[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see inequality between men and women.

Sexual self-determination of women is one of the cornerstones of equality between men and women -- not the only one, mind you, but a very important one. Just to spell it out what sexual self-determination means: it means a woman can choose who she has sex with and who gets her pregnant to a much better degree than what she could do before. It has nothing in common with indiscriminately sleeping with anyone who hasn't climbed the next best tree at the count of three.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

By the way, while I have studied Germany, you'll never find me there. 6 Million of my people were murdered by a modern, "cultured" Germany. The Torah forbids me from ever going to Egypt because of what we suffered there, and Germany definitely outdid Egypt in that regard.

Well, you're missing out on something. Germany has become a great democracy whose society is aware of its mistakes from the past and tries to come to terms with its past. I think it's dangerous to believe that it's somehow in German genes to commit genocide and then call it a day.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're talking about sex outside of committed relationships (if not marriage), with or without contraception and consequent demand for abortions.

No, I'm not. Most of the sex I know of happens within relationships. We just don't need a piece of paper to tell us when we are and aren't committed. It's a fallacy to equate premarital sex with irresponsibly sleeping with anything that moves. Hence you're really barking up the wrong tree with the rest of your rant.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Power is mostly located in the center of the spectrum in the United States, too. It's just that you have a more difficult time grasping American politics because in America there's the right and the left and our country is almost evenly split between them, whereas in Europe most of the power is found in the left of center and the hard left.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of American politics. However, your grasp of `European' politics (we would have to get down to specific countries when we discuss details) leaves much to be desired. You just use the standard American political indicators (e. g. death penalty, abortion, gun control, goal of imprisonment, healthcare) to determine where `Europe' stands. This doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Western Europe went fascist in 1930s and was nearly destroyed so it swung socialist thereafter and will likely be nearly destroyed again because of it. When a conservative is in office Europeans call America extreme, but in fact Europe is the continent of political extremism. Your friends across the pond are just too self-righteous and deluded to realize it.

Actually not all of Europe went fascist, more liberal countries such as the Netherlands, for instance, did not.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A lot of it has to do with European fanaticism in regard to religion. Yes, I said it, Europeans are fanatic when it comes to religion. For a large portion of its history, Europe was steeped in bloody religious wars because the concept of freedom of religion didn't exist.

Those problems have been solved for 150, 200 years now (back then, America was still in its infancy). That's why religion is a private matter in Germany: unlike Poland and Italy, for example, Germany doesn't consist of 85-90 % Catholics or Protestants. The only European country I can think of that hasn't solved the problem of coexistence of Catholics and Protestants is Northern Ireland.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And it still really doesn't exist. Sure, Europe is far more tolerant now of all kinds of religions, but that tolerance is really false in comparison to the tolerance found in America. In America we are tolerant because we respect religion. In Europe they are tolerant because they think people are fooling themselves with religion.

You are contradicting yourself here. Religious tolerance in Europe doesn't exist, although Europeans are far more tolerant to `all kinds of religion' (I assume you're talking about Islam and Judaism here), but it's the `wrong kind of tolerance'.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It certainly could have. My sentiments come from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism; iIf you wish to characterize traditional Jewish philosophy, which was the only kind of Jewish philosophy from far back in antiquity to the early 20th Century as extreme, that's your call.

I think you're getting ahead of your own argument here. First of all, we should judge any religious faith from within the context of its own time. The other branches of Judaism (what you've derogatively called `salad bar Judaism') have adapted to its political and social context. That's part of evolution of society and no aspect of society can protect itself from that. If you'd like to think that Orthodox Judaism hasn't done that to the same degree, you're probably right. But that doesn't make it the only `legitimate' branch of Judaism. Others might interpret this just as backwards oriented, reactionary and might point out that the other branches have evolved from the same roots. And it's exactly this legitimacy argument that's being used by other more extreme factions of your favorite religion of choice, but also applies to Judaism.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Why does the conscience even exist? Or a sense of right or wrong?

