ClumsyMonkey.net

Posted: **1/9/2003, 7:29 pm**

Someone called me a "whore" today. Why? Just because I decided to talk to some of my guy friends. The term "slut" is so overraterd today. Just because a girl wears something to school or is going out with a certain guy can trigger her peers calling her a slut. It's obsolete these days, because now it's perfectly acceptable in our society. Sex is everywhere today. Turn on the tv. The difference is that our society finds it fine to watch television or listen to music with sexual refrences in them, but when a normal person acts that way it's all of a sudden a terrible thing. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you just have to look at how much people can express themselves today. It just seems to me that people have a hard time distinguishing reality from fantasy.

As for Christina, who is the focus here, yes, she does want attention for the way she looks. But if she likes it, then let her go ahead. I suppose some people do like her music. It is music, after all, regardless of the image factor. Every band/artist has some image, and people tend to judge the music by what they see. I can definetly support this in the anti-olp population, who just sees them as another mediocre rock band. After all, they are young, and have people moshing in one of their videos. The point is, people always judge music by the image portrayed by the artist, and we're just human, and we have to accept it and do our best to disregard it and give music a chance.

Posted: **1/10/2003, 2:10 am**

Just because the world is expressing sex more in the media and in turn, by people, does it make it necessary for people to do? No one seems to examine implications of celebrity and the "American Idol" syndrome that allows anyone with a voice to become famous and perfect. I wish that people would find scholars and intellects more fascinating then fast food celebrity's............I'm just ranting. :drool:

Yeah that condom statement was a crock if I ever heard one........In my sex-ed class I heard condoms were like 66% safe........Is that true??.....it was just a number that came up.

xchrisx what are you talking about removing words from society's "lexicon". Just because you don't like the word? It has a meaning and it is used.......maybe with a little disregard but its still a word. Just giving the definition as a way of sugar coating the word doesn't make it better........in fact, it makes it EXACTLY the same. Its synonymous. I think Narbus said it best....a word's meaning doesn't change, its our emotional response that makes it good or bad.

Emily, the word slut can be said with a straight face........just someone being promiscuous and who uses their body for attention. I mean, if its alright to show your shit, why doesn't she just flash her (special area) so we can get a little more. When do we draw the line between sexual freedom and exploitation??? (I'm sorry if that was vulgar but its part of my point) I think "dirrty" was just exploitive..........it was slutty to me, but it does not make Christina a slut because she was just acting. I think I may have called her that above and it is in fact wrong for me to say.

No, there are such things as sluts. Simply because you have chosen to not judge against someone who has a lot of sex does not mean they don't have a lot of sex.
Also, in this day and age, with the sheer number of STD's out there, it is a concern how many people someone has slept with. True, in many cases, it isn't the business of those who are throwing around the terms, but it is still a concern.

that is a very good statement. Heck, after checking your previous responses they are all well thought out. Logical, concrete, to the point. well done.

Posted: **1/10/2003, 2:41 am**

Posted: **1/10/2003, 8:13 am**

Matt wrote:Yeah that condom statement was a crock if I ever heard one........In my sex-ed class I heard condoms were like 66% safe........Is that true??.....it was just a number that came up.

that's cause some guys don't know how to put them on properly.

Posted: **1/10/2003, 8:55 am**

Gimme_Shelter wrote:sex

Posted: **1/10/2003, 4:18 pm**

Narbus wrote:[Really. I see at least three problems here.
1. You have to use a condom everytime. The chances that this will happen do, natuarally, go down the more you have sex.
2. Condoms are not 100% safe. They do break, and if there are areas of the skin exposed during sex, then certain STD's are still transferable. Herpes, public lice, etc.
3. You are assuming that everyone will use the condom properly, as well as use a functional condom. Improper use (doubling up, improper application, use of improper lubricants) or using non-latex condoms, or novelty condoms, will all increase the chance of disease and/or pregnancy.

1. uh, that's their problem.

2. read this [ http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf ] semen exposure in a non broken, non leaking condom [ as mandated by the FDA of the united states] is equivalent to 0.0 ml. in short, no noticeable amount gets in, therefore, preventing entirely the transmission of fluid transmitted diseases.

another study, [ http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html ], found the instance of HIV contraction when a condom is always used to be 0.9 per 100 man years. the average rate was 87%, but found to be as high as 96%. the rate of protection was lowered, obviously, by the increased infection in condom non users. read the study to get a clearer explanation.

