Liston: Unmarried teen parents are "sluts"

[Rhino]

Liston: Unmarried teen parents are "sluts"
Republican representative under fire for remark

February 7, 2008

COLORADO SPRINGS (AP) — A state lawmaker used a derogatory term to describe unmarried teen parents as sexually promiscuous...

..."In my parents' day and age, they were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are. There was at least a sense of shame," Liston said of unmarried teen parents. "There's no sense of shame today. Society condones it. . . . I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."...http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-liston-unmarried-parents,0,1168448.story

[Neil Peart]

And the problem with that is...?

[PrezLeefun]

hey.... he is being fair, boys too.

[DeclinetoState]

What do you call a male slut?

(At one time in the '90s, "President of the United States" would have been a correct answer.)

[PrezLeefun]

man-whore.

[Rhino]

What do you call a male slut?

(At one time in the '90s, "President of the United States" would have been a correct answer.)

:lol:

[gnome]

I think the remark is not very constructive, because it sidelines the bigger problem of unplanned children. What is more important, identifying the "sluts" in society, or addressing their choice to risk pregnancy--which can easily occur without someone being particularly promiscuous. It seems to me to miss the target.

[DeclinetoState]

What is more important, identifying the "sluts" in society, or addressing their choice to risk pregnancy--which can easily occur without someone being particularly promiscuous. "Easily"? Pregnancy can be easily avoided. It's not like catching a cold. And don't tell me that there is a teenage girl or young woman who doesn't know that having sex with a male of any age can lead to pregnancy. If they don't learn it in school, watch a trashy movie or daytime talk show. That's about the only topic those "reality" shows ever cover.

[Air Force Guy]

What do you call a male slut?

(At one time in the '90s, "President of the United States" would have been a correct answer.)Satyr is the oldest term.

Modern male-sluts call themselves man-whores...
But that sounds too much like a man peddling himself to other men.

I knew some handwringer would pipe up. That'd be Gnome. Identifying the problem and not glossing over it--and ESPECIALLY not GLAMORIZING IT--is always a step in the problem solving process.

[gnome]

"Easily"? Pregnancy can be easily avoided. It's not like catching a cold. And don't tell me that there is a teenage girl or young woman who doesn't know that having sex with a male of any age can lead to pregnancy. If they don't learn it in school, watch a trashy movie or daytime talk show. That's about the only topic those "reality" shows ever cover.

I know all that. What I meant was, it doesn't take promiscuity to lead to teen pregnancy. A single sex partner suffices just fine. So it's not about promiscuity, it's about avoiding sex altogether (or at least taking appropriate precautions).

[Gato es Verde]

I think the remark is not very constructive, because it sidelines the bigger problem of unplanned children. What is more important, identifying the "sluts" in society, or addressing their choice to risk pregnancy--which can easily occur without someone being particularly promiscuous. It seems to me to miss the target.

Social mores used to keep this kind of thing in check since the days of Hester Prinn. Attitudes like yours are what has allowed teenage pregnancy to become commonplace.

[PrezLeefun]

I know all that. What I meant was, it doesn't take promiscuity to lead to teen pregnancy. A single sex partner suffices just fine. So it's not about promiscuity, it's about avoiding sex altogether (or at least taking appropriate precautions).

Calling someone a slut can simply infer that they have a lack of morals. You dont need to be promiscous to have a lack of morals.

Kids participating in sex, by extension of their actions are displaying a lack of morals, thus making them sluts.

[Oldeshooter]

I believe many young women opt to get pregnant because they have no other skills and are just aping mammy. They're used to the life of welfare, have no daddies, don't care about school and have no shame. Just taking the easy way out on the taxpayers dime.

[MrSanity]

Would they be whores instead if they aborted those kids?

I don't think we're leaving a lot of room for these young mothers to make amends with God. They know they've made a mistake, and it's bad enough that they will spend much of their lives caring for the children they loved enough to give life to while being ridiculed for doing so, instead of stocking up on kill-pills or hitting the abortion clinics, or just enjoying the remainder of their youth.

[DeclinetoState]

Would they be whores instead if they aborted those kids?
Yes, and murderers too, though not under the law as interpreted by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Taylor1]

I'm sick of these ...girls who date ...guys, then of course (not hard to perdict) they run away after knocking the girl up and leave her with a baby and no future. ..... ( but.. I don't think I'd ever even consider doing something like that to a woman because like I wouldn't want to be traveling around with a baby at 16 C'mon now.

Management comment: Edited to remove racial overtones.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^^I am going to very nicely advise you to edit or remove that post.

[Kathy30]

They are sluts. Why are they objecting to being called sluts?

[DesertFox]

Bullshit. They're clueless idiot kids, not sluts. If they have real parents, they'll now grow up and face their responsibilities. If not, far worse things may well happen.

It's when bad things happen that you're tested as a parent. It takes no special insight or courage or morals to stand up when your kid makes the honor role or wins a scholarship or otherwise makes you proud. It takes guts to accept that that little one you raised from a tadpole is now going astray and YOU have to make him/her toe the line or he/she may be throwing his/her life away.

And you don't get started on the rest of his/her upbringing by calling him/her a slut.

[DeclinetoState]

And you don't get started on the rest of his/her upbringing by calling him/her a slut.You don't have to. But you can remind him/her that others may think of him/her as a slut, and it will be very hard to live that moniker down.

If that doesn't work, remind him/her that if he/she continues acting that way, there may be a future in politics . . . as a liberal Democrat.

[DesertFox]

Bullshit. You don't get more conservative than me, and I knocked up my first wife before we married. You don't get more conservative than a Pentecostal friend of mine in Colorado, who knocked up HIS first wife before they married. Same with a full colonel I knew in the Army, and several other officers and enlisted men. I can't even count how many solid, conservative people I know whose married lives began just that way.

This story is as old as mankind. Teenage boys who knock up their girlfriends aren't sluts unless they refuse to marry the girl and take responsibility for what they contributed to. And then they're not sluts because of the pregnancy, but because of the lack of guts and sense of responsibility.

[Taylor1]

Let me say something that'll make more sense and wont be racist. I hear about these girls that go woe is me, while they're half of the reason for agreeing with it. Now I'm not talking rape. Unless your gonna stay with your wife/girlfriend til the end and your confident and all that your wife/girlfriend is ok and your good to go to school or she is then thats a different story. But everytime I hear stories about this or see things about this. Man, it just makes me wanna pull my hair out that the youth in America (alot of it) thinks its cool. The most saddest part, they've got no guilt, and they think its fine.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Bullshit. They're clueless idiot kids, not sluts. If they have real parents, they'll now grow up and face their responsibilities. If not, far worse things may well happen.

It's when bad things happen that you're tested as a parent. It takes no special insight or courage or morals to stand up when your kid makes the honor role or wins a scholarship or otherwise makes you proud. It takes guts to accept that that little one you raised from a tadpole is now going astray and YOU have to make him/her toe the line or he/she may be throwing his/her life away.

And you don't get started on the rest of his/her upbringing by calling him/her a slut.


Agree.

[Riverboat]

Liston: Unmarried teen parents are "sluts"

Also unmarried 20-year olds, and 30-year olds, and . . . well, you get the idea.

[Rhino]

Bullshit. You don't get more conservative than me, and I knocked up my first wife before we married.

You SLUT!!!

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

[TeenageRepublican]

I've consulted my friends about what we call male sluts and the answer is simple: hooker.

I know, it doesn't make sense, but neither do my friends and our conversations. Don't make me talk about how cheese is like Communism.

[Beowulf]

I believe many young women opt to get pregnant because they have no other skills and are just aping mammy. They're used to the life of welfare, have no daddies, don't care about school and have no shame. Just taking the easy way out on the taxpayers dime.
I've seen this before and see it still to this day around these parts although it's gotten a bit better. It used to be that welfare mothers would have a kid every couple of years just to maintain their welfare benefits. Eventually, the state implemented a 2 kid maximum. Of course, opponents called it "war against kids" but we taxpayers called it "justice."

[Air Force Guy]

This is a reward for the "sexual revolution" in America.