Err, what?
Where's the contradiction to what I've said? You make up your own mind what is right and wrong.
(BTW, there are large societies that work with shame and not guilt as the main regulatory tool of society. Not that I prefer a system run by shame, though.)

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If by "Church" you mean Catholic Church, you may be right. But us "wacko evangelicals" of the reformed Church believe sex is beautiful and an act of worship.

I wasn't implying anything about evangelicals, if that is what you read it as. I was merely asking the question (which you answered quite well) to clear up my own confusion on the matter.

[design219]

I was wondering why this thread has gone so far, and then it hit me. A lot of us stay out of the political/war lounge because we don't like to bicker. But when bickering breaks out, we just can't help ourselves.

Anybody else feel this way?

I actually like seeing this kind of disscussion out in the open. The cool thing about Internet forums is: No knives allowed.

[Rumor]

Macgeek,

Here's a recap of the events so far:

~Christians, Catholics and Orthodox Jews like to hump like rabbits when they are married.
~Kevin gets offended when he doesn't understand Dakar's sarcasm.
~You are the next Salty.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

You are the next Salty.

Oh man.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by design219 

I was wondering why this thread has gone so far, and then it hit me. A lot of us stay out of the political/war lounge because we don't like to bicker. But when bickering breaks out, we just can't help ourselves.

Anybody else feel this way?

This is me exactly.

[Kerrigan]

Where did Salty go anyways? Is his hankering for that salty flavour keeping him too busy to post here?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Where did Salty go anyways? Is his hankering for that salty flavour keeping him too busy to post here?

I think he got tired of a select few jumping all over him every time he'd post (his posts were pretty gay though).

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Where did Salty go anyways? Is his hankering for that salty flavour keeping him too busy to post here?

Wow, and :barf: all at once.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by design219 

I was wondering why this thread has gone so far, and then it hit me. A lot of us stay out of the political/war lounge because we don't like to bicker. But when bickering breaks out, we just can't help ourselves.

Anybody else feel this way?

I like my bickering to be inconsequential. Lounge bickering is the Diet Coke of bickering. It's the margarine of bickering.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

(his posts were pretty gay though).

Yeah, I wonder why?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I think he got tired of a select few jumping all over him every time he'd post (his posts were pretty gay though).

I think you over estimate his grip on reality.

Chances are he hasn't had enough drama to post on here lately.

I might add I made a nice graphic a long time ago that I haven't been able to use thanks to his continued absence.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Lounge bickering is the Diet Coke of bickering.

Have you tried the caffeine free bickering?

[besson3c]

My problem is that I never really know if I'm being understood, or fully understood and simply disagreed with.

[kmkkid]

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My problem is that I never really know if I'm being understood, or fully understood and simply disagreed with.

Whatever it is you're talking about, you're wrong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Whatever it is you're talking about, you're wrong.

Well, just the other day I was telling people about how cool, smart, and witty Rumor is....



Zing!

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, just the other day I was telling people about how cool, smart, and witty Rumor is....

You're wrong. You weren't telling people that.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

...what I meant was that no one here really believes that abstinence should be taught and encouraged in school, in sex-ed, for instance; or that parents ought to bring their children up to believe that sex is something you shouldn’t do till you’re married.

<snip>

it’s simply assumed that, since it’s taught that everyone has the right to decide whether or not they want to have sex with someone and pushing your boyfriend/girlfriend into having sex with you is bad, that people will be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to wait till they’re married to have sex.

That doesn't really compute with me. People think that abstinence shouldn't be taught as a viable option? That's ridiculous.

And that's a major flaw of world culture today. People think that teaching that abstinence is acceptable is a bad thing - that's oppressive or something. Instead of teaching kids that they simply can avoid having sex, we teach them about condoms and getting tested for HIV when they're thirteen! Why not teach teenagers that they don't have to have sex, and that the benefits of waiting (not until marriage per se, but at least until they're really emotionally ready) far outweigh the disadvantages (which, aside from breaking up because one person won't comply with the other's sexual demands, are nonexistent).

