Are social conservatives sexually naive?

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4808 posts) -

I was listening to some of the arguments in front of the supreme court and one of the advocates of the DoMA said that the primary function of marriage is for reproduction.

One of the justices said they disagreed because people often get remarried late in life 60+ after a divorce or a lose of a spouse and can't reproduce. Legislature that was based on that idea would limit their rights.

He then said there's always a chance of conception, after which the justices laughed at him.

This almost seems like a trend, rather than just a few people. It seems every other week some social conservative says something that makes it seem like they know less about sex than a 10 year old, i.e. women can't get pregnant through rape for example.

So is there a general trend among social conservatives to know less about sex than everybody else?

#2 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

Reminds me how so many of the most vocal anti-gay people, like some cardinals, are likey gay themselves

#3 Posted by VaguelyTagged (10401 posts) -

i hope your thread doesn't get locked. it has.. potentials.

#4 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -
Ever notice how some liberals like to generalize entire groups in an attempt to segregate them, or to simply discredit their arguments and beliefs through the use of strawman arguements? Or maybe that's just on OT...
#5 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Being raised a Catholic, everything about sex was very hush-hush. My parents never talked about it, of course I learned about it in middle school through our "Fully Alive" sex education program at Catholic middle school, which looking back on it, was kind of strange having it taught by a nun. And even then, there was very little discussion about the actual act of sex itself, more about doing what God intended for us to do with our bodies, sex for purposes other than reproduction was wrong, etc . And god forbid you have sex before marriage... I remember when I was a kid my parents wouldn't even let me see some PG-rated films because they showed boyfriend and girlfriend living together in the same house before marriage. 

#6 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

Being raised a Catholic, everything about sex was very hush-hush. My parents never talked about it, of course I learned about it in middle school through our "Fully Alive" sex education program at Catholic middle school, which looking back on it, was kind of strange having it taught by a nun. And even then, there was very little discussion about the actual act of sex itself, more about doing what God intended for us to do with our bodies, sex for purposes other than reproduction was wrong, etc . And god forbid you have sex before marriage... I remember when I was a kid my parents wouldn't even let me see some PG-rated films because they showed boyfriend and girlfriend living together in the same house before marriage. 

Vari3ty

It's funny how you setp back and look at it....the catholic church hates sex talk and yet loves telling people what to do under the sheets....and the scandals...one big hypocrite train

#7 Posted by Riverwolf007 (24292 posts) -

if they were sexually naive we would not be catching them having dirty public restroom sex with other dudes all the time.

#8 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -
I'd say so.
#9 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5503 posts) -

i hope your thread doesn't get locked. it has.. potentials.

VaguelyTagged
I hope it does. Nothing good will come of it.
#10 Posted by GD1551 (9645 posts) -

Why must there always be a problem with a social conservative? 

#11 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

Why must there always be a problem with a social conservative? 

GD1551

In this case, the arguments against gays and gay rights largely comes from social conservatives.

To answer the TC, I think there are some who are naive, but it's more from fear, of something different, something unknown. That's where most discrimination comes from.

#12 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152929 posts) -

Generalizing? Anyway the only reason to form a sanctioned unit should be for the protection of children.....adults can take care of themselves. Now how you politically create that unit for children is up to states.

 

Edit:  Though I can understand the reasons government got involved as the family used to only have one working parent and it was necessary to give legal recourse to the parent at home with the kids. 

#13 Posted by Angie7F (1175 posts) -

My personal experience says so.

But that is generalizing.

#14 Posted by supa_badman (16666 posts) -

Being raised a Catholic, everything about sex was very hush-hush. My parents never talked about it, of course I learned about it in middle school through our "Fully Alive" sex education program at Catholic middle school, which looking back on it, was kind of strange having it taught by a nun. And even then, there was very little discussion about the actual act of sex itself, more about doing what God intended for us to do with our bodies, sex for purposes other than reproduction was wrong, etc . And god forbid you have sex before marriage... I remember when I was a kid my parents wouldn't even let me see some PG-rated films because they showed boyfriend and girlfriend living together in the same house before marriage. 

Vari3ty
More or less the same situation here I don't think that social conservatives or devout christians are sexually naive, but more repressed if anything
#15 Posted by Sajo7 (14049 posts) -
Well a teacher in Idaho is under pressure from some parents for saying vagina in an anatomy lecture. So yeah, naive is probably the nicest thing you can say.
#16 Posted by Barbariser (6761 posts) -

Social conservatives are naive in every way, not just sexually.