Time to bring some kind of force to bear against kids having kids. Shame won't work unless it's a uniform wave of societal indignation at the little, out-of-control tarts (aka 'sluts/whores'). Personally, I don't see it getting better without some kind of societal revolution. The concept of morals are too tightly bound to Christianity in most pagan minds. Sometimes seems like they fight morality for that reason alone. But according to my beliefs, morals without a relationship with God is a waste of time. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295725/)

[MrSanity]

This story is as old as mankind. Teenage boys who knock up their girlfriends aren't sluts unless they refuse to marry the girl and take responsibility for what they contributed to. And then they're not sluts because of the pregnancy, but because of the lack of guts and sense of responsibility.Yes, taking responsibility and staying loyal to the knock-up partner should exonerate you from being called a "slut."

I know I'm probably not supposed to touch on this, but I think there is a gender bias in the terminology. If we're going to go around and call these girls "sluts", then why aren't we calling the boys any names?

How about, I dunno, coward? Degenerate pig?

What gives.

[Neil Peart]

Yes, taking responsibility and staying loyal to the knock-up partner should exonerate you from being called a "slut."

I know I'm probably not supposed to touch on this, but I think there is a gender bias in the terminology. If we're going to go around and call these girls "sluts", then why aren't we calling the boys any names?

How about, I dunno, coward? Degenerate pig?

What gives.I call them "scum."

[MrSanity]

I call them "scum."
Okay, so if a "scum" sticks around to support the child he is responsible for and has a real relationship with her/him, is he still a scum, or is he taking responsibility for his mistake?

[Neil Peart]

Okay, so if a "scum" sticks around to support the child he is responsible for and has a real relationship with her/him, is he still a scum, or is he taking responsibility for his mistake?He's taking responsibility for his mistake.

[MrSanity]

He's taking responsibility for his mistake.Then I would agree with you about the "scum."

[Air Force Guy]

All through our lives we run into behaviors that just ARE....

Cats/kittens trying to get into a cereal bowl on the table to get at the milk in it...
Cows try to go out to pasture for more grass than what is in the pen...
Foxes trying to get in the chicken house...
boys trying to get into girls' pants...

No, they're not animals but they have instincts...instincts that need to have help with control from more stabilized adults in their lives.

As someone else suggested, all that has to happen--regardless of all other factors involved--is for a girl to say NO and mean it. Even with parents of both the boy and the girl doing everything sensible to prevent the two from being alone together...it still comes down to one simple fact.

If you want to argue about rape with me...that's another thread. And I won't disagree. Death penalty, first offense.

[EveningStar]

Liston: Unmarried teen parents are "sluts"

I thought Sonny Liston died years ago.

[Lubbock]

. . . problem of unplanned children. . . .


:rotflmbo:


That is just SO LIB.

"Sex" education in our public schools is a LIB THING. It includes teaching fifth graders to use condoms by demonstrating the technique on a banana.

UNPLANNED children?

Seems so me that time in school would be better spent teaching the children to PLAN.

If you screw around without "protection" you might get a child.

Plan on it.

I think the condom experiment failed.

[PrezLeefun]

^^Frankly I hope they keep the bananas.... when they move on to dildos we will really be in trouble.

[DesertFox]

I know I'm probably not supposed to touch on this, but I think there is a gender bias in the terminology. If we're going to go around and call these girls "sluts", then why aren't we calling the boys any names?

How about, I dunno, coward? Degenerate pig?

What gives. Sigh What gives is that women are and always have been held in higher esteem than men. And should be, because they carry and raise the future. Men deliver in the present, building civilization so that women can deliver the future (kids) and raise them safely. We all sense this even if we don't grasp it with our minds.

Men who fail to live up to this reality are just losers. They don't matter. But women who fail to live up to it endanger civilization itself by undermining its very future. That awesome, biological responsibility requires that they be held to a high sexual standard because women -- mothers -- are both the first and the last defense of kids -- the future of the human race. If mothers all stop today, this will be the last generation of humanity. If men all stop today, things won't be fun but they can continue.

As I've ceaselessly preached here, there is no double standard. Women and men are different and the standards therefore have to be different for them. It would be a double standard if they were the same and different standards obtained, as with affirmative action.

Call irresponsible men losers. That's what they are.

[gnome]

:rotflmbo:


That is just SO LIB.

"Sex" education in our public schools is a LIB THING. It includes teaching fifth graders to use condoms by demonstrating the technique on a banana.

UNPLANNED children?

Seems so me that time in school would be better spent teaching the children to PLAN.

If you screw around without "protection" you might get a child.

Plan on it.

I think the condom experiment failed.

The vast majority of sex education programs in America (in fact, I don't know of any exceptions) emphasize abstinence first and foremost, and teach that birth control, even the pill, is not 100% effective.

That said, most of the teen parents I've known are ones that couldn't be bothered to use birth control. They didn't get that from the school.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^ gnome you operate under the assumption that schools have good sex education programs. Bottom line is they usually dont.

And regardless of what the curiculum is a teacher usually does whatever the hell they want in a classroom. And they do teach about sexual behavior and THAT is where the biggest problems occur because sexual behavior is a reflection of morals.... the public school system has few morals.

Sex is something that should be taught by parents first.

[DesertFox]

Sex education needs to be done by analogy to animals. There is no need at all for kids to "practice" putting a condom on a banana. What needs to be taught is that male wolves will NOT fight female wolves even for food when they're starving. It's wired into them, and wired into us.

We should be teaching proper etiquette between the sexes, not sex itself. Mutual self-discovery is part of the magic of the early days between a man and a woman.

[gnome]

Agree that it is much better to come from the parents. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that sex education programs started to counter the problem of parents that did not teach their children about sex, or were ignorant themselves.

I think most people here expect that, for example, a proper education on how to safely use a gun, makes a child less likely to harm themselves with one. Is it any different with sex?

If a local school is teaching it badly, the solution is not to stop teaching but to fix the school's program. Active parents can have a huge influence on public schools.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I think most people here expect that, for example, a proper education on how to safely use a gun, makes a child less likely to harm themselves with one. Is it any different with sex?

So you agree, gun safety courses should be mandatory in public schools? :smirky:

[PrezLeefun]

Agree that it is much better to come from the parents. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that sex education programs started to counter the problem of parents that did not teach their children about sex, or were ignorant themselves.

I think most people here expect that, for example, a proper education on how to safely use a gun, makes a child less likely to harm themselves with one. Is it any different with sex?

If a local school is teaching it badly, the solution is not to stop teaching but to fix the school's program. Active parents can have a huge influence on public schools.

Tell that to parents in Mass. where reqiured 2 nd grade reading is a tale called the King and King.... a book about homosexuality. Some parents totally oppose such reading but cant have their kids opt out if it.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/OReilly_outraged_by_gay_fairy_tales_0205.html

watch the video as well.

[gnome]

So you agree, gun safety courses should be mandatory in public schools? :smirky:

I don't know about mandatory. Most sex education is opt-out. But I wouldn't object to its availability.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^ No its not.

[gnome]

Tell that to parents in Mass. where reqiured 2 nd grade reading is a tale called the King and King.... a book about homosexuality. Some parents totally oppose such reading but cant have their kids opt out if it.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/OReilly_outraged_by_gay_fairy_tales_0205.html

watch the video as well.

According to the transcript it was optional... but the question of whether to have books about homosexuality in particular schools is not the same question as whether to have sex education at all.

Do the parents have input as to what books are selected? The fight over individual bonehead choices should be locally to gain and use that input. To try to stop that sort of thing with national policy is like trying to swat a mosquito with an axe.

[gnome]

^^^ No its not.

Got any stats?

[PrezLeefun]

No. But far too many kids living in different states whose teachers bully them into the subjection of thier version of sex education.

[CzechPrince]

And the problem with that is...?

Maybe it's just me, but I find it hypocritical of someone who is most likely pro life to be demeaning women who keep their children (in lieu of abortion) calling women sluts.

Being unmarried and having a child does not make someone a slut, even by the literal definition. People make mistakes. Furthermore, it takes two to tango, how convenient of him not to have any choice words for the men who are responsible as well.

[Neil Peart]

Maybe it's just me, but I find it hypocritical of someone who is most likely pro life to be demeaning women who keep their children (in lieu of abortion) calling women sluts.

Being unmarried and having a child does not make someone a slut, even by the literal definition. People make mistakes. Furthermore, it takes two to tango, how convenient of him not to have any choice words for the men who are responsible as well.But he DOES go after males as well.

And it's better to be simply a slut than to be a slut AND a murderer.

