your assertion that a morality-based argument is ineffective against biologically-driven behavior is bogus.
You cannot be a non-violent victim of rape. You might want to call it rape, but rape is by definition sex forced with violence. Statutory rape is a twentieth century crime using twentieth century values. It was invented. Taking advantage of a woman's or girl's insecurities, lack of sophistication, or just plain sweet-talking her is how all of us get laid. It doesn't magically find some evil aura at an arbitrary age.

I'm arguing effectiveness, not validity. It may well be valid. It just isn't effective.

Anyways, the original point is that children are often non-violently
victims of rape. These cases often involve biologically-driven motives and are morally objectionable.

Tell that child it was non-violent, even if the child was supposedly consenting. Abuse, and especially sexual abuse, is violent emotionally.

Instead of having wildly unsafe crazy sex with everyone you can find, you should try my (http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=35088) method!



nothing wrong with that as long as you use protection and roll the dice. your call, your problem. if some teenager gets a STD, maybe it'll lower the chances of them having kids.

wild crazy sex? wish i knew where. in my entire 43 yrs i never saw wild crazy sex. i looked. tried. and rarely got laid , and that is the case up to this day. and i'm married.

You cannot be a non-violent victim of rape. You might want to call it rape, but rape is by definition sex forced with violence. Statutory rape is a twentieth century crime using twentieth century values. It was invented. Taking advantage of a woman's or girl's insecurities, lack of sophistication, or just plain sweet-talking her is how all of us get laid. It doesn't magically find some evil aura at an arbitrary age.
But there's an obvious difference between boinking a 17 year old and boinking a 7 year old. Are you suggesting that both are okay? Although I'm not a fan of using an arbitrary age as a cutoff point, I don't see any other method that would make sense.

and boinking a 7 year old.
Sexual assault, child abuse, child molestation, there's a whole host of offenses that can be brought into play if the victim is that young. The discretion between the two should be left up to prosecutors and the judge. Whatever the prosecutors think they can convince a jury the perp is guilty of, well that should be the offense.

Sexual assault, child abuse, child molestation, there's a whole host of offenses that can be brought into play if the victim is that young. The discretion between the two should be left up to prosecutors and the judge. Whatever the prosecutors think they can convince a jury the perp is guilty of, well that should be the offense.
What kind of law is that? Things have to have definitions at least, otherwise you have a law that people don't know if they're breaking or not. Say there's a law saying that one should not have sex with someone who "is not capable of understanding the implications of, therefore not capable of consenting to, sexual activity." Suddenly you have horny guys my age wondering if they can legally have sex with the 16 year old girl he met at a party. And some judges might view that case differently, depending on their preconceived opinions. It may be flawed, but a very specific, objective, numerical law is at least a law that the citizens understand. "Capable of consenting to" is not something that can be measured objectively or even proved.

It's not a law. I'm saying there are already laws that exist. Use existing laws. There is no need for a "statutory rape" crime.

Well, Leper, good to know you think I'm an immoral person. Since "immoral" people generally don't deserve to be respected, I think I can assume that you don't respect me either. Well you'll get what you give I suppose. :)

just shoot him.

just shoot him.
What the hell is with you and shooting people lately?

Had an asshole ex boyfriend who would put a condom on while I was looking and then slip it off later...
Couldn't you feel the difference? What did you think he was using? A dick-skin condom? ;)

That said, I've been lucky, and I've had some...uhh...questionable partners in the past - including, but not limited to, a heroine addict (an intravenous user) in college (although, I didn't know at the time, but whatever…I’m clean). Talk about six weeks of sweating it out.

Couldn't you feel the difference? What did you think he was using? A dick-skin condom? ;)
Well, Prae, considering this guy took my virginity, how the hell was I supposed to be able to tell?

in my entire 43 yrs i never saw wild crazy sex. i looked. tried. and rarely got laid , and that is the case up to this day. and i'm married.
Maybe you should try showering on a regular basis. Lose 30 lbs, stop smoking pot, get an education, shave, get a real job, and learn to speak properly. Basically, you're in dire need of full overhaul. Oh, and ditch the wife too, for she's got shitty taste in men.

Start there.

Well, Prae, considering this guy took my virginity, how the hell was I supposed to be able to tell?
You caught the clap your first time at bat?!?!? Holy shit, I'm sorry. :(

You caught the clap your first time at bat?!?!? Holy shit, I'm sorry. :(
No, no, later... The first time he wore a condom the whole time... But I wasn't just with him ONCE.

Well, Leper, good to know you think I'm an immoral person. Since "immoral" people generally don't deserve to be respected, I think I can assume that you don't respect me either. Well you'll get what you give I suppose. :)

I just saw this post. You're taking that a bit far DF. My argument is that the act is immoral - that doesn't make you immoral on the whole. It's not like I've never committed an immoral act in my life, yet I still consider myself a respectable person.

You can bang every guy on the face of the Earth for all I care. Just don't go trying to justify your actions as moral when they are not.

People who do immoral things do not deserve respect. That's why they're called "immoral".

Oh and Leper, I have a question for you... If promiscuity is immoral and harms others, how should we punish promiscuous people?

I like the way you're thinking here, DF!

I like the way you're thinking here, DF!
Well if being a slut harms other people, it only makes sense that we should have some sort of penalty for being slutty...

well I tend to lean towards a pro slut stance myself. I see nothing wrong with the way sluts bring joy to those they are slutty with. Infact on a personal note if it wasnt for sluts my high school years would of been very grim. And even most recently if it wasnt for females with a slutty nature I would be stuck with self inflicted orgasms on a daily basis. I have been thinking about Mrs. Mellon though!

So all in all I think the sluts in the world are doing a great service to the communities they life in and are making alot of people very happy. If it wasnt for sluts alot of males in the areas would not have a chance in hell of getting laid by normal,uptight,commitment demanding, females..

Infact I am even going to go further and say there is an anti slut bias in the media today.

Well, what I was looking at was your efforts to make "immoral" be more strongly defined, DF.

Well, what I was looking at was your efforts to make "immoral" be more strongly defined, DF.
That's exactly what I'm going for.:thumbs:

Oh and Leper, I have a question for you... If promiscuity is immoral and harms others, how should we punish promiscuous people?

You know, DF, not all immoral behavior requires punishment. I probably treat it something like adultery - don't do it myself, teach my kids not to do it, advise others not to do it, and don't marry somebody who engages in that sort of behavior.

People who do immoral things do not deserve respect. That's why they're called "immoral".

That's a different argument all together. I disagree - I think a person's behavior should be evaluated on the whole. Someone can commit an immoral act and still be a good person on the whole. I think it's a bit ridiculous to make a statement that paints every non-saint as a person who "does not deserve respect" - in fact, knowing your posting history, I doubt you truly believe what you're saying at all. Rather, I suspect you're just saying this to categorize me as an extremist, so that you can go on thinking people who think your behavior is wrong are just off-their-rocker nuts.

I know it's hard to imagine, but there's lots of people who think acting slutty is wrong. Many of them aren't religious fundies and many of them aren't so crazy as to suggest disrespecting or "punishing" every slutty person on the planet. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to accept this.

That's exactly what I'm going for.:thumbs:

Wicked; sinful; criminal; vicious; unjust; dishonest;
depraved; impure; unchaste; profligate; dissolute;
abandoned; licentious; lewd; obscene.

Rather, I suspect you're just saying this to categorize me as an extremist, so that you can go on thinking people who think your behavior is wrong are just off-their-rocker nuts.
You're not quite getting it, Leper. The point DF was trying to make is, the people whose behavior you are condemning are people all around you, with lives, minds, and difficulties that are much, much different than yours. By classifying such behaviors as immoral, you are saying something about the character of the people that do it. It's not just a word, it's a harsh judgment. Calling something immoral should not be a careless or unconsidered act. It's a very deliberate thing to tell a person they lack a sense of ethics that you somehow have. It should be reserved for serious actions that violate the principles of human dignity. Theft, rape, murder, actions that clearly affect another person's well-being, these things are clearly immoral. But lesser actions like promiscuity should bear quite a bit of explanation before being considered immoral. It's a very divisive and non-nice thing to do.

Well if being a slut harms other people, it only makes sense that we should have some sort of penalty for being slutty...


Um I think STD's especially those like AIDS are pretty good penalty for that kind of life.

I know it doesn't matter to some people but I prefer not to feel like trash so I don't nor ever have "slept around". But like I said some people don't care or either they just are numb to it. I'm not sure really since I'm not that way.

Um I think STD's especially those like AIDS are pretty good penalty for that kind of life.