#17 Posted by Necrifer (10629 posts) -

Yes.

#18 Posted by Diablo-B (4059 posts) -
What do you expect from a demographic that is constantly fighting against science
#19 Posted by Engrish_Major (17368 posts) -
What do you expect from a demographic that is constantly fighting against scienceDiablo-B
Well, you can't blame them. They're just following the commandment "Thou shalt not science."
#20 Posted by ferrari2001 (17400 posts) -
You can have sex and be in a committed relationship without being married. Marriage doesn't in any way change a relationship between two persons. Historically marriage has been a bond between two people to create a stable environment in which to raise children. I don't understand why people think marriage in any way effects the relationship between two people. It is about the rearing of children, that is why marriage has been around since the dawning of man because children have to be raised in a stable environment and be prepared for to take over for their parents as productive members of society. Why are we suddenly looking at marriage like it exists for some relationship purpose. What is it's purpose if not for reproduction and the raising of those children?
#21 Posted by ferrari2001 (17400 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Being raised a Catholic, everything about sex was very hush-hush. My parents never talked about it, of course I learned about it in middle school through our "Fully Alive" sex education program at Catholic middle school, which looking back on it, was kind of strange having it taught by a nun. And even then, there was very little discussion about the actual act of sex itself, more about doing what God intended for us to do with our bodies, sex for purposes other than reproduction was wrong, etc . And god forbid you have sex before marriage... I remember when I was a kid my parents wouldn't even let me see some PG-rated films because they showed boyfriend and girlfriend living together in the same house before marriage. 

wis3boi

It's funny how you setp back and look at it....the catholic church hates sex talk and yet loves telling people what to do under the sheets....and the scandals...one big hypocrite train

Theology of the Body disagrees with you. John Paul II gave over 120 lectures, most of them an hour long or more over the course of several years with the sole purpose of talking about sex. And that's just one person, there are thousands of catholic works that are focused specifically on sex. To say that the Church hates sex talk is to show ignorance to any literature outside of things you agree with.
#22 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152929 posts) -
[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Being raised a Catholic, everything about sex was very hush-hush. My parents never talked about it, of course I learned about it in middle school through our "Fully Alive" sex education program at Catholic middle school, which looking back on it, was kind of strange having it taught by a nun. And even then, there was very little discussion about the actual act of sex itself, more about doing what God intended for us to do with our bodies, sex for purposes other than reproduction was wrong, etc . And god forbid you have sex before marriage... I remember when I was a kid my parents wouldn't even let me see some PG-rated films because they showed boyfriend and girlfriend living together in the same house before marriage. 

ferrari2001

It's funny how you setp back and look at it....the catholic church hates sex talk and yet loves telling people what to do under the sheets....and the scandals...one big hypocrite train

Theology of the Body disagrees with you. John Paul II gave over 120 lectures, most of them an hour long or more over the course of several years with the sole purpose of talking about sex. And that's just one person, there are thousands of catholic works that are focused specifically on sex. To say that the Church hates sex talk is to show ignorance to any literature outside of things you agree with.

Not worth arguing with him. He's generalized and stereotyped himself through life and isn't going to open his mind to the reality. He'd rather make ignorant statements....
#23 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
I wanna know what a North Korean's sex life is like.
#24 Posted by 3eyedrazorback (16379 posts) -
I wanna know what a North Korean's sex life is like.Fightingfan
Poor. Get it?
#25 Posted by ferrari2001 (17400 posts) -
I wanna know what a North Korean's sex life is like.Fightingfan
Well, Kim jong-un is their sex icon sooo.....
#26 Posted by Heirren (19348 posts) -
Sexual intercourse can only happen between a man and a woman. This is a scientific fact.
#27 Posted by 3eyedrazorback (16379 posts) -
Sexual intercourse can only happen between a man and a woman. This is a scientific fact.Heirren
Here we go.
#28 Posted by General_X (9136 posts) -
You can have sex and be in a committed relationship without being married. Marriage doesn't in any way change a relationship between two persons. Historically marriage has been a bond between two people to create a stable environment in which to raise children. I don't understand why people think marriage in any way effects the relationship between two people. It is about the rearing of children, that is why marriage has been around since the dawning of man because children have to be raised in a stable environment and be prepared for to take over for their parents as productive members of society. Why are we suddenly looking at marriage like it exists for some relationship purpose. What is it's purpose if not for reproduction and the raising of those children? ferrari2001
The problem is when one gets legally married there are many monetary related benefits and breaks. And the fact that the divorce rate is hovering around 50% shows me that marriage is kinda a crappy indicator that people will stay together for children's sake. Also would you argue that a straight couple who can't have kids (medically related) should not be allowed to be married?
#29 Posted by ferrari2001 (17400 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]You can have sex and be in a committed relationship without being married. Marriage doesn't in any way change a relationship between two persons. Historically marriage has been a bond between two people to create a stable environment in which to raise children. I don't understand why people think marriage in any way effects the relationship between two people. It is about the rearing of children, that is why marriage has been around since the dawning of man because children have to be raised in a stable environment and be prepared for to take over for their parents as productive members of society. Why are we suddenly looking at marriage like it exists for some relationship purpose. What is it's purpose if not for reproduction and the raising of those children? General_X
The problem is when one gets legally married there are many monetary related benefits and breaks. And the fact that the divorce rate is hovering around 50% shows me that marriage is kinda a crappy indicator that people will stay together for children's sake. Also would you argue that a straight couple who can't have kids (medically related) should not be allowed to be married?