[CzechPrince]

They are sluts. Why are they objecting to being called sluts?

Yes, and if you have a daughter or granddaughter who gets pregnant and makes a mistake, you're going to call her a slut? That's the Christ like attitude I like to hear!

[CzechPrince]

But he DOES go after males as well.

And it's better to be simply a slut than to be a slut AND a murderer.

I bet you score lots of ladies with your class act treatment of women. :rolleyes:


Get off your high horse. Who are you to call a young woman who makes a mistake a slut?

[PrezLeefun]

CP... if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck its probably a duck.

When a young girl dresses like slut, and then acts like a slut then she is a slut. If she then feels ashamed of being a slut she probably wont be a slut in the future.

There is nothing wrong with a small reasonable dose of humilitiy to get a young person on the right track. Especially after they reap the consequences of thier actions. We dont help young people when we let them go free of responsibility.

I am not saying we should call young pregnant girls sluts, but there is nothing bad about making it clear that teen sex is irresponsible and not the behavior a young lady or gentleman participates in.

[Neil Peart]

I bet you score lots of ladies with your class act treatment of women. :rolleyes:


Get off your high horse. Who are you to call a young woman who makes a mistake a slut?I'll concede that if she takes responsibility for her actions, recognizes the error of her ways, and changes them accordingly, then she's not a slut.

[DesertFox]

A slut is (and always has been) someone who sleeps around, not someone who gets pregnant out of marriage. IOW: Promiscuity. The only reason to call such a person a slut is a presumption of promiscuity, which is, well, presumptuous.

[CzechPrince]

CP... if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck its probably a duck.

When a young girl dresses like slut, and then acts like a slut then she is a slut. If she then feels ashamed of being a slut she probably wont be a slut in the future.

There is nothing wrong with a small reasonable dose of humility to get a young person on the right track. Especially after they reap the consequences of their actions. We don't help young people when we let them go free of responsibility.

I am not saying we should call young pregnant girls sluts, but there is nothing bad about making it clear that teen sex is irresponsible and not the behavior a young lady or gentleman participates in.

First off, you cannot judge someone always on how they dress.

More importantly, this "respected elected official" called women who were unmarried and with child, sluts; yet as a Republican, I'm sure he's pro life and would be condemning them if they had gotten abortions. Classic case of damned if you and damned if you don't.

He demonized an entire group of women, not knowing anything about them. There are some women who are sluts that have children. There are some women without children who are sluts. Yes, people need to be held accountable, but slipping up and getting pregnant does not make a girl a slut. She made a mistake. It doesn't make her a bad person, nor the father.

It was an asinine, baseless, and uneducated comment. No one should be defending such a jackass remark like this.

[DesertFox]

Uh, Czech, you make it sound as if one gets pregnant in a way similar to stepping on a banana peel and falling. No one really ever gets pregnant "by accident." You engage in sex, you are playing a game the very purpose of which is to create new people.

But pregnancy does not a slut make. Promiscuity does.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

My brother impregnated his high school sweetheart before they were married. Both were Christians at the time; both were virgins. The idea of giving themselves to any other -- let alone sleeping around -- unthinkable. They were young, gave into temptation. It happens.

[gnome]

^^^ No its not.

Actually I found some stats.

http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/596

Thirty-five states have “opt-out” clauses, giving parents the chance to pull their children out of sex education lessons if they find the content to be objectionable.
Four states — Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and Utah — have “opt-in” policies, meaning that parents must give their permission before their children can attend a sex education class.Can you identify for me even one state in which the parent is not allowed to remove their child from sex education classes, should they so choose? Let alone more than half of the states that have sex education, which is what you would need to find to contradict my statement that most sex ed is optional?

[PrezLeefun]

Actually I found some stats.

http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/596

Can you identify for me even one state in which the parent is not allowed to remove their child from sex education classes, should they so choose? Let alone more than half of the states that have sex education, which is what you would need to find to contradict my statement that most sex ed is optional?

The point I made was about pressure on kids to remain in sex education courses in schools. I already told you I had no statistics.

[Taylor1]

I think the problem could be solved by having parents take the time and tell their kids, about this stuff because like I don't know about you but I don't think I'd be
wanting to have a baby at 15.. JUST saying though.

[gnome]

The point I made was about pressure on kids to remain in sex education courses in schools. I already told you I had no statistics.

Now I see what you meant, all right. Where have you observed this bullying to occur, in spite of the unit being technically optional?

[PrezLeefun]

Far too many of my cousins have made complaints about teachers over the years, and even I in a catholic elementary school no less was subjected to an insufficent sex ed program (the only program in the school that was faulty) that we couldn't opt out of.

[CzechPrince]

Uh, Czech, you make it sound as if one gets pregnant in a way similar to stepping on a banana peel and falling. No one really ever gets pregnant "by accident." You engage in sex, you are playing a game the very purpose of which is to create new people.

I thought it was pretty clear what I was getting at. Obviously consensual sex is not an accident, however, the, "accident" was the conception of a human life unplanned and unintentional. To me that's an accident.


But pregnancy does not a slut make. Promiscuity does.

Exactly, but some people obviously don't understand what a slut is.

[Neil Peart]

I thought it was pretty clear what I was getting at. Obviously consensual sex is not an accident, however, the, "accident" was the conception of a human life unplanned and unintentional. To me that's an accident.Playing with fire is not an accident. Getting burned is. But playing with fire is still a bad idea.

[Eagle1]

Sigh What gives is that women are and always have been held in higher esteem than men. And should be, because they carry and raise the future. Men deliver in the present, building civilization so that women can deliver the future (kids) and raise them safely. We all sense this even if we don't grasp it with our minds.

Men who fail to live up to this reality are just losers. They don't matter. But women who fail to live up to it endanger civilization itself by undermining its very future. That awesome, biological responsibility requires that they be held to a high sexual standard because women -- mothers -- are both the first and the last defense of kids -- the future of the human race. If mothers all stop today, this will be the last generation of humanity. If men all stop today, things won't be fun but they can continue.
:claps::claps::claps::claps::claps::claps::claps:: claps:
bravo, that is gold

[CzechPrince]

Playing with fire is not an accident. Getting burned is. But playing with fire is still a bad idea.

Please show me where I implied that with the subject at hand. My only point was the elected official is a jackass for saying what he did.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

Social mores used to keep this kind of thing in check since the days of Hester Prinn. Attitudes like yours are what has allowed teenage pregnancy to become commonplace.
+1

The shame, all around condemnation, and one's being socially ostracized once served to deter such things to a far greater extent. The bleeding heart of the left told us, and is telling us now more than ever in their TV shows and their movies, that this was too intolerant however, too heavy handed, and that accepting people for 'who they are' was the morally superior alternative. We were told the true evil was our "intolerance," and sold the lie that the real crime was our nonacceptance, and convinced that this caused more damage to people than their own immoral impulses.

Now society is saturated with everything foul.

America is drowning to death it its own excess tolerance (not a lack of it).

You see the same BS from the defenders of homosexuality, telling us that queer promiscuity is straight society's (our) fault, that they're own internalized homophobia resulting from social intolerance is the cause, and that the remedy is for society to accept them for who they are (as opposed to them conforming to what is acceptable). They've gotten their acceptance and what's happened? Homosexuals have the least retrained sex life of all people and consequently suffer a dramatically reduced life expectancy. They're free to be openly "gay" and they've promptly created pervert mecca, disease dens (1 in 4 homos in SF has AIDS), and made schools into indoctrination institutions designed to keep their disease-ridden ranks supplied with fresh meat.

It applies to any moral issue really. Making something socially acceptable, as has been done with promiscuity also, can only result in one thing... that immorality spreading uninhibited throughout the populace. That's exactly what's happened basically every time (promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, etc.).

He's right about teens though. Many are sluts (both boys and girls) these days, I mean wildly promiscuous. Not only is it acceptable now, it's even cool, because they're "players" instead of filthy whores. And any parent who watches a little bit of MTV these days will know why.

It's only the communist agenda to erode our cultural mores until we self-destruct. But hey, people today can't be bothered to care about that in their mindless, drooling, sex-crazed pursuit of the next lay.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The shame, all around condemnation, and one's being socially ostracized once served to deter such things to a far greater extent. The bleeding heart of the left told us, and is telling us now more than ever in their TV shows and their movies, that this was too intolerant however, too heavy handed, and that accepting people for 'who they are' was the morally superior alternative. We were told the true evil was our "intolerance," and sold the lie that the real crime was our nonacceptance, and convinced that this caused more damage to people than their own immoral impulses.

