@Asmo

I do apologize. I don't think I've ever gotten under someone's skin as quickly as that with as little contribution from me. Still, this is the internet. I'm not going to comment on your criticisms of my character because it's not my place to do so, nor would it serve any real purpose, but I can at least respond to your actual argument.

On to it...

First up!

"You give the whole game away when you use the term 'prostituting'. Oh, you can respect her okay just as long as everyone knows that she's a whore... Very tolerant of you. /eyeroll"

Wikipedia : "Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment. People who execute such activities are called prostitutes."

The rigid and accurate definition of a prostitute is someone who engages in sexual intercourse for money. Maybe I'll have to concede that one to you... What should I call it? Page 3 girl? Pin-up?

Second!

Any mention of "utopia" was purely rhetorical. Come on - you don't need me to elaborate on that. I do happen to have heard of the suffragettes and have been a lifelong feminist. I'm not opposing sexual expression. I'm not opposing nudity. I'm not opposing female sexual liberty. I'm certainly not opposing art depicting nudity and it's completely insane of you to even suggest any of these things. I oppose the sexual objectification, commercialization and sale of women, and I believe it is destructive and reflective of an inherent weakness of the human species.

I bear the burden of expressing myself accurately, but you seem to have taken misinterpretation to an expert level.

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...

Sigh... what really suffers from this stupid stupid ruling is the cases of real rape where sexual intercourse is forced on another person (male or female). This devalues the real crime.

"If a woman or a man feel they were given wrong information, then it is rape."

No. Just no... It is lying, it is deceit, it isn't rape.

Edit: here's a good example to put this in perspective. On internet dating sites people lie about their height, weight, income, amount of hair they have.

If a woman sleeps with a man wearing a toupee and after the fact finds out the hair was fake, is that rape? According to this mindless cunt and the racist people she represents, yes. Fuck her and every idiot that thinks like her.

If a human female opens to sex with a human male, and a human male opens to sex with a human female, and political or racial disclosure is paramount instead of human male to human female and human female to human male intercourse, then BOTH are perverted and engaging in (instead of honest and real human sex) political, racial , agendas, NOT a human agenda.

I am horrified. This would be hilarious if the implications weren't so dire.

Lying to a person prior to intercourse makes it rape.

Imagine the number of rapes occuring by that definition all the time.

Oh my God! Imagine all the times I've been raped!

No worries. I expected it to be discarded anyway, although I hoped it wouldn't be. Alas, I'll try a milder one at some point.

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
Sorry Gwiz, I'd actually probably enjoy seeing the full documentary of this, should it ever be found.

>> ^Shepppard:

If this were replaced with the original documentary, I'd have no problem with this, but again, as I stated, the editing seems to remove any educational merit this had.


Yup, I agree. Find the original and I'm fine with it, this is highly edited and is being embedded from an all-out porn site.

Then again, I did upvote it

I find this video interesting and informative, however I can see how it might cross the line for some people. (sorry gwiz)

Edit: after watching this video a ...second time, I'm certain the original doc was edited together to be a little more porny. Perhaps this embed could be replaced with one *sigh* a little less... fun?

>> ^dag:

discuss for the obvious reasons.

>> ^Shepppard:

Hmm.
It's definitely supposed to be educational, and in some parts..it kind of is..
But with all the editing going on, they get out half a sentance of something.. then it's just cut to another angle of people having sex.
Without the context of the entire Documentary, this kinda just seems like badly edited porn sequences.
I'll reserve my downvote, but that definitely doesn't pass any wood test of mine.


I gotta side with Shepp on this one. They have edited the living shit out of this and it was pretty annoying to get half-sentences all the way through it... Given that the source seems to be a site with "porn" in the title, seems pretty obvious they have edited it with that in mind.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I dunno....to me it seems they edited this more to titillate than to educate, but then you are talking to a guy who gets off to the Sears catalog.


Boys underwear section. Zing!

>> ^CheshireSmile:

VS= my new favorite porn site.
also, at 4:55 why and how the hell is there a foot by her head??

You're joking, right?

Nobody told you about the head/foot thing yet?

I would much rather have embedded the entire documentary, which I assume it is from, but I couldn't find it. It's true that this is edited to be in a pornographic manner, which is a shame.

>> ^spoco2:

I only got a little way through before I decided that even in my relaxed workplace, that probably was too much.
I don't think the porno music helped...
And from what I saw it lacked a certain amount of actual real aim rather than thinking up an excuse to show porn.
I would say it doesn't belong... but it's a lineball...
I'd have to say it's going to fail Dag's wood test though.

>> ^gwiz665:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ForgedReality" title="member since March 13th, 2009" class="profilelink">ForgedReality I just never realized that this much POV was actually a fetish. I think it's all weird, like the MRI sex we had here some where.

Okay, um... Did you actually go searching for that?

And to clarify, I was referring to the guy in the video. He's flaccid as a work glove.

edit - Do you realize how much of a huge pain in the ass it was to quote that just now? Good lord. It's bad enough that quotes show up UNDERNEATH the post... I wish VS would go back to the old way of quoting people.

edit2 - Fuck it. I can't get the goddamn quote to work, even though it shows up fine in the preview window. Retarded Videosift. >:[

But think about the suffering of that poor 13-year-old boy... His palms are probably going to be swollen and red for the rest of his life from all the high fives.



In all seriousness, I wonder... If it was an old man who forced a young girl to touch his stuff and attempted to get some intercourse off of her, would people still be so offended by the sentence?

Did she really get the sentence for refusing to be listed as a sex offender? If so, it sounds like she chose the rock rather than the hard place.

As one of the few VS males who has had the intercourse without paying for it, I can attest to the value of some of these observations.
The ice cream thing is BS though - everyone knows that the desire for pralines is the true divining rod of sexual aptitude.