Culture today says that there's something wrong if two adults - or teenagers, even - are in a sex-free relationship. That's just not right. Culture today doesn't say it's a personal choice to not have sex. They say there's something wrong if you don't have sex.

What harm can come from encouraging abstinence? I'm just not seeing a reason to not teach it as an option to teenagers.

[Oisín]

That doesn't really compute with me. People think that abstinence shouldn't be taught as a viable option? That's ridiculous.

No, abstinence is taught, but only as a ‘natural’ thing, so to speak. For instance, a teacher would say something like, “It’s your own body, and only you can know if you’re ready to have sex. If you feel you’re not ready, then don’t have sex—there’s no shame in that, and it doesn’t make you any less of a girl-/boyfriend. If you don’t want to have sex yet, don’t. But if you do feel that you are ready, [insert education on safe sex, respecting partners, etc.]”.

It’s not that people believe abstinence shouldn’t be taught as a viable option. It’s rather that people believe that teaching only abstinence, eschewing education about condoms, HIV tests, STDs, etc. should not even be an option—and that form of teaching is not even discussed or brought up, unlike in the US, where numerous politicians and schools not only bring it up, but actually apply it and live by it (see Oreo’s post below, for example).

People believe that abstinence is an answer (that it’s up to the individual to choose), not that it’s the answer (that schools must teach as the only viable option).

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Christian males are expected to abstain from pre‑marital sex in your world?

Really?

Well, if that's the case in Bible‑belt America, it's a most unusual society even by Christian standards, and unparalleled in the rest of the world, including predominantly Catholic countries such as Italy, Greece and Ireland.

Even women who kept their virginity intact for their husband usually expect him to know what he's doing in bed, which is why mothers don't actually tell their sons to abstain from pre‑marital sex, even if they do tell their daughters.

This is a load of crap. Either you know some extremely skewed Christians or you're pulling this out of nowhere. Sexual abstinence does not only apply to women. There are plenty of Christian male virgins out there.

Perhaps European Catholicism really expects men to go screw women before marriage. But Christianity, in its fundamentals, does not support that idea.

Sorry, but that statement just irritates the hell out of me.

On occasion, even in England, the rare male virgin will appear on the radio, and rant about how all the other teens who are having sex before marriage are ‘evil’ and making ‘God’ angry, but those people invariably tend to be so extremely irritating, I think it's unlikely any girl is ever going to interested in them, anyway. Or ever was.

That's too bad. In Christian communities, sex before marriage isn't "evil", it's just wrong. How hard is that? I'm sorry that the only male virgins you've encountered are assholes. Again, this doesn't define the entire world. There are Christian male virgins in the world in healthy relationships, who plan on having sex for the first time on their wedding night.

Why is this so impossible for you to comprehend? It's like you don't even believe it happens.

It's never made any sense to expect developing males to be sexually abstinent, which is why no rational society has actually insisted on it. If any desirable form of gender equality is to be reached, the expectation of chastity should be dropped for developing females, as well.

WHY does it make no sense to "expect developing males to be sexually abstinent"? How hard is it to keep yourself from shoving your dick into a girl's mouth or vagina?

I do not understand what chastity for both genders seems to be impossible to you. It's frustrating, and it's people like you that have caused our culture to believe that it's abnormal to be a virgin.

It's too bad, I guess. I feel lucky to live in a country where at least some normal people believe that abstinence isn't asinine or weird or ridiculous.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That doesn't really compute with me. People think that abstinence shouldn't be taught as a viable option? That's ridiculous.

And that's a major flaw of world culture today. People think that teaching that abstinence is acceptable is a bad thing - that's oppressive or something. Instead of teaching kids that they simply can avoid having sex, we teach them about condoms and getting tested for HIV when they're thirteen! Why not teach teenagers that they don't have to have sex, and that the benefits of waiting (not until marriage per se, but at least until they're really emotionally ready) far outweigh the disadvantages (which, aside from breaking up because one person won't comply with the other's sexual demands, are nonexistent).