Now society is saturated with everything foul.

America is drowning to death it its own excess tolerance (not a lack of it).

Absolutely. :claps:

[gnome]

It's only the communist agenda to erode our cultural mores until we self-destruct. But hey, people today can't be bothered to care about that in their mindless, drooling, sex-crazed pursuit of the next lay.

Rather than looking for a communist political agenda, I would be quicker to look to the money-grubbing entertainment industry for any apparent erosion of values. It's homegrown, and about as far from Communism as one can get.

It influences newer generations when parents do not counter it. To blame it on communism misses the target.

[Rhino]

Our entertainment industry is not at all far from communism.

[Air Force Guy]

Yes, and if you have a daughter or granddaughter who gets pregnant and makes a mistake, you're going to call her a slut? That's the Christ like attitude I like to hear!YOUR lecturing of Christian standards is getting old.

An old adage: To teach 2nd graders you must first be smarter than a 2nd grader. You sir, are not that person.

Playing with fire is not an accident. Getting burned is. But playing with fire is still a bad idea.Please show me where I implied that with the subject at hand. My only point was the elected official is a jackass for saying what he did.
"Mistake" is not a word to pregnancy. Fertility/impregnation during intercourse is not optional per se. *big roll eyes*

[gnome]

Our entertainment industry is not at all far from communism.

To me it embodies the worst impulses to make money at all costs... I'm not sure how that resembles communism.

If you're referring to the opinions of entertainment personalities, that could be another story. But I think the money talks louder. Louder than Rosie even.

[Rhino]

I seem to recall that the communist elites made lots of money, and still do, while pontificating to everyone one else how great communism is. Money and power talk very loudly to them, but is too good for everyone else in the unwashed masses. Hollywood is very similar.

[gnome]

I've had this discussion before. You would have to call them false communists then, for accuracy. But rather than argue over the label, I prefer to drill down to the objectionable behavior/ideals.

[Rhino]

All of those who have instituted communism have been false communists, if you look at the definition of communism strictly. But I was focusing on the reality rather than the strict definition.

As far as their complicity in the objectionable behavior/ideals area, yes I agree with you. Hollywood is indeed complicit in that, if not majorly responsible.

[gnome]

I lost my actual point in there... I think profit IS the motivation, and any kind of moral/societal decay is not their goal, but something they're simply not concerned about. That's where I differ from Conservative Hero...

[Rhino]

I wouldn't necesarily say that none of them care about the decay. Many of them are just too stupid to realize how they are contributing to it. Others....well, I'm not so sure.

[CzechPrince]

It's only the communist agenda to erode our cultural mores until we self-destruct. But hey, people today can't be bothered to care about that in their mindless, drooling, sex-crazed pursuit of the next lay.

Number one, you don't know shit about communism, so you can quit injecting that word into every argument you use against our, "morally corrupt" society.

Secondly, if you are so repulsed by the people living here and living their lives as they see fit, might I suggest Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you'd fit in quite nicely there.

[CzechPrince]

YOUR lecturing of Christian standards is getting old.

An old adage: To teach 2nd graders you must first be smarter than a 2nd grader. You sir, are not that person.

I have not lectured anyone. You're the one lecturing everyone on how to live their lives all over this place, o anointed one of hypocrisy.

More importantly, I'm infinitely more intelligent than you ever will be. You don't want to start comparing, trust me, you'll look like even more of an idiot.

"Mistake" is not a word to pregnancy.

Says who? If two people were having sex and didn't plan on the girl getting pregnant, that could constitute a mistake (at least to some people) on their own part. You're missing the bigger picture. My only point was that just because a girl has a child and is not married does not make her a slut. A slut is someone who sleeps around with multiple people and is, as Fox said, promiscuous.

Fertility/impregnation during intercourse is not optional per se. *big roll eyes*

It is and it isn't. If a couple are using contraceptives (which aren't 100% mind you), one observation that is correct is that they obviously aren't planning on having a child. So, if something happens and the girl does get pregnant, it was by accident. It was not planned. This isn't a hard concept.

[Incident_command]

Our entertainment industry is not at all far from communism.

Yep it has been a very effective tool against our youth. Add to that the dull minded adults.

[Taylor1]

Yep it has been a very effective tool against our youth. Add to that the dull minded adults.

Correct, look at friggin MTV, them and their shows are so far to the left, I feel stretched out. Wow that was a weird way of getting to the point lol.

Most things that are around kids these days is Liberal, I can say that for a fact being that I'm 13.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

Yes, and if you have a daughter or granddaughter who gets pregnant and makes a mistake, you're going to call her a slut? That's the Christ like attitude I like to hear!YOUR lecturing of Christian standards is getting old.

An old adage: To teach 2nd graders you must first be smarter than a 2nd grader. You sir, are not that person.
Yeah, really. Jesus only called Peter, the very bloke he stated was the rock upon which he would build his church, "satan" when he did something of which he disapproved. Judging from what he knows about Christianity, which is nothing, being as his comments are the standard superficial "hippie Christ" nonsense about a Christian's role being to coddle and placate the wicked, he should take his own advice. I don't find that Jesus minced words with the sinner. He called the Pharisees a "generation of vipers."

So to borrow his own words...

Number one, you don't know sh*t about Christianity, so you can quit injecting your pinko pseudo-Christian dogma into every argument you use against our, "Christian" society.Apparently czech thinks sex acts are the equivalent of stubbing one's toe. Merely a "mistake" toward which anyone truly loving must be fully supportive. You can see the lame victim mentality that's so prevalent among the left in his response. Calling it a "mistake" relieves one of all personal responsibility for their CHOICE. The purpose of sex is to procreate, period, there is no "mistaken" pregnancy! Pregnancy is always nature's intended result from sex. Doing something with complete knowledge of the outcome is not a mistake.

If children are not being informed of the real world consequences of sex, it's thanks to enablers of our rampant culture of whore mongering like czech, facilitating the ignorance and irresponsibility of a generation who views sex as merely something 'fun to do.' A generation which stupidly acts shocked when they get pregnant.

My mother would have frankly ripped me a new one for my stupidity had I gotten a girl pregnant as an unwed teen. There'd have been no sympathy for my "mistake." Then she'd have made me pay for every penny of my choice's consequences.

[CzechPrince]

Yeah, really. Jesus only called Peter, the very bloke he stated was the rock upon which he would build his church, "satan" when he did something of which he disapproved. Judging from what he knows about Christianity,

Much more than you I assure you.

which is nothing, being as his comments are the standard superficial "hippie Christ" nonsense about a Christian's role being to coddle and placate the wicked, he should take his own advice. I don't find that Jesus minced words with the sinner.You don't know jack about my religious beliefs, so you can stop posting ignorant and yet more unintelligent posts anytime now.

He called the Pharisees a "generation of vipers."Like yourself.

So to borrow his own words...

Apparently czech thinks sex acts are the equivalent of stubbing one's toe.I never said that, lie number one.

Merely a "mistake" toward which anyone truly loving must be fully supportive. You can see the lame victim mentality that's so prevalent among the left in his response. Calling it a "mistake" relieves one of all personal responsibility for their CHOICE. I never said that and your logic is so twisted it amazes me you even beleive the crap you spew. Lie number two.

The purpose of sex is to procreate, period, No, that's your purpose.

there is no "mistaken" pregnancy! Pregnancy is always nature's intended result from sex. Doing something with complete knowledge of the outcome is not a mistake.You are a complete idiot. If you use contraceptives, obviously you aren't planning on having children now are you?

If children are not being informed of the real world consequences of sex, it's thanks to enablers of our rampant culture of whore mongering like czech, And you're the one who is against sex education. What a joke.

facilitating the ignorance and irresponsibility of a generation who views sex as merely something 'fun to do.' A generation which stupidly acts shocked when they get pregnant. Says you. You don't know who I have or haven't had sex with, and I can tell you I sure haven't gotten a girl pregnant yet, so take your logic and shove it up your ass where it belongs.