Why even have government marriage in the first place? The problem is that all people see in marriage today is either monetary benefit or a sign of love between peoples (and I've discussed that marriage isn't necessary for love). Get rid of government marriage and leave marriage as a private ceremony for two individuals and their families and church (or not). Then allow any two individuals to sign tax and end of life benefit documents accepting certain things they think the may need. If two people are mature enough to get married surely they are mature enough to handle their own finances.
#30 Posted by General_X (9136 posts) -
[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"]You can have sex and be in a committed relationship without being married. Marriage doesn't in any way change a relationship between two persons. Historically marriage has been a bond between two people to create a stable environment in which to raise children. I don't understand why people think marriage in any way effects the relationship between two people. It is about the rearing of children, that is why marriage has been around since the dawning of man because children have to be raised in a stable environment and be prepared for to take over for their parents as productive members of society. Why are we suddenly looking at marriage like it exists for some relationship purpose. What is it's purpose if not for reproduction and the raising of those children? ferrari2001
The problem is when one gets legally married there are many monetary related benefits and breaks. And the fact that the divorce rate is hovering around 50% shows me that marriage is kinda a crappy indicator that people will stay together for children's sake. Also would you argue that a straight couple who can't have kids (medically related) should not be allowed to be married?

Why even have government marriage in the first place? The problem is that all people see in marriage today is either monetary benefit or a sign of love between peoples (and I've discussed that marriage isn't necessary for love). Get rid of government marriage and leave marriage as a private ceremony for two individuals and their families and church (or not). Then allow any two individuals to sign tax and end of life benefit documents accepting certain things they think the may need. If two people are mature enough to get married surely they are mature enough to handle their own finances.

But no one will ever vote for getting rid of the monetary benifits associated with marriage, that's why people are advocating that everyone be able to get married. As it is now it's terribly unfair, and it's unfair to base marriage laws on only one religion because there are MANY religions that include marriage ceremonies. (not to mention the supposed separation between church and state)
#31 Posted by ferrari2001 (17400 posts) -
[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="General_X"]The problem is when one gets legally married there are many monetary related benefits and breaks. And the fact that the divorce rate is hovering around 50% shows me that marriage is kinda a crappy indicator that people will stay together for children's sake. Also would you argue that a straight couple who can't have kids (medically related) should not be allowed to be married?

Why even have government marriage in the first place? The problem is that all people see in marriage today is either monetary benefit or a sign of love between peoples (and I've discussed that marriage isn't necessary for love). Get rid of government marriage and leave marriage as a private ceremony for two individuals and their families and church (or not). Then allow any two individuals to sign tax and end of life benefit documents accepting certain things they think the may need. If two people are mature enough to get married surely they are mature enough to handle their own finances.