3. i am not, nor do i care about those who can't use condoms properly. my point is that with proper care, you can fuck 100 different people and remain disease free.

narbus wrote:Do you care to actually back up this claim with any kind of actual statictics? When making such a statement, it is the nice thing to do.

certainly. it is estimated that 1 million americans are infected with AIDS. thats 1 in ever 250. that means your chance of getting it from having sex with any person randomly selected from the population is .04%. you have a 99.96% chance of not getting AIDS having unprotected sex.

this information is not taken from the study where i originally got my information [ i couldn't find it ]. that study took into accout that of that 1 million, many are a. homosexual, b. drug users and c. prostutitues.

that study also had the soccer stats, and as i cannot find it, i cannot provide them.

Narbus wrote:Because "pimp," which means someone who sells out girls, is oh so much better. It's an insult, yes, and again I'd point out that if you want to make certain decisions, as is your right, then it's the right of other people to call you on those decisions.

the pimp thing was a joke, and no, you don't have the right to insult anybody on any descision they may make which does not directly harm you. slut is an insult and stems from reactionary conservative views on sex and sexuality.

you can "call" whomever you want on a descision, but when you start making normative statements like the ones that are implied in the word "slut", you cross a line. insulting someone because of their behaviour implies that you believe that behaviour is wrong. being promiscous is not wrong. this is a fact. therefore, when you call someone a "slut", you are in fact, making a fool of yourself and trying to impose your flawed morality on someone else. don't.

Narbus wrote:Did you forget to read my post? There is the type of music that is made to be art, and there is the type of music that is made to be merchandise.
Ms. Aguliera has chosen to go the route of merchandise. She made a decision, she is open to criticism. See above.
Also, music, by defintion, is more than just a melody. It also has rhythm and harmony.

criticism, fine, but the fact remains that regardless of the intention of the artist when they make the music, the end product is still music. you can say christina aguliera's music is boring, or conventional, or simple or just plain bad, but not that it is "not music".

matt - read above for information regarding condom effectiveness.

Posted: **1/10/2003, 10:44 pm**

You have to take that into account(regarding guys not putting them on properly) How you can mess it up I don't know.......But they do break every now and then.....one time and your dead.

And you can do 100 people and be alright, or you could infect 99 other people with some nasty diseases!! Today's age worries me........its just not something to "fuck" around with. Sorry for the inexusably bad pun.... :roll:

Posted: **1/11/2003, 2:31 am**

xchrisx wrote:1. uh, that's their problem.

2. read this [ http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf ] semen exposure in a non broken, non leaking condom [ as mandated by the FDA of the united states] is equivalent to 0.0 ml. in short, no noticeable amount gets in, therefore, preventing entirely the transmission of fluid transmitted diseases.

another study, [ http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html ], found the instance of HIV contraction when a condom is always used to be 0.9 per 100 man years. the average rate was 87%, but found to be as high as 96%. the rate of protection was lowered, obviously, by the increased infection in condom non users. read the study to get a clearer explanation.

3. i am not, nor do i care about those who can't use condoms properly. my point is that with proper care, you can fuck 100 different people and remain disease free.

RE: 1&3: You are going from arguing that all of society should drop all concerns with sexual activity to an argument based solely off of what you do. You are suggesting that we should generalize our whole society around you. You are forgetting that you are not society. You are a small part of it. Simply because you don't have a certain problem (ie: the proper use of condoms) doesn't mean that it isn't a problem for society. You are telling me that all of society has to change simply because you know how to use a rubber. This is the problem with generalizing from self.
RE: 2: See the points I made before. In a properly applied, non-broken, latex condom that is designed for the purpose of preventing transmission of bodily fluids, then yes, peachy and great. The problem arises when the condom isn't the right type, or it isn't used properly.
Also, public lice, herpes, genital warts are all transmitted by skin to skin contact. Not fluid transmission. Condoms don't cover all of the skin affected by these diseases.

xchrisx wrote:certainly. it is estimated that 1 million americans are infected with AIDS. thats 1 in ever 250. that means your chance of getting it from having sex with any person randomly selected from the population is .04%. you have a 99.96% chance of not getting AIDS having unprotected sex.

this information is not taken from the study where i originally got my information [ i couldn't find it ]. that study took into accout that of that 1 million, many are a. homosexual, b. drug users and c. prostutitues.

that study also had the soccer stats, and as i cannot find it, i cannot provide them.