My mother would have frankly ripped me a new one for my stupidity had I gotten a girl pregnant as an unwed teen.My mother wouldn't have been happy, but she wouldn't have cast me out of her life for an unplanned pregnancy.

There'd have been no sympathy for my "mistake." No one is perfect. I would never cast a child out of my life for making one. I am not perfect, I am not God, and I would do my best to support my children in their difficult time.

Then she'd have made me pay for every penny of my choice's consequences.Which everyone should, it's just you seem to think everyone has to be held to the standards of perfection. Hold yourself to them and see how long you last.

[CzechPrince]

So to borrow his own words...



I never said that, go back and re-read what I stated. Don't misquote me ever again, it only goes to show even more how you are a shameless liar. This is what I said:

"Number one, you don't know shit about communism, so you can quit injecting that word into every argument you use against our, "morally corrupt" society.

Secondly, if you are so repulsed by the people living here and living their lives as they see fit, might I suggest Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you'd fit in quite nicely there."

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

I never said that, go back and re-read what I stated. Don't misquote me ever again, it only goes to show even more how you are a shameless liar. This is what I said:

"Number one, you don't know shit about communism, so you can quit injecting that word into every argument you use against our, "morally corrupt" society.

Secondly, if you are so repulsed by the people living here and living their lives as they see fit, might I suggest Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you'd fit in quite nicely there."
Aww, FFS, shut up you moron. I didn't lie about anything. I didn't misquote you either. Your name's not on the quote, the wording of which I stated not 3 lines beforehand, was borrowed as a suggestion for you to take your own advice. I made it obvious I changed the wording and as such didn't attribute my alterations to you. Anyone following the conversation can see I wasn't actually trying to pass off my changed text as yours. Nitwit.

Your response is excessively lengthy for a post which says nothing of value whatsoever. Such as:
You don't know jack about my religious beliefs, so you can stop posting ignorant and yet more unintelligent posts anytime now.Then state what they are or shut up. Being that you claim to know "much more" than me you should have have offered up a lengthy Biblical rebuttal, or at least one which was founded in Biblical reasoning to some extent, as opposed to a response completely devoid of anything pertinent whatsoever. So spare me the BS of how you're incredibly insightful on the matter yet for some reason choose to remain silent.

Perhaps I'll just start borrowing your lame responses again.
No one is perfect. I would never cast a child out of my life for making one. I am not perfect, I am not God, and I would do my best to support my children in their difficult time.
I never said I'd cast a child out. Lie #1. You don't know jack about what I'd do to my child, so you can stop posting ignorant and yet more unintelligent posts anytime now.

Which everyone should, it's just you seem to think everyone has to be held to the standards of perfection. Hold yourself to them and see how long you last.
I never said people should be held to standards of perfection. Lie #2. You don't know jack about to what standards I hold people, so you can stop posting ignorant and yet more unintelligent posts anytime now.

Truth be told, however, people were held to a standard of pregnancy out of wedlock being socially unacceptable for many generations (and we did just fine). Yet more evidence you're just making nonsense up as you go. It's also just more bogus blame reversal. A teen has only her/his self to blame for getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant, especially these days (being that sex-ed is now the norm in schools, they've never been more culpable, as it eliminates ignorance of outcome as an excuse for their actions). Their own behavior choice is what results in the detrimental effect to their lives, period, not the criticism of their poor decision making.

Like I said, you're just an enabler. How does a kid ever learn good decision making or responsibility for their own actions when dad or mom is always there to bail them out? Again, when I was in my teens my mother used to flat out tell me if I ever got arrested, not to bother calling home, she'd see me when I finished my sentence. There was no getting bailed out by Mom if I made bad decisions like using drugs or deciding to drink and drive or the like. She made it clear I would reap the consequences of my actions. It had nothing to do with "disowning" me. She knew she'd taught me better therefore I had no excuse.

And you're the one who is against sex education. What a joke.
Sex education for children was pioneered by Marxist Georg Lukacs.
In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.

Hungary's youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.You should know this. After all I'm the one who "do(es)n't know sh*t about communism" according to you.

And I'll move to Saudi Arabia as soon you move to Europe, with the rest of the sissies, ya commie homo.

[Nutrider99]

Calling someone a slut can simply infer that they have a lack of morals. You dont need to be promiscous to have a lack of morals.

Kids participating in sex, by extension of their actions are displaying a lack of morals, thus making them sluts.
Absolutely.

[Neil Peart]

Sex education for children was pioneered by Marxist Georg Lukacs.
George Lucas?

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/uploaded_images/george_lucas.jpg

[Nutrider99]

When a 15 year old girl gets knocked up her first boyfriend, that means she's had unmarried sex with 100% of the people she had the inclination to do it with. That's what makes her a slut. A girl who gets pregnant at 19, having been celibate in her earlier life and who is engaged to the father of her child may not be a slut, but neither is she the focus of the comment. The reference is to girls who, like modern day sleepy dolls, open their legs every time they lay on their backs without giving any consideration to the consequences.

[Un Con Troll Able]

Why is it that there are those who "want to know"? Why do they insist on applying a cause-effect-treatment philosophy in lieu of growing a pair and simply condemning?

No more money -- from any source except momma and papa -- and within a year you'll see the virtual end of that 40-years-running soap opera called "Planet of the Doomed to Fail in Life and Marriage."

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

George Lucas?

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/uploaded_images/george_lucas.jpg
Heh, unfortunately not man.

Georg Lukacs was one of two Marxists who theorized that the west, and the Christianity upon which it was ideologically founded, was the obstacle to a Marxist world order.

Georg Lukacs, along with other Marxist intellectuals (sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists), founded The Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. What many people don't know is that when the Nazis came to power in the early thirties, they fled Germany and most came here to the USA, upon which they busily began devising methods to undermine our social values and replace them with cultural Marxism. They developed ideological antitheses, "matriarchal theory," "legal theory," "androgyny theory," "family theory," "sexuality theory," for the purpose of deconstructing our traditional values and mores.
The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revoltuion based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion, morals, It would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.

Toward this end, Marcuse-who favored polymorphous perversion-expanded the ranks of Gramsci's new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics.The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny, and the belief that heterosexuality was normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is "normal."Over time they would indoctrinate more and more of the populace and achieve, once the traditionalists were marginalized, "cultural hegemony."

It's one of the reasons I laugh at Gonzo's oblivious facilitation of this agenda with his Nazi rants in the other thread. Theodor Adorno, another founder of the Marxist Frankfurt School, wrote a book called The Authoritarian Personality. This book based upon the idea that the combination of Christianity, capitalism, and the patriarchal family unit created an environment ripe for Naziesque fascism, was very influential on American psychologists.

Modern Marxism pushes homosexuality, feminism, etc., because it hates Christian patriarchy and views it as oppressive Nazism. His rants mirrored this.

[Air Force Guy]

If a couple are using contraceptives (which aren't 100% mind you), one observation that is correct is that they obviously aren't planning on having a child. So, if something happens and the girl does get pregnant, it was by accident. It was not planned. This isn't a hard concept.
Plan for failure when you trust your life to a millimeter thick piece of latex. It's not an accident, it's the law of averages catching up to people stupid enough to mortgage their future on a wispy film.

Matthew 23:37...the city (country) that is supposed to be the Holiest place on earth is the one that scourges and kills all the prophets. As we know, the prophets often were sent to tell the king and/or the people that God was angry and to change their ways.

[DesertFox]

When a 15 year old girl gets knocked up her first boyfriend, that means she's had unmarried sex with 100% of the people she had the inclination to do it with. That's what makes her a slut. Complete nonsense. Promiscuity is what makes a slut. That means sex with many people. Sex with one person over a period of time is the very opposite of promiscuous.

[DesertFox]

What, have we taken wholesale to just defining things to suit ourselves? Good grief. Calling someone a slut can simply infer that they have a lack of morals. You dont need to be promiscous to have a lack of morals. In the first place, you don't mean "infer," you mean "imply." In the second place, "promiscuity" and "slut" are connected. You can be amoral or immoral and never engage in sex. You would not be a slut. Slut refers to sexually promiscuous behavior.

Kids participating in sex, by extension of their actions are displaying a lack of morals, thus making them sluts. I see. So a girl who gets raped is a slut. Got it. :rolleyes:

So a girl of 15 who is married and sleeps around on her husband is not a slut, but an unmarried girl of 15 who porks her boyfriend once is a slut. :rolleyes:

You need to think more on this. Right now you're not doing very well.