But no one will ever vote for getting rid of the monetary benifits associated with marriage, that's why people are advocating that everyone be able to get married. As it is now it's terribly unfair, and it's unfair to base marriage laws on only one religion because there are MANY religions that include marriage ceremonies. (not to mention the supposed separation between church and state)

I'm not arguing the get rid of monetary benefits. If you are mature enough to marry you are mature enough to decide what types of monetary and end of life benefits you are your spouse may need, no reason to governmentally mandate it. You create a document that couples can sign and select which monetary benefits they want. For example they want to share taxes but they don't want end of life benefits. They could even keep the exact same monetary benefits that are shared now among married couples. This applies to all couples, even ones that do not consider themselves married. And then I said it should be a private ceremony between couples and their families or and their church (OR NOT). Leave marriage private, up to the couples and the various churches, or private ceremonies if you are not religious. You really need to go back and read my previous post cause your reading comprehension sucks. Marriage laws should be based on the historical reason for marriage, not any specific religious doctrine. And that historical reason is for the rearing of ones children to produce a secure and stable society. There is no reason that government needs to be involved in the marriage process if it's only concern is monetary benefits.
#32 Posted by General_X (9136 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Why even have government marriage in the first place? The problem is that all people see in marriage today is either monetary benefit or a sign of love between peoples (and I've discussed that marriage isn't necessary for love). Get rid of government marriage and leave marriage as a private ceremony for two individuals and their families and church (or not). Then allow any two individuals to sign tax and end of life benefit documents accepting certain things they think the may need. If two people are mature enough to get married surely they are mature enough to handle their own finances.

But no one will ever vote for getting rid of the monetary benifits associated with marriage, that's why people are advocating that everyone be able to get married. As it is now it's terribly unfair, and it's unfair to base marriage laws on only one religion because there are MANY religions that include marriage ceremonies. (not to mention the supposed separation between church and state)

I'm not arguing the get rid of monetary benefits. If you are mature enough to marry you are mature enough to decide what types of monetary and end of life benefits you are your spouse may need, no reason to governmentally mandate it. You create a document that couples can sign and select which monetary benefits they want. For example they want to share taxes but they don't want end of life benefits. They could even keep the exact same monetary benefits that are shared now among married couples. This applies to all couples, even ones that do not consider themselves married. And then I said it should be a private ceremony between couples and their families or and their church (OR NOT). Leave marriage private, up to the couples and the various churches, or private ceremonies if you are not religious. You really need to go back and read my previous post cause your reading comprehension sucks. Marriage laws should be based on the historical reason for marriage, not any specific religious doctrine. And that historical reason is for the rearing of ones children to produce a secure and stable society. There is no reason that government needs to be involved in the marriage process if it's only concern is monetary benefits.

So essentially you want the term marriage to be reserved for child-rearable couples while they and everyone else can just enter into a sort of civil union with documentation of the monetary benifits?
#33 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12017 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] I'm not arguing the get rid of monetary benefits. If you are mature enough to marry you are mature enough to decide what types of monetary and end of life benefits you are your spouse may need, no reason to governmentally mandate it. You create a document that couples can sign and select which monetary benefits they want. For example they want to share taxes but they don't want end of life benefits. They could even keep the exact same monetary benefits that are shared now among married couples. This applies to all couples, even ones that do not consider themselves married. And then I said it should be a private ceremony between couples and their families or and their church (OR NOT). Leave marriage private, up to the couples and the various churches, or private ceremonies if you are not religious. You really need to go back and read my previous post cause your reading comprehension sucks. Marriage laws should be based on the historical reason for marriage, not any specific religious doctrine. And that historical reason is for the rearing of ones children to produce a secure and stable society. There is no reason that government needs to be involved in the marriage process if it's only concern is monetary benefits.

Not everyone is religious or wants to get married in a church. Judges and justice of the peace (government entities) preform wedding ceremonies as much as ministers and pastors of churches. Taking the government out of the equation is not going to happen.
#34 Posted by ferrari2001 (17400 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="General_X"]But no one will ever vote for getting rid of the monetary benifits associated with marriage, that's why people are advocating that everyone be able to get married. As it is now it's terribly unfair, and it's unfair to base marriage laws on only one religion because there are MANY religions that include marriage ceremonies. (not to mention the supposed separation between church and state)General_X
I'm not arguing the get rid of monetary benefits. If you are mature enough to marry you are mature enough to decide what types of monetary and end of life benefits you are your spouse may need, no reason to governmentally mandate it. You create a document that couples can sign and select which monetary benefits they want. For example they want to share taxes but they don't want end of life benefits. They could even keep the exact same monetary benefits that are shared now among married couples. This applies to all couples, even ones that do not consider themselves married. And then I said it should be a private ceremony between couples and their families or and their church (OR NOT). Leave marriage private, up to the couples and the various churches, or private ceremonies if you are not religious. You really need to go back and read my previous post cause your reading comprehension sucks. Marriage laws should be based on the historical reason for marriage, not any specific religious doctrine. And that historical reason is for the rearing of ones children to produce a secure and stable society. There is no reason that government needs to be involved in the marriage process if it's only concern is monetary benefits.