1. The USA is a big place. There will be different places where it is more likely to get AIDS than others. San Fransciso vs. a small town in the Midwest, for example. The USA is simply too large for your stats to really matter that much.
2. The study mentions only AIDS. AIDS is one of MANY STD's out there, and then we can think about pregnancy.
3. Your math is wrong. It's 0.4% chance. /nitpick

xchrisx wrote:the pimp thing was a joke, and no, you don't have the right to insult anybody on any descision they may make which does not directly harm you. slut is an insult and stems from reactionary conservative views on sex and sexuality.

And does my decision to call a girl a slut harm you directly? Then why the fuck are you calling me on it.

xchrisx wrote:you can "call" whomever you want on a descision, but when you start making normative statements like the ones that are implied in the word "slut", you cross a line. insulting someone because of their behaviour implies that you believe that behaviour is wrong. being promiscous is not wrong. this is a fact. therefore, when you call someone a "slut", you are in fact, making a fool of yourself and trying to impose your flawed morality on someone else. don't.

The "wrongness" of being promiscious is VERY open to debate. There is the health point that I've been making. There is the notion that sex is something that is to be taken rather more seriously than you think it shoud be, as someone else mentioned. There is the idea that commited relationships are more healthy (emotionally) than one night stands with random people... it is a far cry from a fact that promiscuity is not wrong, and frankly you have done very little to show otherwise.
Again, you are spending a lot of time generalizing from yourself. Simply because you would take the time to make sure the condom is on right, does not mean that everyone will, nor does it make the problem go away for society. Yes, it makes the problem go away for you, but you are not society. And it is society that you are proposing to change.

xchrisx wrote:criticism, fine, but the fact remains that regardless of the intention of the artist when they make the music, the end product is still music. you can say christina aguliera's music is boring, or conventional, or simple or just plain bad, but not that it is "not music".

I already said that I misstated my point. By "actual music" I meant music that is made as art, which happens to be viable as a commercial product. Not something made by an entertainer. I already answered this in another post.

Posted: **1/12/2003, 12:32 pm**

matt - i don't have to take anything into account. my point here is that if a person is intelligent enough and careful about having sex, they can, through the use of condoms, make almost completely safe.

therefore, it is not the problem of the device, which works as it is supposed, but the problem of the person using it. condoms are still highly effective.l

narbus -

Narbus wrote:RE: 1&3: You are going from arguing that all of society should drop all concerns with sexual activity to an argument based solely off of what you do. You are suggesting that we should generalize our whole society around you. You are forgetting that you are not society. You are a small part of it. Simply because you don't have a certain problem (ie: the proper use of condoms) doesn't mean that it isn't a problem for society. You are telling me that all of society has to change simply because you know how to use a rubber. This is the problem with generalizing from self.

no, i'm arguing that society should drop all concerns with sexual activity because it is not their fucking business.

secondly, my point is that condoms work. stupid people fuck them up. the fact remains, condoms work. i don't give a shit about what happens to the stupid people, that's their problem.

narbus wrote:1. The USA is a big place. There will be different places where it is more likely to get AIDS than others. San Fransciso vs. a small town in the Midwest, for example. The USA is simply too large for your stats to really matter that much.
2. The study mentions only AIDS. AIDS is one of MANY STD's out there, and then we can think about pregnancy.

1.right, and there's also certain groups of the population [ gay men, prostitutes and drug addicts ] that your average straight guy or gal is not going to be screwing with. these people are the majority of HIV infected individuals in the states. your chance of contracting it randomly goes waaay down when you remove them.

2. AIDS is the worst and most easily spread, that's why i selected it. pregnancy? it's impossible to get pregant when 0.0ml of semen gets in. use a condom, use it right, you've got nothing to worry about.