[gnome]

@ConservativeHero:

I get that sex education dedicated to teaching promiscuity and "free love" would be a huge disaster for any society.

Is there no room for a program rooted in Biology instead?

[Neil Peart]

Is there no room for a program rooted in Biology instead?And takes no moral stance against anything whatsoever?

[Kathy30]

What a silly argument. A girl that has sex without being married, or even intending to be married is a slut! There is no way around it. There is no painting it with pretty words. Explaining it away, outlandish reasoning it away. She is a slut. She doesn't need to have sex with numerous partners. How many? Two? Five? Ten? 100? At which number does she become a slut? She's a slut the minute she acts like a slut that only need one time. How many fires does someone deliberately set for the pleasure of watching buildings burn before they are an arsonist? ONE. It's not a mistake, it is a purposeful act. She takes responsiblity for the act and doesn't get to palm it off as a mistake. A mistake is coloring outside the lines. Get an eraser.

[DesertFox]

Feel free to look it up, Kathy. You, as the others, are making up your own definition as you go along.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slut)

1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME slutte; cf. dial. slut mud, Norw (dial.) slutr sleet, impure liquid]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
slut (slŭt) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. 1. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Is there no room for a program rooted in Biology instead?

Sure. You teach the biology of it in Biology class. There's no need for a "sex ed" class. Schools shouldn't be teaching sex. At all. Reproduction is a subset of Biology, and that's where it belongs, and in that context.

[Nutrider99]

I never had sex with my wife before we were married. Of course, she wasn't my wife before we were married.

The number of people I had sex with before marriage- one. I married her. Was she a slut? No... but she wasn't 15, either. As I stated, a 15 year old CHILD who has sex with 100% of the people she has an opportunity to have sex with is a slut, whether that number is 1 or 100. Married 15 year olds? How many of THOSE do you see any more? In this culture of easy divorce and no commitment, it should be a crime to allow such a thing. The fact is, 15 year olds are CHILDREN. They are neither old enough nor responsible enough to bear children of their own. Historically we did things differently, but the mortality rate was a lot higher then and we didn't live anywhere near this long.

Worldwide studies show that teen brides have less schooling, less independence, and less work experience than women who marry later. Teen brides also have a higher risk of being abused. What's more, they have an increased divorce rate — half of teen marriages end in divorce within 15 years, compared to a third of couples who marry after the age of 20, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy. Link (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2003/if-20030502p223-marriage.php).

To knowingly allow young teens to have sex and marry in today's society is the same as child abuse. Prior to 21 they are not considered mature enough to drink. Prior to 18 they are not considered mature enough to vote. Prior to 16 they are not considered mature enough to drive a car. Why the heck would anyone think a 15 year old would be old enough to make the most important decisions of their lives?

If CHILDREN engage in sex at that age, she's a slut and he's a pig. They both need a severe dose of reality, religion and responsibility.

[Air Force Guy]

:claps:I never had sex with my wife before we were married. Of course, she wasn't my wife before we were married.

The number of people I had sex with before marriage- one. I married her. Was she a slut? No... but she wasn't 15, either. As I stated, a 15 year old CHILD who has sex with 100% of the people she has an opportunity to have sex with is a slut, whether that number is 1 or 100. Married 15 year olds? How many of THOSE do you see any more? In this culture of easy divorce and no commitment, it should be a crime to allow such a thing. The fact is, 15 year olds are CHILDREN. They are neither old enough nor responsible enough to bear children of their own. Historically we did things differently, but the mortality rate was a lot higher then and we didn't live anywhere near this long.

Worldwide studies show that teen brides have less schooling, less independence, and less work experience than women who marry later. Teen brides also have a higher risk of being abused. What's more, they have an increased divorce rate — half of teen marriages end in divorce within 15 years, compared to a third of couples who marry after the age of 20, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy. Link (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2003/if-20030502p223-marriage.php).

To knowingly allow young teens to have sex and marry in today's society is the same as child abuse. Prior to 21 they are not considered mature enough to drink. Prior to 18 they are not considered mature enough to vote. Prior to 16 they are not considered mature enough to drive a car. Why the heck would anyone think a 15 year old would be old enough to make the most important decisions of their lives?

If CHILDREN engage in sex at that age, she's a slut and he's a pig. They both need a severe dose of reality, religion and responsibility.
Not much else to say about it. Good job. :claps:

[Air Force Guy]

Feel free to look it up, Kathy. You, as the others, are making up your own definition as you go along.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slut)

1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME slutte; cf. dial. slut mud, Norw (dial.) slutr sleet, impure liquid]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
slut (slŭt) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. 1. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.I think Kathy, like us "others," is saying that a woman is sexually promiscuous if she has sex with no intention of getting married to the male. Fits the definition you provided.

[DesertFox]

If CHILDREN engage in sex at that age, she's a slut and he's a pig. Baloney. She's misguided and he's doing what comes naturally. They're kids who haven't been properly supervised.

And you don't get to define words for everybody else. Words have meanings and you are deliberately stretching the meaning of "slut" well beyond its dictionary meaning. Redefining words to suit oneself is a typically liberal trait and I'm surprised to see you engaging in it. They both need a severe dose of reality, religion and responsibility. Reality is precisely what they've bumped into. Religion they don't need; God, they very much need. But then, so does everybody. Responsibility is what they have to be taught. You don't teach responsibility by shouting names and putting people down. You teach it by setting the example, guiding and teaching. Now, more than ever, these kids need somebody to show true love and real understanding. Calling them nasty names and heaping abuse on them simply pushes them away from any real help.

You are judging people overharshly for things that need to be properly handled rather than just ruled upon. Major mistakes early in life can be rectified if thus handled. People can be set on the straight path if thus handled. Handled the way you approach it, eyes blazing and judgments pronounced, kids who went wrong have no incentive whatever to listen to anybody.

It's clear we're not going to agree on this.

[Nutrider99]

Baloney. She's misguided and he's doing what comes naturally.
Yep. Stray dogs do it. Why not children?
They're kids who haven't been properly supervised.
One could say the same about kids who steal, but we still call them thieves. We are under no obligation to avoid condemnation of unacceptable behavior simply because of parental negligence. Anyone over 10 knows it's wrong.
And you don't get to define words for everybody else.
I consider "slut" to be a slang term since it's part of the lexicon of our language. In common usage, the word more than applies to teen tramps.
Words have meanings and you are deliberately stretching the meaning of "slut" well beyond its dictionary meaning.
Not at all. From YOUR post, one definition of "slut" is: 2. an immoral or dissolute woman... Dissolute means "indifferent to moral restraints; given to immoral or improper conduct." The use of the word "or" means that the term "immoral" is a legitimate definition. Therefore, by your own definiton, an immoral woman is a slut. I haven't stretched anything. Sorry. I'm right, you're wrong. :biggrin:
Redefining words to suit oneself is a typically liberal trait and I'm surprised to see you engaging in it.
I'm not. See above.
You don't teach responsibility by shouting names and putting people down.
I disagree. I believe that part of the reason we have such a rampant problem is that the shame and the stigma has been removed. There is nothing wrong with imparting shame for shameful behavior. If you don't want to be called a slut, dont engage in slutty behavior. If you are indifferent to moral restraints or given to immoral or improper conduct, you're a slut.
Now, more than ever, these kids need somebody to show true love and real understanding.
I understand perfectly that they are sluts.
Calling them nasty names and heaping abuse on them simply pushes them away from any real help.
Imparting shame to a behavior makes it more abhorrent, and JUST MIGHT lead to a REDUCTION in that behavior. Maybe the younger sister of a slut will find the shame so distasteful she will keep her legs together.
Major mistakes early in life can be rectified if thus handled.
The natural consequence of an action that is knowingly immoral can hardly be called an mistake. It is a moral lapse of character that bears a consequence.
Handled the way you approach it, eyes blazing and judgments pronounced, kids who went wrong have no incentive whatever to listen to anybody.
Part of the problem with our society is the LACK of judment and shame for actions that are willfully evil and destructive. We are so afraid of judging people that we have abdicated our moral responsibility to judge bad behavior. The net result is that they see no down side to their actions and they DO see short term gain/ pleasure.
It's clear we're not going to agree on this.
We will as soon as you agree with me.

