quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *snort* Orincoro, isn't what Rabbit said to you-while definitely really sharp and accusatory-not especially far from your own not-uncommon style of discussion?
------.
I don't personal,y see much similarity. But if you do, do you suppose that excuses it then?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Wow, you've become incredibly rude and increasingly sweeping and accusatory towards me. I think I'm done talking to you. Sorry, could have been an interesting conversation if you could have kept it together, and maybe not accused me of beng a vile bigot. Perhaps you need to ignore me, if you can't keep your anger under control.
My apologies. That came out sounding far more hostile than I was feeling. I do not think you are a vile bigot, but I do think that the attitudes you frequently display toward religious conservatives reflect an unfair prejudice and that you are unwilling to consider even the possibility that this could be the case.
I don't disagree with your political stance. I'm fully in favor of gay rights and think those who aren't are in the wrong. I hate Perry's politics and think is political tactics are vile and nasty, but I'm unwilling to speculate on his private sex life based solely on his political tactics. I think doing that sort of thing is vile.
I know a lot of people very well who are religious, politically conservative and outspoken against gay rights. I disagree with them on a lot of issues but I appreciate that most of them are very decent, loving, caring people. I don't understand what motivates some of their political views, but I know them well enough to know it isn't hatred, fear, greed or mental illness. A lot of them have very healthy sexual relationships with their spouses and happy family lives. Your sweeping judgement of these people is unfair. It is neither reasonable or rational or nice to presume that most people who are vocal on issues of sexual morality are hypocritical or suffering from psychological problems resulting from sexual repression.
Freud's idea that sexual repression was the under lying cause of most anti-social behavior is pretty widely discredited among mental health professionals. I'm unaware of anything more than discredited theories and anecdotes that supports the contention that "being a rabid surmonizer against gay rights *totally* qualifies a person as more likely to be gay than any random individual. Perhaps even *way* more likely." If you have evidence for that, present it. Otherwise I will continue to view such statements as the product of irrational prejudice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found that your comment, and the one before it about the ad, seemed to mostly ignore everything I had actually said. I think if you go back and look, you'll see I didn't make a sweeping judgement about these people, but suggested there existed some difference between stereotypes about ethnicities, and those about people who crusade against gay rights. I also made no speculative comments about Perry's private life. I accept the apology, thank you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also made no speculative comments about Perry's private life.
How would you characterize a comment that a person is very likely to be a repressed homosexual, if it isn't a speculative comment on his private life.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does the fact that there are rude atheists make it fair for me to presume that if someone's an atheist they are going to be rude?
That's not how stereotypes work.
Stereotypes are about likelihoods and traits that are highly common, but they never were supposed to be 100%. As a trivial example, when Russell Peters, say, jokes about Chinese-Canadians having an accent, that doesn't mean you're supposed to think that 100% of Chinese-Canadians have an accent. The idea is simply that there are enough, so that we can acknowledge the truth that, hey, it happens a lot and it's funny.
In the case of atheists too, I would have answered that as "yes." I do think atheists are way more likely to be perceived as rude. Christianity is in some ways, a social convention in the North America, and an atheist who has the ability to break through that is very likely to voice disagreements with other social norms.
That may not be how stereotypes work in a commedy act, but it is exactly what triggered my comments. You said:
quote:Re: Perry On the other hand, outspoken Republican against gay rights, certain rumours over the years, it would make certain possible future developments less than surprising.
You named a specific individual and then pointed to a stereotype with an accusing wink and a nod. How is that any different than speculating that because an individual is an atheist, he's rude?
There is a difference between using a stereotype to joke about a a group, its entirely different to use a stereotype to joke about an individual.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: How is that any different than speculating that because an individual is an atheist, he's rude?
It's not. Either there's been a miscommunication here or you're not quite reading what I wrote. I specifically said in what you quoted that atheists *are* more likely to be perceived as rude, especially by those that are religious such as yourself. Why would it be different?
quote:There is a difference between using a stereotype to joke about a a group, its entirely different to use a stereotype to joke about an individual.
Erm, ok?
So all I had to do to make my joke ok was to joke about *all* the Republican candidates being possibly closeted rather than specifically Rick Perry?
Well consider it done! Consider it to now be a joke about all of them, it's a tough burden but I'll do it for you Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also made no speculative comments about Perry's private life.
How would you characterize a comment that a person is very likely to be a repressed homosexual, if it isn't a speculative comment on his private life.
Tell me where I said that Perry is likely a repressed homosexual. I said no such thing. I know I didn't because I don't think he is. I was commenting generally, not specifically. And my comments had no specific implications intended because I don't specifically think Perry is likely a repressed homosexual. Full stop. Can I be more explicit on that?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, when you ask that, Samprimary, I wonder what you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate? Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I do think sexual promiscuity shows a lack of self discipline and poor judgement.