At my high school, only abstinence was taught, the alternatives were not part of the curriculum (other than that they `don't work'. So you've got it upside-down, at least regarding the US.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Culture today says that there's something wrong if two adults - or teenagers, even - are in a sex-free relationship. That's just not right.

I have tons of sex-free relationships with persons from the other sex, it's called friendship

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

No, abstinence is taught, but only as a ‘natural’ thing, so to speak. For instance, a teacher would say something like, “It’s your own body, and only you can know if you’re ready to have sex. If you feel you’re not ready, then don’t have sex—there’s no shame in that, and it doesn’t make you any less of a girl-/boyfriend. If you don’t want to have sex yet, don’t. But if you do feel that you are ready, [insert education on safe sex, respecting partners, etc.]”.

It’s not that people believe abstinence shouldn’t be taught as a viable option. It’s rather that people believe that teaching only abstinence, eschewing education about condoms, HIV tests, STDs, etc. People believe that abstinence is an answer (that it’s up to the individual to choose), not that it’s the answer (that schools must teach as the only viable option).

That makes more sense to me. Some kids are going to have sex no matter what you tell them. Showing them how to be safe is crucial, but it seems like at least in the US teenagers and college kids who are virgins are mocked and shamed, as though something is wrong with them.

So I can agree with you on that one.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

At my high school, only abstinence was taught, the alternatives were not part of the curriculum (other than that they `don't work'. So you've got it upside-down, at least regarding the US.

What school did you go to? People I know who went to public high school were taught normal sex ed, including education about STDs, condoms, birth control, etc - along with the caveat that nothing is 100% safe except abstinence.

Which, by the way, a thirteen-year-old needs to know. They've got to be aware that condoms, while being 99.5% effective or whatever, can fail.

I have tons of sex-free relationships with persons from the other sex, it's called friendship

hahaha I should have specified romantic relationships.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I like my bickering to be inconsequential. Lounge bickering is the Diet Coke of bickering. It's the margarine of bickering.

Yeah it's not that great, but I had to do it fast. you're going to make an inappropriate joke here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What school did you go to?

A typical WASP high school in PA.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

People I know who went to public high school were taught normal sex ed, including education about STDs, condoms, birth control, etc - along with the caveat that nothing is 100% safe except abstinence.

That's exactly the point. The way it was presented was that the only solution is abstinence … which is a failed solution when most of the class is already sexually active. It wasn't really taught what condoms are good for, how to apply them properly, etc.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Which, by the way, a thirteen-year-old needs to know. They've got to be aware that condoms, while being 99.5% effective or whatever, can fail.

Statistically, quite a few. I had two, three pregnant girls walking around high school, something I have never seen at a German school. In Germany I've had sex ed in 3rd grade (of primary school) as well as 6th and 7th or 8th (not sure anymore). The focus of each was different, mind you. (In primary school, it was mostly about puberty, for instance.)

[design219]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yeah it's not that great, but I had to do it fast. you're going to make an inappropriate joke here.

Dude, that's sweet. Or at least creamy.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I had two, three pregnant girls walking around high school.

You stud. Did you get them all in the same night?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

You stud. Did you get them all in the same night?

Bah. One night? Try one shot.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

You stud. Did you get them all in the same night?

How do you think I got my nickname … 

[ajprice]

[Kerrigan]

Maybe the girls were all black?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How do you think I got my nickname … 

You like two black women at once?

[kick52]

Originally Posted by your mum & your milkman's dad

i suck.

now for some on-topic stuff incase that was too off topic.. omg you dumped your girlfriend?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And that's a major flaw of world culture today. People think that teaching that abstinence is acceptable is a bad thing

No, pretty much nobody discourages the idea that abstinence is acceptable. Abstinence is perfectly acceptable. However, I don't think abstinence is realistic for most people. If they want to do it, they can knock themselves out — it's just not wise to focus your sex ed curriculum on an avenue that will not interest most people.