[DesertFox]

Well, Nut, I guess I'm happy for you that you've never made a serious mistake in your life. But I would hazard a guess that half or more first children have what you are calling sluts for mothers. Kid-having wakes up most such mothers and makes them responsible. There are always that percentage who refuse to be responsible no matter what happens.

You know perfectly well that the normal usage of "slut" is a woman who sleeps around -- meaning a little tramp who porks everybody. To call "slut" a girl who has had a single lover in her young life is an abuse of language.

I once thought very much as you do -- back when I saw the world in blacks and whites. I now see a much more complex picture. Maybe someday you will.

Or not.

[Eagle1]

seems to me that Fox is being compassionate and Nut is trying to attack the culture that celebrates such behavior.

I have to lean towards nut's position on this. When I was in high school a girl who wore a g-string and low rise pants was called a slut, she didn't even have to sleep around. And the ones that were only sleeping with one guy I thought of as sluts.
I can safely say that slut does not have the single meaning of many sex partners anymore. The word has expanded because of the behaviors that result from the glorification of slutty actions.

[DesertFox]

You're mistaken if you think Nut is more down on the culture than I am. The culture has gone to hell in a handbasket, but it isn't because we didn't call some girl a slut. It was because the idiot govt got involved in private lives in ways it never had any business doing. The fokking govt made it economically possible for people to duck responsibility for their actions. If they had to pay the price in one way or another for their behavior, they wouldn't engage in such behavior.

I doubt I"m any more compassionate than anyone else. I do, however, look beyond simple explanations. The overwhelming majority of people only learn by mistakes they themselves make. They are fundamentally incapable of learning from the mistakes of others until they've made some pretty serious errors, errors that in most cases include sexual mistakes. To call them nasty names because they're young and dumb from inexperience just seems to me the height of arrogance.

I would have no problem talking about slutty or sluttish behavior. I do have a problem calling someone a slut who isn't.

[Eagle1]

The gov was never responsible for making people adhere to morals. It was upbringing and culture. Part of that was labels that make people not want to engage in certain behaviors.

Sex out of wedlock is no longer thought of as shameful. It has always happened, it always will happen, but trying to be understanding only validates it.

[buckeyepete]

:yeahthat:You're mistaken if you think Nut is more down on the culture than I am. The culture has gone to hell in a handbasket, but it isn't because we didn't call some girl a slut. It was because the idiot govt got involved in private lives in ways it never had any business doing. The fokking govt made it economically possible for people to duck responsibility for their actions. If they had to pay the price in one way or another for their behavior, they wouldn't engage in such behavior.

I doubt I"m any more compassionate than anyone else. I do, however, look beyond simple explanations. The overwhelming majority of people only learn by mistakes they themselves make. They are fundamentally incapable of learning from the mistakes of others until they've made some pretty serious errors, errors that in most cases include sexual mistakes. To call them nasty names because they're young and dumb from inexperience just seems to me the height of arrogance.

I would have no problem talking about slutty or sluttish behavior. I do have a problem calling someone a slut who isn't.

:yeahthat: And, just a simple question. If a young lady makes a mistake in judgment (the little boy too), is she a SLUT for life, or is there a time limit to slutdom? And, who decides?

You know, if I were to be labeled for every mistake or misjudgement that I've made throughout my life, new words would have to be coined to cover them all. Do I blame my parents for not teaching me better or do I blame my self for not listening to them? Who knows......Who cares. The only thing that matters is that I learned from my mistakes and corrected them. It didn't take a LABEL to change me.

Also, we seem to be concentrating on the female here in this thread, when we have to agree that it takes two to 'tango'.

Now, if y'all excuse me, I have to take a break and take my 'slut' wife of 42+ years to the bathroom. And since I'll have to help her pull her pants down, I guess I'll have to add 'peeping tom' or 'pervert' to my never ending list of titles/labels.

P.S. -- Gonzo has to do the same thing with his Ma when he's on duty, but he doesn't except labels too well.:evilgrin:

[DesertFox]

Just so.

Calling people sluts and pigs only teaches them to hate you. The right approach is to talk to them, befriend them, and them give the benefit of your experience. Then do the same with another kid. And another. And another.

[MSGT]

:yeahthat:It's been going down hill fast since 62







Engel v. Vitale

[Nutrider99]

If a young lady makes a mistake in judgment (the little boy too), is she a SLUT for life, or is there a time limit to slutdom? And, who decides?
A thief is a thief until he stops stealing. Likewise, a slut is a slut until she stops being one. Lack of moral character does not equal a mistake, only a failing in character. Terms apply to behaviors, and if the behavior changes, so does the term.

Note. We are discussing girls fresh out of puberty and STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL who: 1. have already had sex with one or more people outside of wedlock, 2. have been educated since grade school about "safe sex," birth control and illegitimacy, 3. know the difference between right and wrong, 4. have no means of supporting themselves other than being a burdon to their parents and taxpayers and 5. give no thought whatever to the consequences of their actions because like dogs in heat they do what "feels good" and to hell with the consequences. Again, note. We are not discussing late teen young women who are old enough to understand and experience love, or who are old enough to both make intelligent, informed decisions and to live with the consequence of those decisions. We are talking about CHILDREN becoming parents. Remember the stats I posted on abuse? Those are real. These children are neither old enough nor responsible enough to care for themselves. Refusing to judge bad behavior as unnaceptable merely allows the problem to get worse.
The only thing that matters is that I learned from my mistakes and corrected them. It didn't take a LABEL to change me.
How much better would it have been had you learned from SOMEONE ELSE'S mistakes and not suffered the consequence yourself? These girls think it's acceptable to get knocked up at 15.
Also, we seem to be concentrating on the female here in this thread, when we have to agree that it takes two to 'tango'.
That was the focus of the article in the OP.
Now, if y'all excuse me, I have to take a break and take my 'slut' wife of 42+ years to the bathroom.
That has entirely different connotations. I would hope that after 42 years of marriage your wife wouldn't be a slut.

[PrezLeefun]

Baloney. She's misguided and he's doing what comes naturally.


You will have to pardon me DF but I have slightly feminist bone to pick with you. How is the girl misguided but the boy doing what comes naturally? Sex and sexually desire is just as natural for women as it is for men, and self control and morals are well within the reach of men as they are for women.

Both should be held up to the same standard of self control. No human is the equivilent of a dog in heat.

[DesertFox]

Yours is the typically superficial grasp of what's going on, Prez. Sure, the girl wants it as badly as the boy. But she's the one who has to be sure that he's the right one for her. She, not he, is the one who literally bears the consequences. She is the last stop for waiting.

Why do you think girls generally are scared of sex until they've dunnit? It's nature's way of saying, "Better be sure! Get him committed first!" Girls seldom make the first move; it's the guy's role to do that.

Get ahold of a book by a prof there in NY. Why Men Rule. It's crystal clear. You may have to order it out of Amazon since feminazis always hide it on the botany shelves in bookstores.

[Neil Peart]

No human is the equivilent of a dog in heat.I beg to differ.

http://www.24headquarters.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/300px-bill_clinton.jpg

[Nutrider99]

I beg to differ.
Clintoon wasn't a dog in heat, he was a serial rapist (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm). Had he not been elected governor and had his power mad wife not covered for him, he would be in prison where he belongs.

[DesertFox]

Bill Clinton was Adolf Hitler constrained by a functioning democracy. He got away with a lotta shiite, but wasn't able to go as far as he wanted.

[gnome]

Note. We are discussing girls fresh out of puberty and STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL who: 1. have already had sex with one or more people outside of wedlock, 2. have been educated since grade school about "safe sex," birth control and illegitimacy, 3. know the difference between right and wrong, 4. have no means of supporting themselves other than being a burdon to their parents and taxpayers and 5. give no thought whatever to the consequences of their actions because like dogs in heat they do what "feels good" and to hell with the consequences. Again, note. We are not discussing late teen young women who are old enough to understand and experience love, or who are old enough to both make intelligent, informed decisions and to live with the consequence of those decisions. We are talking about CHILDREN becoming parents. Remember the stats I posted on abuse? Those are real. These children are neither old enough nor responsible enough to care for themselves. Refusing to judge bad behavior as unnaceptable merely allows the problem to get worse.

