Skip to comments.
Sex and abstinence: Wait loss
World Net Daily ^
| 5-27-03
| Rebecca Hagelin
Posted on 05/27/2003 8:57:29 AM PDT by cgk
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: Wright is right!
You are also incorrect in that it's ok to show people killing each other. The level of realistic depiction of anything (sex and violence included) is vastly reduced in PG films, as opposed to R, or NC-17. So a film could concentrate on either or both subjects, but it would have to do so in a non-graphic manner. Your statement as to violence being preferred over love is not supported on a ratings basis, unless you assume that to show love must include explicit depictions of sex.
21
posted on
05/27/2003 10:41:53 AM PDT
by
=Intervention=
(Proud Christo-het Supremacist!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Agreed. I have no doubt that one of these days, we'll straighten out our sex mess. Probably about ten minutes before the Sun goes nova.
Most of the bad things people are forever attributing to sexual indulgence -- demeaning women; conceiving children they don't want and don't know how to care for; lying to gain sexual access; marital infidelity -- are expressions of character flaws or failures of responsibility that just have sex as one of their occasions. It's a bit like the drug mess. The argument has been made that we ban drugs because intoxication is harmful to society, yet there are innumerable persons who use intoxicants modestly and cautiously, and many legal ways to get completely smashed that no one would suggest should be banned.
If we want our young folks to behave responsibly as sexual beings, we have to exhibit honesty and teach responsibility. That includes giving our kids the benefit of what we know to be true, not pretending to certainty or uniformity where it doesn't exist, and not letting them wriggle out from under the consequences of their decisions and actions. President Bush's concept of a "culture of life" seems to me to be central to that effort.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
22
posted on
05/27/2003 10:51:33 AM PDT
by
fporretto
(Curmudgeon Emeritus, Palace of Reason)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I would suspect you're not a father, then, expecially not of a daughter.
To: Wright is right!
Most of the world is rated R: suggestive language, violence and adult themes!
24
posted on
05/27/2003 11:46:11 AM PDT
by
ffusco
(Maecilius Fuscus, Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
To: Abe Froman
I would suspect you're not a father, then, expecially not of a daughter. Does this mean you approve of fathers telling their perfectly normal sons it would have been best had they been born without sex organs?
Or did you just react to my post without actually reading it?
Did you tell your daughters you wished that they had been born without their sex organs?
25
posted on
05/27/2003 12:30:21 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
To: Abe Froman
Perfectly normal fourteen year old sons, I might add, who had not quite reached puberty yet?
26
posted on
05/27/2003 12:31:16 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I have a hard time believing that your father was completely serious when he told you that-----but I'm sure many parents could sympathize with the sentiment, especially ones with promiscuous and pregnant teenage daughters.
To: Abe Froman
I have a hard time believing that your father was completely serious when he told you that-----but I'm sure many parents could sympathize with the sentiment, especially ones with promiscuous and pregnant teenage daughters. He was dead serious.
If you think telling pre-pubescent children they should have been born without their sex organs is such a good idea, why didn't you tell your daughters that?
Or is it only boys who should be singled out for the terror treatment?
28
posted on
05/27/2003 12:53:24 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I didn't say it was a good idea----if your dad was serious then that's just weird. However, I can sympathize with the sentiment, expressed out of frustration and/or exasperation.
To: Abe Froman
I can sympathize with the sentiment, expressed out of frustration and/or exasperation. He had no reason to be frustrated or exasperated. I was fourteen years old. I had done nothing. I never did anything until I was in my twenties, when I went nuts.
"Deprivation dwarfism" is what happened to me.
If you do not allow your children to have normal social experiences (experiences that have nothing to do with sex), their only alternative is to have abnormal or zero social experiences.
You don't learn how to interact with other human beings in a vacuum.
30
posted on
05/28/2003 5:49:52 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Two things:
1. Seeing as my household (living with mom & dad,
being a college boy)has a female majority (mom+ two sisters),
I've tended to treat new girls as little sisters, not potential dates.
2. Just a bit of information- Virginity rates at my university are about 14%
Abstinence programs don't seem to be working...
31
posted on
05/28/2003 5:56:20 AM PDT
by
Saturnalia
(My name is Matt Foley and I live in a VAN down by the RIVER.)
To: Saturnalia
Abstinence programs don't seem to be working... In this article, the daughter is obviously traumatized by her mother's sex talk.
Something is wrong with that.
In the process of teaching children sexual morality, sex should not be turned into something ugly and frightening.
Parents who have no time for their children preach at them and then wonder what went wrong.
Parents who actually participate in their childrens' lives and actually know them fare much better.
That is my only point.
32
posted on
05/28/2003 6:07:50 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
To: Wright is right!
You do realize that your posts 6 and 7 seem to contradict each other. In 6, you use "Saving Private Ryan", probably one of the most violent mainstream movies ever made, as an example of why the woman shouldn't reject all R rated movies, then in 7 you imply that sex in a movie shouldn't be a problem, but violence should.
To: =Intervention=
"totally fallacious."
I compliment your spelling.
34
posted on
05/28/2003 6:27:04 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
(........The bartender yells, "hey get out of here, we don't serve breakfast!")
To: Richard Kimball
"You do realize that your posts 6 and 7 seem to contradict each other. In 6, you use "Saving Private Ryan", probably one of the most violent mainstream movies ever made, as an example of why the woman shouldn't reject all R rated movies, then in 7 you imply that sex in a movie shouldn't be a problem, but violence should." I suppose upon a cursory read, one might see a contradiction. However, the two are separate matters. One relates to the fallacious reasoning by the author that all R-rated movies are bad because of sex. I pointed out that several things can cause an R, and only one of them is sex.
In the later post, I pointed out the long-standing contradiction that exists within the entertainment industry itself - especially television - where it's OK to show violence but NOT OK to show people making love.
Two separate arguments, two separate issues.
But nice to hear from you, old friend!
Michael
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I'm talking about the exasperation/frustration of the parent with hormonally-charged teenage kids, man. Must everything be explained to you??
Comment #37 Removed by Moderator
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson