Permissive Sex Ed Linked to Higher Pregnancy, Abortion Rates.

and the endless Kinsey references geez that's bizarre... she's the only one going on and on and on about Kinsey....

 

This must really be the high point of your day isn't it? You waste your potential.

 

Well by all rights, Kinsey and Freud were fairly wonky. Freud liked to indulge in cocaine, and I am suppose to accept his theories about the workings of the mind? I haven't dug much into Kinsey, but suffice it to say that I won't be surprised at the garbage I'll find about him.

Junk science at its finest.

 

Your first mistake is to operate under the assumption that men WANT sex, and, from time to time, women will take pity on them and give in. That's not how it works anymore. Women have woken up to the fact that they're allowed to WANT to have sex, too.

Your second mistake is the idea that women don't "need" to have sex to keep a boyfriend. While there may be rare exceptions to the rule, you are mostly wrong. Like most anything else in life, relationships contain an element of competition, and if someone is withholding sex from their partner, there is most assuredly someone else out there who won't.

Actually, I think it's quite healthy. Slowly but surely we're starting to realize who we really are.

 

Sigh .. again another generalization, Wiki is not one of my "faves", I use it rarely .. or if I do I try to find other sources.

I find you obsession with Kinsley and sexual overtones towards minors quite disturbing, alongside your self regulated opinion that all "progressives" advocate grooming minors for future sexual conquest .. is this a projection of your own thoughts one has to wonder.

 

I'll make a deal..you quit spouting Kinseyisms, and I'll stop pointing out how his perversion of *science* and whack *research* resulted in the stupidification of our education system. You stop prating about "children are just little people" and "I won't teach my babies that sex is bad because sex is GOOD, cuz PP said so!" and I will quit pointing out from whence those idiocies, which have been completely exposed as perverted hogwash, spring from.

The really sad thing..until today, I don't imagine you even knew who Kinsey was; nor did you have any inkling of the history of PP, the Guttmacher Institute, or the Kinsey Institute in relation to him. I've no doubt that you have blindly supported sex education in school, and the meme that homosexuality is *normal*, and children are *sexual* without ever knowing where those ridiculous concepts originated from.

So if you guard your lips, or in this case, your fingers, and think before you spew something that you've never researched yourself, and simply take at face value (trusting of course because it comes from On High...from The Government...or better yet, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, the progressive Holy of Holies) I will shut up about Kinsey.

 

Are you kidding me? Were it not for the desire of a woman's vagina this planet would be devoid of human life. Were it not for the male sex drive men would have zero utility for women or desire for them. Why on earth would men put up with the routine insanities that only a woman can provide? The reason is incentive. Every kind word, gesture, and deed is based off of this incentive. To kid yourself of this is delusional.

Is this your misandric attitude poking out? That all men are pitiable creatures?

Obviously, they have always been allowed to want to. What else is new?

Incorrect, it happens all the time. I see it happen every day. Keep a husband? Well that might be a little different. There are certain expectations that go along with marriage. Sex being one of them.

I think you believe this because you travel in different circles than I do.

So concepts of loyalty, fidelity and such have gone the byway of history then eh?

 

Oh come on now Fugazi...I think it is blatantly obvious that she opposes such things. People tend to be vocal about that which they feel strongly about whether good or bad- in our case it is protecting children. Or at least the way in which we perceive it.

But flipping it around like she is some sort of sexual deviant is beneath you. You are better than that.

 

I understand, the truth was embarrassing for you .....

 

Hardly, it profits me very little to speak with those who are not considered my equals. And the idea of you being my superior I find most amusing. But I can see how your mind might somehow think this is possible. Some people don't have it altogether, not saying you're one of those people, but the profile is strikingly similar.

 

homosexuality is "normal" for the homosexual, just as heterosexuality is "normal" for the everyone else. Do you consider your Christian ideals "normal", given that it only makes up 35% of the worlds religion.

and what is "normal" but conforming or adhering to a standard pattern of the majority.

 

Fair enough .. but I do find her monologue that all progressives think of children as future sexual partners very OTT.

 

ahh you do realize Freud pioneered psychoanalysis over a hundred years ago right? and Kinsey's studies were 60yrs ago?...do you not think the study of the human mind and behaviour hasn't advanced since then?...

both of these men are enormously important in changing/modernizing the study of human behaviour they were giants of their day...other than you and Allie Licious no one is referencing them for their work today...

and cocaine was legal in those days and no more damaging than alcohol is today...

 

You think having consensual sex is showng disrespect for women..........and you don't find that odd......many would.

 

monologue is the right word...we could leave this debate for a week and she would continue on without us attributing all sorts of sexual deviant thoughts to us without either of us expressing anything of the sort...

 

Translated from blather to truth: "I didn't have any answers"

 

If you had read and understood my entire message before feeling the need to parse and respond sentence by sentence, you would have understood my point. Times have changed. In days gone by, men begged and women (sometimes) said yes. Now women are every bit as aggressive and want sex just as much as men. The days of men chase women evade are over.

Mostly I'm talking about relatively new relationships, not those that have had the time to develop to the degree you're implying here. I'm not single, but if I was, and if I was dating someone, unless there were extenuating circumstances, if there were no sex by date two, or at the latest, three, I'm out. Many guys feel the same.

Like I said, it's a competition.

 

You just said you liked sex with zebra's...Oh , yes you did!! It's right here in your post I quoted! Sqwack Sqwack! Yes , you did!



I'm kidding but you better get ready for something similar from the you-know-what....LOL

 

other than cases of rape women are in charge and make the decision who and when they will have sex with, us men delude ourselves when we think we have any influence in the decision...

 

yup...she just pulls them out of the farthest darkest recesses of her mind...

 

the key words in your assessment in bold, she seems to have serious issues with her own sexuality(sex is bad)...

 

same time u lie about me saying im trying to stop people from having sex

 

Where?


And you is spelled "you".

 

I see where you are coming from with this. There is a tendency to over profile is common, and I admit doing it myself sometimes. Not all progressives think that sexualizing children is okay and dandy. But there are some that do, and I would reason that her ire is more channeled towards them on this particular issue.

I could launch into an unending discourse about my displeasure about what the left has done, the right too. But in this topic, it does seem to originate within a certain spectrum of lefties. So I will as well try to more carefully target my comments.

 

In respect to the field of psychology and psychiatry? No, not in the least. They have invented more 'illnesses' more than they have cured.

Giants of the past are the midgets of the future. Their ideas were bull(*)(*)(*)(*) when presented, and remain bull(*)(*)(*)(*) still. They are being referenced only because of the harm they have done. But then again our definition of harm is vastly different from yours I suspect.

Tell you what, if it isn't so bad, you wouldn't mind if your doctor was a cocaine addict right? What about an ambulance driver? Since it isn't harmful afterall you shouldn't have a problem with it.