I know it doesn't matter to some people but I prefer not to feel like trash so I don't nor ever have "slept around". But like I said some people don't care or either they just are numb to it. I'm not sure really since I'm not that way.


I would agree that the risks inherent in choosing a casual attitude towards sex and sex partners can cause significant consequences in that lifestyle.

Loss of respect, though, for oneself, is the main casualty. Our society may expound the idea that sex can be recreational and that people can come together for a night and there will be no lasting effects, but that doesn't seem to be the reality.

Loss of respect, though, for oneself, is the main casualty.
I doubt this is true for all, or perhaps even most, people.

I would agree that the risks inherent in choosing a casual attitude towards sex and sex partners can cause significant consequences in that lifestyle.

Loss of respect, though, for oneself, is the main casualty. Our society may expound the idea that sex can be recreational and that people can come together for a night and there will be no lasting effects, but that doesn't seem to be the reality.


Absolutely! That's why it would make me feel like trash. Maybe it's an attention thing for some people, I really don't know. I just wish sex was portrayed as being something sacred because really it is. And sometimes it takes finding the right person to really understand that. It's sad that I will have to constantly remind my son of this because society will constantly contradict it..and I dont see it getting any better soon.

I just wish sex was portrayed as being something sacred because really it is.
To you. I don't know why sex is something that people refuse to get other people's perspectives on. It seems like it's "my way or the highway" with most people. Personally, I think it's an awfully snobbish and arrogant thing to do, look down on people for what kind of sex they choose to have...and I should know, I can be damn snobbish and arrogant at times.

I agree with you, Musiq. I think it's a shame that being slutty is accepted so easily these days and passed off as being "open-minded" or some other excuse. If it is for validation of some sort, it's not going to help in any way down the line, especially if a person contracts an STD, and especially an STD that will affect every sexual encounter from there on. Not smart.

To you. I don't know why sex is something that people refuse to get other people's perspectives on. It seems like it's "my way or the highway" with most people. Personally, I think it's an awfully snobbish and arrogant thing to do, look down on people for what kind of sex they choose to have...and I should know, I can be damn snobbish and arrogant at times.

I have heard most all of the "perspectives" and that's fine for them if they want to live that way. It's not "my way or the highway" with me, honestly. I would just like to see more young girls have more respect for themselves before using sexuality to validate themselves. It truly is a different world these days. Glad I'm not a teenager anymore, that's for sure.

I have heard most all of the "perspectives" and that's fine for them if they want to live that way. It's not "my way or the highway" with me, honestly. I would just like to see more young girls have more respect for themselves before using sexuality to validate themselves. It truly is a different world these days. Glad I'm not a teenager anymore, that's for sure.


It's not my way or the highway either even though it was implied earlier.

But you already know that about me so...

To you. I don't know why sex is something that people refuse to get other people's perspectives on. It seems like it's "my way or the highway" with most people. Personally, I think it's an awfully snobbish and arrogant thing to do, look down on people for what kind of sex they choose to have...and I should know, I can be damn snobbish and arrogant at times.


Question ...do you not find it to be sacred or have you never had the experience of loving someone so much that it would be sacred to you???

Let's get YOUR perspective on it...so I can be snobbish and arrogant about it.

I have heard most all of the "perspectives" and that's fine for them if they want to live that way. It's not "my way or the highway" with me, honestly. I would just like to see more young girls have more respect for themselves before using sexuality to validate themselves. It truly is a different world these days. Glad I'm not a teenager anymore, that's for sure.
I don't know that too many teenagers use sex to "validate" themselves. There are many people who fuck because, well, fucking is fun. I mean, I'm sure that there are a myriad of reasons why people my age and younger would become somewhat promiscuous, but I just don't see "validation" as a major factor. It's possible that I'm wrong and I'm viewing this too superficially, but luckily it doesn't matter either way because it's none of my business what others do in bed. (Unless they'd care to invite me!)
Question ...do you not find it to be sacred or have you never had the experience of loving someone so much that it would be sacred to you???
A bit of history on me: I've had sex with only one person in my nineteen years on this Earth, and I did indeed love her quite a bit. I don't quite have the perspective to say what casual sex is like, seeing as how I've never had it. But I can extrapolate from masturbation, and I can say that, yes, just plain fucking pales in comparison to having good sex with someone you love. That said, I don't see how bad sex detracts at all from good sex. Eating at McDonald's one day doesn't at all cheapen the experience of eating a nice, juicy Porterhouse, and I don't think casual sex ruins good sex either. In fact, I can see how it could give one the perspective needed to really appreciate good sex.

