>> ^quantumushroom:

Even a brilliant finook deciding what's unnatural is like having the color-blind naming colors.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but promiscuity has been the norm for gay males and it's hell on them physically, mentally and emotionally.


You might want to ease off the slurs lest you find yourself banned. If I'm not mistaken, you've been nailed for blurting them out on a few occasions so I suspect you'd be gone for good this time.

Even a brilliant finook deciding what's unnatural is like having the color-blind naming colors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but promiscuity has been the norm for gay males and it's hell on them physically, mentally and emotionally.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^BoneyD:
MaxWilder Can you really blame him for lying though? For starters, it's not the first time a politician has done it (/cough Obama) and there is an incredible incentive for doing so in these sexual cases. I.e. Given that ANY instance of promiscuity, no matter how well you do your job, will result in your permanent expulsion from the field.
I can't say I'd be above lying to cover my own back, if there was even a slim chance that the whole thing will just blow over if I did.

History has shown time after time that liars get treated far worse than those who immediately own up to their mistakes. Especially for cases like this, where there were no laws broken, and he wasn't using his family values as a centerpiece of his political career.
BTW, did I miss Obama being caught in a scandal for lying? I don't remember one.


I found the lie about saying he never promised to deliver single-payer health care, a program that would literally save the lives of many many millions of Americans, far more heinous. That *should* have been a scandal, but wasn't.

Edit: BTW, I agree that he's handled this badly, he'd have come out a helluva lot better if he'd just said balls-out (sorry) "Yes, it was me and I apologise". But it's not like it's the first time a politician has lied and it sure as hell won't be the last. He didn't rape anyone, he didn't even have actual sex with anyone. I seriously don't see why we're giving so much of a shit about the sort of thing that I bet 999,000,000 other guys have done behind their wives back and then not owning up to it when challenged.

>> ^BoneyD:

MaxWilder Can you really blame him for lying though? For starters, it's not the first time a politician has done it (/cough Obama) and there is an incredible incentive for doing so in these sexual cases. I.e. Given that ANY instance of promiscuity, no matter how well you do your job, will result in your permanent expulsion from the field.
I can't say I'd be above lying to cover my own back, if there was even a slim chance that the whole thing will just blow over if I did.


History has shown time after time that liars get treated far worse than those who immediately own up to their mistakes. Especially for cases like this, where there were no laws broken, and he wasn't using his family values as a centerpiece of his political career.

BTW, did I miss Obama being caught in a scandal for lying? I don't remember one.

@MaxWilder Can you really blame him for lying though? For starters, it's not the first time a politician has done it (/cough Obama) and there is an incredible incentive for doing so in these sexual cases. I.e. Given that ANY instance of promiscuity, no matter how well you do your job, will result in your permanent expulsion from the field.

I can't say I'd be above lying to cover my own back, if there was even a slim chance that the whole thing will just blow over if I did.

@hpqp : I'm curious if you saw nanrod's post and what your reply to that might be?

My wife and I look at male circumcision as a purely cosmetic decision. We see no harm in it. Some people pierce their daughter's ears at birth but no one freaks out and calls that mutilation (but give San Francisco more time, I'm sure they will). The children don't ever remember it (in fact when performed in the hospital anesthesia is used so there's no reason for them to remember it), it can be beneficial for some people (see nanrod's comment above), and if you belong to a cultural group where that is the "norm" and it's important to you for your kids to fit in then go for it.

On the other hand, female "circumcision" is mutilation pure and simple. It is done with the intent of preventing the girl from experiencing orgasms. It's a barbaric ritual that misogynistic cultures employ to control women, thinly veiled under the guise of preventing female "promiscuity." I'm all on board for denouncing and stopping that practice wherever it is found because it causes real harm--both physical and psychologocial--to the individuals who have to suffer through it.

i think there is an overall underlying psychology to the movement as a whole that is about power and control. but i think on an individual level, individual people actually think it is about life and death......... which is the problem with religion, and possibly even political structures and capitalism (thought i haven't thought those two through in depth yet). the over all structure is about maintaining power and control and on the micro level.. people just want to live and love and be good and take care of their families and feel something passionately.