Why.
Why do I think it shows a lack of self discipline? It's reasonable to presume that willingness and ability to delay sexual gratification is related to general impulse control. Numerous studies have confirmed this hypothesis. Behaviors such as having many sexual partners, many one-time sexual partners, many out-of-home sexual encounters, fewer monogamous relationships, and more unprotected sexual relations are highly correlated with general lack of impulse control and inability to delay gratification.
Why do I think it shows poor judgement? Because those behaviors put ones self and others at risk for STDs and unwanted pregnancy. If you are married (as are all the politicans who are the subject of this discussion), those behaviors hurt your spouse and children. If you're a politician in the US, those behaviors have the potential not only to ruin your career but to undermine your positions and your party.
I recognize that those last two points are purely cultural constructs and you are free to argue that they are stupid. But right now in the US, they are unarguably true and every politician in the US knows that. It shows poor judgement to risk your career, your reputation and your political objectives in order to enjoy a casual sexual encounter.
I think Bill Clinton's a classic example. He knew he was being sued for sexual harassment and he knew his political opponents were investigating every detail of his life. He knew what was at risk. No matter what you think about conservative sexual mores, having an affair with a white house intern under those conditions showed very poor judgement.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just found this excellent rebuttal to Newt Gingrich's claim that the Palestinians are a people recently invented for political reasons.
And the really great thing about this article is that it's written for one of the countries most conservative newspapers: a paper that caters to a decidedly pro-Israel audience. It will be awfully hard to dismiss this rebuttal as part of the liberal cabal.
[ December 14, 2011, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why do I think it shows a lack of self discipline? It's reasonable to presume that willingness and ability to delay sexual gratification is related to general impulse control. Numerous studies have confirmed this hypothesis. Behaviors such as having many sexual partners, many one-time sexual partners, many out-of-home sexual encounters, fewer monogamous relationships, and more unprotected sexual relations are highly correlated with general lack of impulse control and inability to delay gratification.
So, from this, you're willing to presume that a person being sexually promiscuous shows poor impulse control? That it shows poor judgment? I want to be very sure of your wording, here.
quote:I think Bill Clinton's a classic example. He knew he was being sued for sexual harassment and he knew his political opponents were investigating every detail of his life. He knew what was at risk. No matter what you think about conservative sexual mores, having an affair with a white house intern under those conditions showed very poor judgement.
Do you think the use of an example of an individual practicing sexual infidelity and sexual harassment is a good 'classic example' representing people who you would label as sexually promiscuous? Think anything is odd about this?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Now, when you ask that, Samprimary, I wonder what you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate?
Honestly, if you think i'd come up with a summary of what they indicate, besides 'strong religious upbringing,' I don't come up with any labels, only questions about the qualifiers, like 'define what makes them strong.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Will any of the candidates take up Colbert on his offer on joining his debate?
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't know, Trump might once he's 'decided' if he needs to enter the race pending his satisfaction with the Republican candidates;)
-----
Samprimary,
Riiiiiight. You wouldn't say anything even close to (once you'd been pinned down, that is, with all the appropriate qualifiers thrown in) 'irrational', 'superstitious', etc.?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think the use of an example of an individual practicing sexual infidelity and sexual harassment is a good 'classic example' representing people who you would label as sexually promiscuous? Think anything is odd about this?
Consider it a case of an ambiguous pronoun. When I said "classic example of this", "this" did not refer to a general case of sexual promiscuity, "this" referred specifically to the sentence that immediately preceded the phrase: i.e. a politician who risked his political career to engage in casual sex. My original comment was made in the context of a discussion of American Presidential politics. I'd really rather not broaden the discussion beyond that in this thread.
quote:So, from this, you're willing to presume that a person being sexually promiscuous shows poor impulse control? That it shows poor judgment? I want to be very sure of your wording, here.
Please do not place too much emphasize on my exact wording. I was not constructing a legal document or a philosophical treatise, I was engaging in an informal discussion.
First let me clarify what I meant by promiscuity. I was talking about the kinds of sexual behavior that most commonly show up in scandals, which includes marital infidelity, sexual harassment, rape, sex with prostitutes, sex with many partners and many one time partners, sex with subordinates, sex with strangers in public bathrooms, sex with minors, sex with someone who is of legal age but much younger, and probably a few others. I'm comfortable saying those behaviors demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement.
I recognize that conservatives frequently use the term "promiscuous" to refer to sexual behaviors I didn't list, but that wasn't what I was talking about. It was certainly problematic for me to choose such an inflammatory word but I couldn't think of a more neutral synonym. I know that some of the terms I used above were ambiguous, like many partners and much younger. There is a lot of room between strict monogamy and having hundreds of sex partners in a year. There are plenty of shades gray, but then impulse control isn't a binary function either.