More to the point, abstinence takes absolutely no training. Just don't have sex! Safe sex is a much more worthwhile use of learning time than just hearing abstinence propaganda over and over again.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Instead of teaching kids that they simply can avoid having sex, we teach them about condoms and getting tested for HIV when they're thirteen! Why not teach teenagers that they don't have to have sex

Why not teach everyone in the world that things would be so much better if we all just loved one another and stopped the selfishness and killing?

Because they're not going to listen.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

You like two black women at once?

Actually I got the nickname at my hostbrother's wedding when dancing with two girls in black dresses andI was wearing a white shirt … my hostmom was just yelling (she wasn't 100 % sober at that time): `Max, you look like an Oreo!' And I shouted back: `One happy Oreo!' </offtopic>

[ajprice]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Actually I got the nickname at my hostbrother's wedding when dancing with two girls in black dresses andI was wearing a white shirt … my hostmom was just yelling (she wasn't 100 % sober at that time): `Max, you look like an Oreo!' And I shouted back: `One happy Oreo!' </offtopic>

Yes, of course, I feel so stupid for not knowing that...

[macgeek2005]

Why is it only my threads that spiral out of control and become 9 pages long within 2 days? Why don't you guys contaminate other threads?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

Why is it only my threads that spiral out of control and become 9 pages long within 2 days? Why don't you guys contaminate other threads?

We didn't contaminate this thread, we gave it an extreme makeover.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

Why is it only my threads that spiral out of control and become 9 pages long within 2 days? Why don't you guys contaminate other threads?

Because people in this forum make a general rule of not putting their personal lives up for discussion.

We'd much rather make random jokes.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Any proof at all to back up that claim?

Again. Get out more:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

By the 1970s, abandonment of premarital chastity was no longer taboo in the majority of western societies; perhaps even the reverse: that members of both sexes would have experienced a number of sexual partners before marriage. Some cultural groups continued to place a value on the moral purity of an abstainer, but abstinence was caught up in a wider re-evaluation of moral values.

Anthropologists and social historians have noted that many cultures such as Victorian Britain or the rural areas in the modern United States, which formally place a high value on abstinence until marriage, actually have a large amount of pre-marital sexual activity in which there is no actual sexual intercourse and which preserve a state known as technical virginity.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Religion is not supposed to be open-minded, and I almost want to avoid calling Christianity a religion. It's not supposed to be a bunch of rules that you blindly follow. It's supposed to be a whole new way of living your life.

But, no, Christianity is not progressive or "accepting and broadening" - which is why the progressives/liberals of the world dislike it so much. If you believe that absolute truth does not exist (e.g. that all humans are sinful or that there are certain moral values that simply should not be bent for the convenience of yourself or others), then there is no religion on the planet that will fit you.
...
Likewise, I don't know, for instance, that the gods of Hinduism don't really exist. I'd never be so stupid or naive as to say that they do or don't. I can believe with every ounce of my being that Hinduism is a false religion, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth.

Faith is not confined just by religion. It's believing in anything that you can't absolutely, 1000% prove is true.

You are on your way to realising something important. You are just not all the way there yet.

Eschew your dualism and cultural relativism and you might just get there.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Again. Get out more:

Great source. I think I'll go change it to read something else now.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What harm can come from encouraging abstinence? I'm just not seeing a reason to not teach it as an option to teenagers.

Indeed. Abstinence-ONLY is a patently flawed way of teaching sexual education.

Abstinence is indeed an option, it's just not always the right one.

Teaching teens about safe sex and then letting themselves make up their own mind is by far the better option.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Great source. I think I'll go change it read something else now.

And then time how long it takes until it gets changed back. Wikipedia _really_ appreciates vandalism.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

Yes, of course, I feel so stupid for not knowing that...

That's hardly *his* problem, now, is it?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I wasn't implying anything about evangelicals, if that is what you read it as. I was merely asking the question (which you answered quite well) to clear up my own confusion on the matter.

Understood. I was simply pointing out that Christianity does not equal "the Catholic Church".

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

A typical WASP high school in PA.

FUD. It was not "typical". They weren't teaching the accepted legislative curriculum.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Understood. I was simply pointing out that Christianity does not equal "the Catholic Church".

Tell Voodoo that