the last rally i went to was about 500 people with 20 or so pro life counter protesters... a few hours into it this mad woman showed up and started screaming at the top of her lungs "ABORTION IS MURDER!!ITS MURDER!!" and then some other insanely gruesome things. which, of course, started a shouting match. so we left. because 1. i didnt want my kids hearing the horrific things she was yelling. and 2. i make it a rule not to argue with the mentally ill... but that woman certainly believed it was about life and death. and i do very much believe she would do what she could to financially support a young a pregnant woman and the child.

i think i love the psychology of societies.



ps. my 5 year old son is sitting on the couch across from me babbling various facts about arthropods. and my daughter was just in the backyard making a daisy chain sort of thing out of lavender, clovers and cucumbers.. chasing our dog through the garden......she just ran inside, locked the front door and said she had to lock it because she saw a snake and got scared. i said "... snakes cant open doors. and you're not afraid of them" and her reply ..."oooh.. i meant a velocipator then"

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I get the feeling that the pro life movement is more anti sex than anti abortion. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed the issue and heard pro lifers characterize young sexually active women as sluts and whores. They talk about motherhood as more of a punishment for promiscuity than a joyous and profound part of the human experience. Usually the slut talk comes out when you get them a little angry.
It's interesting that these beliefs are held by a patriarchal segment of society whom are usually pretty OK with violence, poverty, torture, the death penalty, war, shock and awe, etc. I'm convinced that this seeming conradiction isn't a contradiction at all, because this issue isn't about life, it's about power. More specifically, male power over female sexuality.
Sometimes I ask pro lifers (both genders) if they would be willing to carry a woman's unwanted unborn child for her in order to save its life, assuming technology advanced to a point where it was possible. "No, it's not my responsibility" is the common answer, which supports my gut feeling that this issue is not actually about life. Another argument I use is "would you be willing to financially support a poor pregnant mother?", which also ilicits some telling (read: ugly) responses ("I wouldn't want to give financial incentive to unwed motherhood.") Shifting the responsibility from the mother to the pro-lifer is a good way to get to the subconscious core of these belief systems.
If the pro life movement was a bit more pragmatic, I think they could find some compromise with the pro choice movement, because people on all sides of the issue find abortion tragic and traumatic. I think more restrictive abortion regulation might be accepted in trade for more honest, more effective, more present sex education, counseling and free and easy access to birth control. Abortion is a symptom of unwanted pregnancies. Child abuse and neglect are also symptoms of unwanted pregnancy. What if we combined movements and focused on the root cause? Then again, if I'm correct in my hunch that this issue has more to do with sex and power than life, sex ed and free rubbers would be more offensive than abortion itself.
Good stuff, bea.

I get the feeling that the pro life movement is more anti sex than anti abortion. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed the issue and heard pro lifers characterize young sexually active women as sluts and whores. They talk about motherhood as more of a punishment for promiscuity than a joyous and profound part of the human experience. Usually the slut talk comes out when you get them a little angry.

It's interesting that these beliefs are held by a patriarchal segment of society whom are usually pretty OK with violence, poverty, torture, the death penalty, war, shock and awe, etc. I'm convinced that this seeming conradiction isn't a contradiction at all, because this issue isn't about life, it's about power. More specifically, male power over female sexuality.

Sometimes I ask pro lifers (both genders) if they would be willing to carry a woman's unwanted unborn child for her in order to save its life, assuming technology advanced to a point where it was possible. "No, it's not my responsibility" is the common answer, which supports my gut feeling that this issue is not actually about life. Another argument I use is "would you be willing to financially support a poor pregnant mother?", which also ilicits some telling (read: ugly) responses ("I wouldn't want to give financial incentive to unwed motherhood.") Shifting the responsibility from the mother to the pro-lifer is a good way to get to the subconscious core of these belief systems.