I suppose that if a person really doesn't believe there is any reason to control their sexual expression, it would be inaccurate to conclude their behavior showed poor impulse control. But an inability to see any reasons to avoid the behaviors I enumerated would definitely show "poor judgement".
I think there is compelling evidence that sexual promiscuity (as I tried to define above) is an indicator of a more general problem with impulse control. I think it raises legitimate concerns about a person's self discipline in other areas. I think those types of concerns are relevant to a person's fitness for political office.
But as I said when I first made this comment, people are complicated so it isn't that simple. Poor sexual impulse control does not always mean you can't control other kinds of impulses. Bad judgement in one aspect of life, does not necessarily mean you have bad judgement in all aspects of life.
But all of that is really a diversion from the main point I was trying to make. Which was that I don't think sexual infidelity is nearly as big an issue in a political candidate as hypocrisy. I'm a lot more worried that Newt Gingrich was driving impeaching Clinton for having an affair with a young member of his staff, while Gingrich was doing exactly the same thing than I am about Gingrich having the affair.
[ December 14, 2011, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Riiiiiight. You wouldn't say anything even close to (once you'd been pinned down, that is, with all the appropriate qualifiers thrown in) 'irrational', 'superstitious', etc.?
Uh, no, you must have me confused with someone from the evangelizin' atheist brigade. If you ask me a question like 'what do you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate' and you expect me to go straight for pejorative personal assessments rather than treating it as a sociological query, you'd be pretty disappointed.
I mean honestly the first thing that came to mind besides 'strong religious upbringing' was greatly lower median age of marriage, probably? I'm sorry if this doesn't conform to the expectation you were working on, but..
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please do not place too much emphasize on my exact wording.
Hah, well, I guess I better not ..
quote:I was talking about the kinds of sexual behavior that most commonly show up in scandals, which includes marital infidelity, sexual harassment, rape, sex with prostitutes, sex with many partners and many one time partners, sex with subordinates, sex with strangers in public bathrooms, sex with minors, sex with someone who is of legal age but much younger, and probably a few others. I'm comfortable saying those behaviors demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement.
What if we pare down this list to the one trait which relates to what promiscuity actually defines: "sex with many partners and many one time partners." Even better yet, "sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." If a person has sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis, does this behavior "demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uh, no, you must have me confused with someone from the evangelizin' atheist brigade.
What's to confuse? You're a "liberal" aren't you? Isn't that enough? Its a proven fact that all liberals are part of the atheist commie cabal that's trying to undermine America, destroy my marriage, get my children hooked on drugs, steal my property, take my guns, outlaw my religion, and rape my husband in the gym shower. Deny it if you want, but you can't fool us.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if we pare down this list to the one trait which relates to what promiscuity actually defines: "sex with many partners and many one time partners." Even better yet, "sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." If a person has sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis, does this behavior "demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement?"
I thought I already addressed that. How many is "many"? If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes. That shows poor sexual impulse control. Where is the dividing line -- there isn't one. Its a continuum.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes. That shows poor sexual impulse control.
And a great deal of energy!
"It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uh, no, you must have me confused with someone from the evangelizin' atheist brigade. If you ask me a question like 'what do you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate' and you expect me to go straight for pejorative personal assessments rather than treating it as a sociological query, you'd be pretty disappointed.
Oh, I wouldn't have expected you to get really nasty, nor do I think you even feel that way (and to be honest, I'm skeptical you thought that was the answer I expected, too).
However, I do think-and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, of course-that if/when you actually did answer the question, terms such as irrational, credulous, and silly might crop up. Not unlike Rabbit's judgment of engaging in frequent casual sex.
---------
Huh. I'm not sure the director was actually being critical himself of Mormonism, at least after a re-reading of the article. It looks like he was actually describing his thoughts on what the views of evangelicals are on Romney.
If that was what he was doing...well. Heh, a little case of 'truth-telling about a critically important bloc of voters in a campaign' turned out to be fatal for him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's sort of how I read it too. It didn't look like he was espousing that particular view, he was just articulating what he saw as someone else's view.
I think the real problem there is that, regardless of how true it might be, no one likes being called a bigot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I know many sexually promiscuous people. How dare you assume you understand their motivations or personalities. This is just prejudice... Blah blah blah. You obviously like making values judgements, but object to others making them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How many is "a large number" and what do you mean by "strangers"?
That's what I meant by "quibbling". I'm sure people will disagree about what constitutes a very large number of strangers. Are you saying that there is "no number of total strangers" that would cause you to be concerned or are we arguing about where to draw the line?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
It doesn't. I was beng facetious.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers
quote: If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes.
Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
It doesn't. I was beng facetious.
Even I caught that, and my sarcasmometer is usually way off.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In October, a Robert Jeffress, a prominent Texas pastor who backs Rick Perry called Mormonism a cult, a statement that Perry later disavowed.