So essentially you want the term marriage to be reserved for child-rearable couples while they and everyone else can just enter into a sort of civil union for with documentation of the monetary benifits?

I have no problem with the idea of civil unions. Marriage benefits should not be mandated and controlled by the government without personal input from the people accepting those benefits, why should they. The historical marriage has worked the same way for centuries and it has proven to be a stable backbone for society. Why change it now? Let couples decide on their benefits from the government regardless if they are married or not.
#35 Posted by ferrari2001 (17400 posts) -
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] I'm not arguing the get rid of monetary benefits. If you are mature enough to marry you are mature enough to decide what types of monetary and end of life benefits you are your spouse may need, no reason to governmentally mandate it. You create a document that couples can sign and select which monetary benefits they want. For example they want to share taxes but they don't want end of life benefits. They could even keep the exact same monetary benefits that are shared now among married couples. This applies to all couples, even ones that do not consider themselves married. And then I said it should be a private ceremony between couples and their families or and their church (OR NOT). Leave marriage private, up to the couples and the various churches, or private ceremonies if you are not religious. You really need to go back and read my previous post cause your reading comprehension sucks. Marriage laws should be based on the historical reason for marriage, not any specific religious doctrine. And that historical reason is for the rearing of ones children to produce a secure and stable society. There is no reason that government needs to be involved in the marriage process if it's only concern is monetary benefits.

Not everyone is religious or wants to get married in a church. Judges and justice of the peace (government entities) preform wedding ceremonies as much as ministers and pastors of churches. Taking the government out of the equation is not going to happen.

God people's reading and comprehension here sucks. I never said it had to be a religious ceremony, actually engage in the discussion and what has been actually said or get the hell out. It can be a private one outside of a church if one chooses. It just doesn't have to be connected to a government entity. And certain monetary benefits can still be maintained by the government apart from marriage.
#36 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

It's funny how you setp back and look at it....the catholic church hates sex talk and yet loves telling people what to do under the sheets....and the scandals...one big hypocrite train

LJS9502_basic

Theology of the Body disagrees with you. John Paul II gave over 120 lectures, most of them an hour long or more over the course of several years with the sole purpose of talking about sex. And that's just one person, there are thousands of catholic works that are focused specifically on sex. To say that the Church hates sex talk is to show ignorance to any literature outside of things you agree with.

Not worth arguing with him. He's generalized and stereotyped himself through life and isn't going to open his mind to the reality. He'd rather make ignorant statements....

How ironic

#37 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12017 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] Not everyone is religious or wants to get married in a church. Judges and justice of the peace (government entities) preform wedding ceremonies as much as ministers and pastors of churches. Taking the government out of the equation is not going to happen.

God people's reading and comprehension here sucks. I never said it had to be a religious ceremony, actually engage in the discussion and what has been actually said or get the hell out. It can be a private one outside of a church if one chooses. It just doesn't have to be connected to a government entity. And certain monetary benefits can still be maintained by the government apart from marriage.

Pot meet kettle. I stated that not everyone is religious. Private ceremonies are most certainly held, but they are performed by a government official whether or not monetary benefits are involved or not. Most states only allow specific groups to perform weddings and that is clergy or government officials (usually judges). You will not get government out of the marriage business unless you were to leave it up to clergy only and then that is an even slippery slope than one having government involvement.
#38 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152929 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Theology of the Body disagrees with you. John Paul II gave over 120 lectures, most of them an hour long or more over the course of several years with the sole purpose of talking about sex. And that's just one person, there are thousands of catholic works that are focused specifically on sex. To say that the Church hates sex talk is to show ignorance to any literature outside of things you agree with. wis3boi

Not worth arguing with him. He's generalized and stereotyped himself through life and isn't going to open his mind to the reality. He'd rather make ignorant statements....

How ironic

Someone doesn't know the meaning of irony....
#39 Posted by mattbbpl (11051 posts) -

I was listening to some of the arguments in front of the supreme court and one of the advocates of the DoMA said that the primary function of marriage is for reproduction.

One of the justices said they disagreed because people often get remarried late in life 60+ after a divorce or a lose of a spouse and can't reproduce. Legislature that was based on that idea would limit their rights.