If the pro life movement was a bit more pragmatic, I think they could find some compromise with the pro choice movement, because people on all sides of the issue find abortion tragic and traumatic. I think more restrictive abortion regulation might be accepted in trade for more honest, more effective, more present sex education, counseling and free and easy access to birth control. Abortion is a symptom of unwanted pregnancies. Child abuse and neglect are also symptoms of unwanted pregnancy. What if we combined movements and focused on the root cause? Then again, if I'm correct in my hunch that this issue has more to do with sex and power than life, sex ed and free rubbers would be more offensive than abortion itself.

Good stuff, bea.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Its really hard to point a finger. I find it hard to believe a homosexual is born a homosexual if I must believe a promiscuous no ambition female is not born a promiscuous no ambition female.


Wah? You're comparing two things that have no baring on each other.

Which sex(es) you are attracted to is in built. You have no more say over it than the colour of your eyes. How you conduct yourself and act out on your sexual urges is an entirely different thing. Don't try to suggest that homosexuality is a 'choice' in the same way that being promiscuous is, that's utterly inane.

http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1141b-1.html

U.S. taxpayers are not responsible for solving the world's health problems. HIV and AIDS are not among the ten leading causes of mortality in the U.S., yet receive considerable amounts of federal research dollars. Compared to the number of lives that cancer and heart disease claim each year, HIV/AIDS research received a disproportionate amount of federal funding. The federal government should reduce AIDS research funding and divert money to research programs fighting more pressing diseases such as heart disease and cancer, which claim hundreds of thousands more American lives annually. Furthermore, unlike many other diseases, a majority of HIV/AIDS cases can be avoided by abstaining from promiscuous sexual contact and intravenous drug use.

Around the globe, 2.6 million people died of AIDS in 1999.

It is estimated that 16,000 people are newly infected with HIV each day throughout the world.

In 1997, 16,516 Americans died of AIDS.

In 1997, heart disease claimed 726,974 lives.

Between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are currently infected with HIV.

For fiscal year 1999, the federal budget allocated $6 billion to AIDS research and education.

The National Cancer Institute's 1999 operating budget was $2.9 billion.



Besmirching one of America's greatest presidents is easier than exalting the clueless idiot in the Oval Office now.

Its really hard to point a finger. I find it hard to believe a homosexual is born a homosexual if I must believe a promiscuous no ambition female is not born a promiscuous no ambition female. I really lean towards predetermined personalities with little society influence that becomes an individual rather than a clean slate robot that is programed to be who they become from birth. I really feel you can try and influence your children all you want but in the end there is no way to tell what your influence did or didnt do to create your well rounded progeny.

You forgot the first and possibly most important line from the quoted paragraph.

"U.S. taxpayers are not responsible for solving the world's health problems."
>> ^quantumushroom:

And yet, once again, she's right.
HIV and AIDS are not among the ten leading causes of mortality in the U.S., yet receive considerable amounts of federal research dollars. Compared to the number of lives that cancer and heart disease claim each year, HIV/AIDS research received a disproportionate amount of federal funding. The federal government should reduce AIDS research funding and divert money to research programs fighting more pressing diseases such as heart disease and cancer, which claim hundreds of thousands more American lives annually. Furthermore, unlike many other diseases, a majority of HIV/AIDS cases can be avoided by abstaining from promiscuous sexual contact and intravenous drug use.

And yet, once again, she's right.

HIV and AIDS are not among the ten leading causes of mortality in the U.S., yet receive considerable amounts of federal research dollars. Compared to the number of lives that cancer and heart disease claim each year, HIV/AIDS research received a disproportionate amount of federal funding. The federal government should reduce AIDS research funding and divert money to research programs fighting more pressing diseases such as heart disease and cancer, which claim hundreds of thousands more American lives annually. Furthermore, unlike many other diseases, a majority of HIV/AIDS cases can be avoided by abstaining from promiscuous sexual contact and intravenous drug use.

* Around the globe, 2.6 million people died of AIDS in 1999.

* It is estimated that 16,000 people are newly infected with HIV each day throughout the world.

* In 1997, 16,516 Americans died of AIDS.

* In 1997, heart disease claimed 726,974 lives.

* Between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are currently infected with HIV.