Don't they have proofreaders at WaPo? This was downright painful.
in a october a robert jeffress a prominent texas pastor who backs a rick perry called a mormonism a cult
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I know many sexually promiscuous people. How dare you assume you understand their motivations or personalities. This is just prejudice... Blah blah blah. You obviously like making values judgements, but object to others making them.
Orincoro, If you actually read all my posts, I hope you'll notice that I've been saying that even if someone has poor sexual impulse control and bad judgement with regards to their sex lives, it is not fair or reasonable to presume that they have bad judgement or poor impulse control in other areas of their lives. I think that's entirely consistent with what I was saying earlier about stereotypes and prejudice.
This entire discussion is really creating a false impression about the point I was trying to make. And that was, I think hypocrisy is a much more serious flaw in a political candidate than being sexual promiscuous (or whatever word bet fits). I think people, of all political persuasions, should be much more disturbed by Newt Gingrich's sexual scandals than the sex scandals of politicians who aren't constantly grand standing about traditional sexual morality.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
It doesn't. I was beng facetious.
Even I caught that, and my sarcasmometer is usually way off.
Suuuuuuuree it is. And I'm the queen of England.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers
quote: If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes.
Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Do I understand you correctly that your objection to my statements is about where the line should be drawn? That's not a discussion I'm interested in having.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:“A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon,” ... “There’s a thousand pastors ready to do that.”
What does that mean exactly? I assume that it in part means something like, "If a Mormon takes the media spotlight in the Republican race, many evangelical pastors will highlight how they believe Mormons aren't Christian" which is probably true.
But how does the God part fit in? Is it something like, "God would normally give us a Republican President, but God would rig the vote in order to show that a Mormon cannot win?"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more like "normally God wouldn't let Obama win again by allowing a not-a-real-Christian to get the Republican nomination, but God might think it's worth it in order to shine a spotlight on Mormonism so that a thousand pastors can show that it's a non-Christian cult, which many people seem to be forgetting."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Do I understand you correctly that your objection to my statements is about where the line should be drawn? That's not a discussion I'm interested in having.
You evidently do not understand me correctly, because there has been no objection to your statements. Questions are not objection.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Do I understand you correctly that your objection to my statements is about where the line should be drawn? That's not a discussion I'm interested in having.
You evidently do not understand me correctly, because there has been no objection to your statements. Questions are not objection.
But questioning generally has some point, particularly questions along the lines you have pursued and questions given as answers to questions.
I asked you whether your point was a basic objection to my premise or mere quibbling over details. You responded with more questions about the details rather than an answer to my question.
So if you weren't trying to make any point with your questions, why don't you give a straight forward answer to mine?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I asked you whether your point was a basic objection to my premise or mere quibbling over details.
You asked me if you understood me correctly in that my objection to your statements was about where the line should be drawn. Since my answer was that there has been no objection, that's a straightforward answer to this question too.
quote:So if you weren't trying to make any point with your questions
False dilemma. Me pointing out to you that you think that there was an objection to your statements where there is none does not mean that I have no point or was not trying to make a point with my questions.
Doooooes this wrap this up?
Okay.
Anyway.
what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You asked me if you understood me correctly in that my objection to your statements was about where the line should be drawn. Since my answer was that there has been no objection, that's a straightforward answer to this question too.
No, that isn't all that happened. First I asked
quote:Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
You quoted the first part of that, showing that you had in fact seen my question, and responded to it with.
quote:Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Only then did I ask if I understood your response to mean we were just quibbling over detail.
You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
quote:what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
I've responded to that several times. I think there is a continuum and I'm not interested in trying to delineate the line of acceptability because I don't think a black/white approach is accurate or useful.
quote:Doooooes this wrap this up?
No. I've tried very hard to give detailed, open and thoughtful responses to your questions. Until you respond in kind to my questions about your point, I'm done.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You asked me if you understood me correctly in that my objection to your statements was about where the line should be drawn. Since my answer was that there has been no objection, that's a straightforward answer to this question too.
No, that isn't all that happened. First I asked
quote:Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
You quoted the first part of that, showing that you had in fact seen my question, and responded to it with.
quote:Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Only then did I ask if I understood your response to mean we were just quibbling over detail.
You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
quote:what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
I've responded to that several times. I think there is a continuum and I'm not interested in trying to delineate the line of acceptability because I don't think a black/white approach is accurate or useful.
quote:Doooooes this wrap this up?
No. I've tried very hard to give detailed, open and thoughtful responses to your questions. Until you respond in kind to my questions about your point, I'm done.
I think that the crux of the problem is that some of us can't answer your question, "Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?" without knowing what you mean by "stranger" or "very large number".
I think that, depending on the answers to those questions and other circumstances, that it is quite possible to have sex with a very large number of strangers without that being an indication of poor judgement or poor impulse control.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