He then said there's always a chance of conception, after which the justices laughed at him.

This almost seems like a trend, rather than just a few people. It seems every other week some social conservative says something that makes it seem like they know less about sex than a 10 year old, i.e. women can't get pregnant through rape for example.

So is there a general trend among social conservatives to know less about sex than everybody else?

MakeMeaSammitch

I don't think it's a matter of being naive, per se. I give them the benefit of the doubt at this point and believe that the party is suffering from cognitive dissonance caused by the adoption of two contradictory factions in their coalition - namely the extremely anti-government tea party segment which believes that the government should be as small as possible in order to maximize liberty and the social conservatives who believe that they have a right, perhaps even a duty, to regulate their religious beliefs onto the rest of the population. From what I've seen there's been a lot of twisting and bending over backwards to find a rationale in which the two are compatible.

#40 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4808 posts) -

Ever notice how some liberals like to generalize entire groups in an attempt to segregate them, or to simply discredit their arguments and beliefs through the use of strawman arguements? Or maybe that's just on OT...Nibroc420
no, I think there legitamately is a trend.

I think some social conservatives believe that sex outside procreation is wrong and that sex for pleasure or outside of marriage is evil; they learn very little about sex as a consequence and they pass on their naivety to their children.

#41 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4808 posts) -

You can have sex and be in a committed relationship without being married. Marriage doesn't in any way change a relationship between two persons. Historically marriage has been a bond between two people to create a stable environment in which to raise children. I don't understand why people think marriage in any way effects the relationship between two people. It is about the rearing of children, that is why marriage has been around since the dawning of man because children have to be raised in a stable environment and be prepared for to take over for their parents as productive members of society. Why are we suddenly looking at marriage like it exists for some relationship purpose. What is it's purpose if not for reproduction and the raising of those children? ferrari2001
I think the culprits are protistants more often that catholics. I think American catholics tend to be a bit more liberal, and Evengelicals and southern babtists I think that have a long history of things like this.

I honestly think this may be a case of sexual repression.

Think about it. That man making an argument against ssm is 50; it's nothing short of sad that he doesn't realize people's fertility have an experation date by that age. That's something a teenager should know.

#42 Posted by Ncsoftlover (2117 posts) -

Ever notice how some liberals like to generalize entire groups in an attempt to segregate them, or to simply discredit their arguments and beliefs through the use of strawman arguements? Or maybe that's just on OT...Nibroc420

the social conservatives are far better at demonizing all groups of people who seem to challenge what's "established".

#43 Posted by sonicare (53650 posts) -

Yes, I believe you can label an entire group on the actions of a few outliers.

#44 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4808 posts) -

Yes, I believe you can label an entire group on the actions of a few outliers.

sonicare

it's more than that....there's a legitamate trend I think. No not all are going to be backwards, but on the whole there is a large part that is sexually confused....

#45 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

At least they are more open minded than liberals... don't like either though.

#46 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

At least they are more open minded than liberals... don't like either though.

GOGOGOGURT

:lol:

[citation needed]

#47 Posted by espoac (4207 posts) -

As long as we're generalizing... I'd say self-identified Liberals are a bit "loose" with regards to sex, at least as often as Conservatives are naive. What's worse: devaluing sex through promiscuity or avoiding it out of ignorance until you've established a meaningful relationship with someone? Both are undesireable but I'd say the latter is a bit less self-destructive.

#48 Posted by mattbbpl (11051 posts) -

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Yes, I believe you can label an entire group on the actions of a few outliers.

MakeMeaSammitch

it's more than that....there's a legitamate trend I think. No not all are going to be backwards, but on the whole there is a large part that is sexually confused....

Not a trend - a segment - A portion of their constituency/coalition. Specifically the social conservative/religious wing.
#49 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4808 posts) -

As long as we're generalizing... I'd say self-identified Liberals are a bit "loose" with regards to sex, at least as often as Conservatives are naive. What's worse: devaluing sex through promiscuity or avoiding it out of ignorance until you've established a meaningful relationship with someone? Both are undesireable but I'd say the latter is a bit less self-destructive.

espoac

ignorance.

#50 Posted by MrPraline (21331 posts) -
.
What's worse: devaluing sex through promiscuity or avoiding it out of ignorance until you've established a meaningful relationship with someone? Both are undesireable but I'd say the latter is a bit less self-destructive.espoac
The one with the more government interference in the private bedroom of citizens is worse.