* For fiscal year 1999, the federal budget allocated $6 billion to AIDS research and education.

* The National Cancer Institute's 1999 operating budget was $2.9 billion.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Newsweek, National Center for Health Statistics



You've a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Payback:
Personally, I feel that even when the other person "likes it" eg. extreme s/m, it is still abuse.
That is a really, really unfair thing to say. Abuse CAN occur in relationships like that, probably in ways which aren't easy to grasp from an observer, but consensual bdsm is certainly not abuse.
There's a word for people who insults/attacks something because they don't understand it.....

Yeah, agreed, I think there's a pretty clear ethical distinction between the two. Kinda trivializes the real issue of familial/spousal abuse and it's victim's plight to bother about what mutually consenting adults(of sound decision making capacity) find pleasureable and do in private.
I guess it could be very charitably described as abuse if used in the most vague, indescript terms possible. It seemed like you were (unintentionaly?) equivocating.


I suppose so, in the "i want to be abused" kind of sense.

Anyway, back on topic.

Heard yesterday about my friend. I was like 6-12 and so was she, we lived next door to each other. Got on like a house on fire, we were always playing. She had a bunch of kids starting at 16 and she's still going years later. Apparently the reason she was promiscuous at that age was because she was getting ... abuse ... from her father when she was my friend. And it's hard to describe the feeling that i have right now, and my dad feels the same way. Like, if only he'd have known (i would have been too young at the time ofc), he could have so easily stopped it. It would have taken 5 minutes of his time to give the guy the sort of beating he'd never forget and stopped the whole damn thing.

And then it makes me think that there's people out there right now having the same thing done to them, and i'm sat here watching videos, and if i only knew where to go, i could go there right now and stop it happening and turn someone's life around.

I can't watch the video. Seeing any form of abuse - bullying, anything - even in fiction - boils my blood instantly. My fists tighten of their own accord, my hackles raise. I abhore violence, but i'd defend the innocent to the death without hesitation. I can't even imagine how someone could abuse someone else.

Oh the comfort of repeating conditioned sentences! How I miss those days... being knowledgeable about something simply required rehashing what a newscaster spewed or repeating what your college professor chanted incessantly.

I didn't think this was actually necessary, but apparently doing the requisite research on a particular subject is far too taxing for most people. Don't sweat it though, it's certainly not an insular problem on the Sift, although I would expect more from people who own computers and have at least some level of comfort with the internet... but I suppose it's simply a matter of intellectual due diligence.

I have watched dozens of documentaries and read countless reports and articles on the subject of AIDS in Africa and would like to present the case of Swaziland.

This kingdom is ravaged by AIDS with nearly a quarter of the population and nearly half of 25-35 year olds already infected by HIV. Swaziland has also benefited from health programs that are exemplary on the African continent.

I will refer here to an extensive survey performed by major agencies (WHO, UNICEF etc) involved in preventing the spread of the virus. It can be viewed at http://www.safaids.net/files/Swaziland%20Demographic%20and%20Health%20Survey%202006-2007.pdf

Because I doubt most would actually take the time to read it, I will cite the portions which are relevant to the arguments I made, and which refute claims that Africans are victims of "misinformation" or that the preventative framework does not exists.

Knowledge of the existence of AIDS (male and female, all age groups), page 24
97.83%

Knowledge that abstaining from intercourse is a preventative measure (all age groups), page 25
88.90%

Knowledge that someone infected does not always display symptoms (all persons aged 15-49), page 27
95.9%

The cost of a condom is about 4 cents in Swaziland, and in the 15 minutes it took me to get the above figures I learned that at least 100 million is poured into the country every year by various nations and aid agencies. If only five percent of that is used to purchase condoms we're looking at
125,000,000 units, which I will concede is not nearly enough for the levels of promiscuity seen in Africa. However, I suspect the investment in male contraceptives is a far greater figure.

I recall a video that made the top 15 here not too long ago about a young boy who made a football by using a condom... the comments lauded his ingenuity and completely ignored the misuse of what should be a valuable commodity. Talk about hypocrisy...