25% of kids have STD and 50% of black kids? What bullshit.

I don't know that too many teenagers use sex to "validate" themselves. There are many people who fuck because, well, fucking is fun. I mean, I'm sure that there are a myriad of reasons why people my age and younger would become somewhat promiscuous, but I just don't see "validation" as a major factor. It's possible that I'm wrong and I'm viewing this too superficially, but luckily it doesn't matter either way because it's none of my business what others do in bed. (Unless they'd care to invite me!)

No, it doesn't matter to me what anybody else does in bed, either. I feel the validation refers more to young women these days than young men. There are things that are more "accepted" now than years ago, in the name of expressing sexuality. There's a huge difference in being a sexual, passionate person as opposed to just having sex for the sake of having sex, and that's a choice, no doubt. I guess what I mean, from my perspective, is being sexy and alluring is really different than being slutty. A lot of girls these days don't get that because they haven't been exposed to anything but the latter. JMHO.

Well, casual sex is just that. Casual. It can never hope to reach the depths of feeling that sex between two adults who have been together for a long time can reach. The intimacy and the closeness is enhanced by all the time spent together, it deepens the experience in a good way. (hopefully)

I don't know that casual sex is immoral, but I don't think it's healthy all that much either.

Your example of McDonald's vs a nice gourmet meal is apt, but I find that the more gourmet I have, the less appetite I have for McDonald's, and that the cheap stuff doesn't really satisfy for long, and mostly makes me ill.

No, it doesn't matter to me what anybody else does in bed, either. I feel the validation refers more to young women these days than young men. There are things that are more "accepted" now than years ago, in the name of expressing sexuality. There's a huge difference in being a sexual, passionate person as opposed to just having sex for the sake of having sex, and that's a choice, no doubt. I guess what I mean, from my perspective, is being sexy and alluring is really different than being slutty. A lot of girls these days don't get that because they haven't been exposed to anything but the latter. JMHO.


Let's face it. Some people have to learn the hard way. So when they find themselves with a STD or a child from someone who doesn't remember your name then maybe they will realize that "fucking for fun" might not be as fun later on as it was in the moment.

I hope I never have to date again!!!

Nice, Mary!

Well, casual sex is just that. Casual. It can never hope to reach the depths of feeling that sex between two adults who have been together for a long time can reach. The intimacy and the closeness is enhanced by all the time spent together, it deepens the experience in a good way. (hopefully)

I don't know that casual sex is immoral, but I don't think it's healthy all that much either.

Your example of McDonald's vs a nice gourmet meal is apt, but I find that the more gourmet I have, the less appetite I have for McDonald's, and that the cheap stuff doesn't really satisfy for long, and mostly makes me ill.


You said it all with that!!!!

:thumbs:

Let's face it. Some people have to learn the hard way. So when they find themselves with a STD or a child from someone who doesn't remember your name then maybe they will realize that "fucking for fun" might not be as fun later on as it was in the moment.

I hope I never have to date again!!!

You and me, both!

To clarify something, on that note...it isn't just young people who have to deal with this issue anymore. Those of us who have been married and divorced/widowed, it's probably even harder to deal with, in some ways. Dating certainly isn't for the faint of heart!

You and me, both!

To clarify something, on that note...it isn't just young people who have to deal with this issue anymore. Those of us who have been married and divorced/widowed, it's probably even harder to deal with, in some ways. Dating certainly isn't for the faint of heart!


Yep like Mary said...once you've had the good stuff it's less appealing to just take whatever.

Your example of McDonald's vs a nice gourmet meal is apt, but I find that the more gourmet I have, the less appetite I have for McDonald's, and that the cheap stuff doesn't really satisfy for long, and mostly makes me ill.
True enough. But I still loves me some fast food everyone now and then. I miss Chick-Fil-A up here; Chicagoland doesn't have 'em. :(

True enough. But I still loves me some fast food everyone now and then. I miss Chick-Fil-A up here; Chicagoland doesn't have 'em. :(

LOL - love the metaphor....still loves me some fast food! That's understandable.

Too bad about Chick-Fil-A, Borg. I like them, too. It's almost a staple for lunch these days.