Posted on 07/10/2007 4:35:44 AM PDT by jacknhoo
To an economist, it's crystal clear why people with limited sexual pasts choose to supply too little sex in the present: their services are underpriced. If sexual conservatives could effectively advertise their histories, HIV-conscious suitors would compete to lavish them with attention. But that doesn't happen, because conservatives are hard to identify. Insufficiently rewarded for relaxing their standards, they relax their standards insufficiently.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When I was growing up, safe sex meant my parents did not find out.
Yes, take a bite out of that apple. Has God truly said that if ye eat of it, ye will surely die?.
That is the most incredible piece of double speak I think I have ever come across. I weep for this generation.
This may be the strangest article I’ve ever read. We need to be promiscuous to limit the spread of STD’s! I’ve never heard that one before.
I found it amusing that in the little story of Martin and Joan. The blame for Joan being a whore was giving to Martin. lol.
So their point is that by keeping ourselves separate from the depraved, we should now reward the skanks by offering outselves up as a clean sex partner?
This must be an except from “STD’s for Lemmings.”
the author of the article is ignorant as to both sex and economics. Ah, but it is in the NY Times, so this is to be expected. Ever notice how libs love to talk about sex, but they don’t really seem like they are getting any?
It is becoming apparent that Christians will very soon have to make a choice about remaining connected to this evil societyor to set up an alternate environment for the safety of our children and grandchildren. Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust off their feet from cities that did not welcome their message. They were not required to “cast pearls before swine.” It is abundantly clear that the swine are in charge of our popular culture as it devolves into the sewer. Christians need to wake up and start thinking about preserving the next generation of Christians.
“The author of the article is ignorant as to both sex and economics....”
But, but,!!Its SUCH a pretty thought!!!
The liberals will do anything to justify depravity...
I shall stop at the lab and get a can of ether, pour some on a hankie, and huff it.
Maybe THEN the article will make some kind of sense.
Is this Steve Landsburg, the comedian? No, I think that would be “Landesberg.”
I usually don’t follow links to the Slimes, but I thought I needed to this time... This guy is a total whack job. This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read... EVER!
Mark
Fear not, kitty. Many of us with children are already seeing to their protection against a culture gone mad.
We’re out here, quietly doing what needs to be done to protect the faith of the next generation.
I found that twisted too!
If the other guy and Joan are promiscuous with no restraints, they both get a disease, and die. Martin is safe at home. Pretty soon, all the ones without restraint are going to catch something nasty, and die, leaving the Martins of the world healthy.
How did the author manage to twist that to the opposite conclusion?!!
If someone has to get infected tonight, I want it to be (the cautious guy) rather than Promiscuous Pete, who would probably infect another twenty people before finally dying.
Sick!
Nonsense. This may be true to you and the author of this article but in the real world logic, economics and traditional moral thinking work together.
What a silly article.
I think this is part of a new trend, called "extreme stupidity."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.