Is it at all possible to distill the significant things you've said here... the things which must be said, into a single insulting word? I think we need more people talking like what I've quoted, and less people abbreviating it dismissively into labels.

[Air Force Guy]

Gnome,

Do you really believe that a single, lengthy counselling session would change these behaviors? How many billions have been spent on sexuality education in school, at taxpayer expense, only to see the STD and pregnancy rates go through the roof since the inception of "education?" Somewhere during all that "education," misbehaviors were all but completely de-villified...right about the time that condoms were being handed to children I suppose.

[DesertFox]

Nothing wrong with labels when they fit. It's called "calling things by their right names."

[Air Force Guy]

Nothing wrong with labels when they fit. It's called "calling things by their right names."
Yes and no. "Right names" too often gets to be defined by the name caller sometimes...

...Like the infamous word "homophobe"

I don't know where I stand on this instance of the use of the word 'slut.' Probably useful when lecturing a daughter about what behaviors or dress styles will give the perception of 'slut.' But I don't recall ever labelling a person to their face to provoke or even just entertain myself with my perception of a female's behavior.

[garlicguy]

I beg to differ.

http://www.24headquarters.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/300px-bill_clinton.jpg

Neil:

I gotta couple of dogs around here that are growling at ya' after that post.

:biggrin:

[gnome]

Gnome,

Do you really believe that a single, lengthy counselling session would change these behaviors? How many billions have been spent on sexuality education in school, at taxpayer expense, only to see the STD and pregnancy rates go through the roof since the inception of "education?" Somewhere during all that "education," misbehaviors were all but completely de-villified...right about the time that condoms were being handed to children I suppose.

First, no I don't believe so, and never said it. Nice try.

Secondly, I would like to see where your figures are coming from... and especially I would like to see a comparison of per capita teen STD's and pregnancy rates between areas that have comprehensive sex ed and those that do not.

[Air Force Guy]

If I highly valued the prospect of changing your mind on the issue, assuming that you ever would, I might attempt to locate the source again. I think it was sourced inside a Christian article though and I know that kind of thing sets people off...regardless of where they got the info from.

[DesertFox]

Don't waste your time, AFG. I've not seen gnome ever change his mind.

[buckeyepete]

If I highly valued the prospect of changing your mind on the issue, assuming that you ever would, I might attempt to locate the source again. I think it was sourced inside a Christian article though and I know that kind of thing sets people off...regardless of where they got the info from.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________
big·ot http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fbigot) (bĭg'uht) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. One who is partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Yep, that's largely me. Minus the race part.


Give it up, wanna be hero. We're tired of your crap. You can only claim superiority of religious beliefs for so long. After a while, it gets old.

[gnome]

If I highly valued the prospect of changing your mind on the issue, assuming that you ever would, I might attempt to locate the source again. I think it was sourced inside a Christian article though and I know that kind of thing sets people off...regardless of where they got the info from.

It wouldn't set me off if it came from a Christian article. What matters to me is how the study was done.

[gnome]

Don't waste your time, AFG. I've not seen gnome ever change his mind.

It could happen!!!

:D

Seriously though, I think that facts are useful to bring out even if it doesn't change one's mind. The problem is (and this includes studies to support liberal ideas) so often the studies' results or methods don't support the conclusion offered. I would like to think that if solid facts were against one of my opinions that I'd be willing to change my mind.

[Air Force Guy]

If I highly valued the prospect of changing your mind on the issue, assuming that you ever would, I might attempt to locate the source again. I think it was sourced inside a Christian article though and I know that kind of thing sets people off...regardless of where they got the info from.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Give it up, wanna be hero. We're tired of your crap. You can only claim superiority of religious beliefs for so long. After a while, it gets old.Right on cue Bucktooth...I rest my case Gnome. Speak of lunkheads and in they chime.

[Air Force Guy]

It could happen!!!

:D

Seriously though, I think that facts are useful to bring out even if it doesn't change one's mind. The problem is (and this includes studies to support liberal ideas) so often the studies' results or methods don't support the conclusion offered. I would like to think that if solid facts were against one of my opinions that I'd be willing to change my mind.You're not convinced of the self-evidence of the meteoric rise of STDs and teen pregnancies since the inception of sexuality education in public schools back in the 70's? Seriously?

[buckeyepete]

Right on cue Bucktooth...I rest my case Gnome. Speak of lunkheads and in they chime.

Yep, wannabe military, bucktooth. Yep, I spent over $3000.00 for my teeth, and they look pretty good, if I do say so myself.

But you, my little anti queer, anti grown up, anti modern age life style piece of biblical propaganda, that means nothing. You can rant on till the cows come home, dildo, because I'll always be looking for your illiterate posts, just for the humor it will bring me.

I Love ya brother, keep it up. Your illiteracy is all that keeps me going at times. Life is awfully hard at times, but then along comes 'Comedy Central-On Line, and the day is easier to meet.

Thanks god, Pete

[gnome]

You're not convinced of the self-evidence of the meteoric rise of STDs and teen pregnancies since the inception of sexuality education in public schools back in the 70's? Seriously?

There is a logical fallacy in place here, believing that because two things happen in sequence that one is because of the other.

There are many factors that affect the rates of teenage STD's and pregnancies. I happen to think that the presence of sex education tends to hold that back a little in the face of other factors.

The best way to tell is to compare the trend between areas that do and do not have comprehensive sex ed.

[DesertFox]

There is a logical fallacy in place here, believing that because two things happen in sequence that one is because of the other. There may be no connection, but that doesn't prove it's a logical fallacy. Indeed, causation can only occur when one thing precedes another.

[gnome]

There may be no connection, but that doesn't prove it's a logical fallacy. Indeed, causation can only occur when one thing precedes another.

It is a logical fallacy if it is ASSUMED one causes the other. Hence the need for appropriate comparative data.

[Nutrider99]

Of course if one steps back one subset of data and attributes both the sexualization of our children and the increase in STD's to a more broad breakdown of the family unit and a general malaise of decency, then it's impossible NOT to see causation.

[DesertFox]

It is a logical fallacy if it is ASSUMED one causes the other. Yeah. It then becomes a hypothesis in need of testing.

You have just defined the scientific method as a logical fallacy. Nice work.

[Air Force Guy]

There is a logical fallacy in place here, believing that because two things happen in sequence that one is because of the other.

There are many factors that affect the rates of teenage STD's and pregnancies. I happen to think that the presence of sex education tends to hold that back a little in the face of other factors.

The best way to tell is to compare the trend between areas that do and do not have comprehensive sex ed.I'm not so much pointing to one causing the other as to the understanding that throwing a ton of state money at "correcting" kids' sexuality issues has been an effective expenditure. But if pushed, I would agree that bringing sexuality into a non-judgmental showcase has had a negative effect on squashing teen pregnancy.

[Air Force Guy]

Right on cue Bucktooth...I rest my case Gnome. Speak of lunkheads and in they chime.

Yep, wannabe military, bucktooth. Yep, I spent over $3000.00 for my teeth, and they look pretty good, if I do say so myself.

But you, my little anti queer, anti grown up, anti modern age life style piece of biblical propaganda, that means nothing. You can rant on till the cows come home, dildo, because I'll always be looking for your illiterate posts, just for the humor it will bring me.

I Love ya brother, keep it up. Your illiteracy is all that keeps me going at times. Life is awfully hard at times, but then along comes 'Comedy Central-On Line, and the day is easier to meet.

Thanks god, Pete
Always thrilled to hear your viewpoint too. Now go cheer for the Buckeyes to eventually beat an SEC team in a bowl game.

[gnome]

Yeah. It then becomes a hypothesis in need of testing.

You have just defined the scientific method as a logical fallacy. Nice work.

A hypothesis is not an assumption.

If I said, "I got sick because I ate that funny-looking grape" with no further investigation, that would be a logical fallacy. If I said "I got sick after eating that funny-looking grape, maybe it made me sick?" that would be a hypothesis.

[DesertFox]

Of course a hypothesis is an assumption. It's also an expectation, which is an assumption also. You test it with data or experiment to see if it's borne out.

[gnome]

I feel like we're speaking a different language.

An assumption is something you think is likely to be true enough that you're NOT testing.

[DesertFox]

Just so. But when you put it to a test, it ceases being an assumption and becomes a hypothesis.

[gnome]

Finally we can agree.