Narbus wrote:The "wrongness" of being promiscious is VERY open to debate. There is the health point that I've been making. There is the notion that sex is something that is to be taken rather more seriously than you think it shoud be, as someone else mentioned. There is the idea that commited relationships are more healthy (emotionally) than one night stands with random people... it is a far cry from a fact that promiscuity is not wrong, and frankly you have done very little to show otherwise.
Again, you are spending a lot of time generalizing from yourself. Simply because you would take the time to make sure the condom is on right, does not mean that everyone will, nor does it make the problem go away for society. Yes, it makes the problem go away for you, but you are not society. And it is society that you are proposing to change.

actually, i have shown clearly and logically how promiscuity is not wrong. which, btw, you have made no argument to show how it is morally imperissble in a rational setting.

the only things that can be called "wrong" are things that directly violate the rights of others. since all human rights stem from the right to be free of the use of force, generally, anything that invovles iniating force against another party is wrong. this includes taxation, but it does not include getting your rocks off.

all you have show me is that there are a number of negative side effects to sleeping around. fine. why does that make doing it "wrong"? if somebody chooses to go out and have sex with 15 different people in their lifetimes, and then they feel bad "emotionally" about it afterwards, that is THEIR PROBLEM. "society" has no fucking business sticking it's nose in.

nanny culture can fuck off.

Posted: **1/12/2003, 12:37 pm**

Um condoms don't work well against pregnancy and other diseases .. didn't you take sex ed? Even if 'used properly' condoms break, rip, tear, fall off, slide off .. etc .. if you're gonna sleep around .. invest in more than just condoms .. people rely to heavily on condoms being 100% effective and they aren't .. not even close. Even says so right on the box :lol:

Posted: **1/12/2003, 12:42 pm**

"sex ed"?

sexual education in the united states and canada is extremely pro-abstinence. therefore, statstics are smuged and some disinformation is used.

once again, why don't you take a look see that the scientific study that i posted above showing how a condom which is used effectively and is free of leaks and holes [ testing mandated by US regulatory industries. condoms do NOT break/have holes in them/etc. as often as you seem to believe. in fact, it almost never happens ] and you will find that Ummm condoms work excellently in protecting against pregnancy.

Posted: **1/12/2003, 12:45 pm**

Statistics mean shit when your actually in the situation .. relying on what other people say is true isn't gonna help YOU out .. and no matter what statistics say about condoms being effective against pregnancy, that's a load of crap. There's so many ways a condom can fuck up and boom, you're pregnant .. but hey, to each their own .. I just feel sorry for all the unwanted children being brought into this world by people who sleep around and rely only on condoms.

Sure condoms are tested for holes BEFORE being put into the box, it's AFTER that's the problem. I have friends who work at Walmart and a local drug store and they bust kids EVERYDAY for poking holes in condoms. Everyday random kids go into stores and poke holes in the condom packages just for kicks. Plus even tearing open a condom can cause it to rip or tear .. and what happens if it slides off or falls off? What happens to your statistics then?

I know of 2 people who have gotten pregnant and the first words out of their mouth were "but we used a condom!"

Posted: **1/12/2003, 7:29 pm**

well i for one wouldn't buy a condom box that had already been opened.

and i know probably 100 people who've been sexually active for years and relied soley on condoms with no problems to this date. i have never known a girl who got pregnant using one.

and it's not a statstic i'm calling up. it's a labratory test to see how much semen gets through with a working condom. 0.0 ml. no pregnancy.

Posted: **1/12/2003, 8:56 pm**

Has nothing to do with the box being opened or not :wtf:

Kids go around poking them thru the box and the box stays intact .. that's why they find it funny cuz they're messing with people's lives and futures .. and you're still avoiding all my points .. it's not about a 'working condom' .. but that's okay ..

Wow .. you know at least a hundred people who sleep around? Yikes .. isn't that a scary thought! :uh:

Posted: **1/12/2003, 10:10 pm**

Random random:

It's hilarious to me how freely kids at school talk about their sex lives.

I don't mean seniors. I mean freshmen, and sophomores.

For some reason, I don't think kids my age should even be having sex. Let alone talk about it. Most of them know jack about contraception and now one of them's pregnant because she used a method that does NOT work at all.

Anyways. On with your lives.

Posted: **1/12/2003, 11:08 pm**

xchrisx wrote:no, i'm arguing that society should drop all concerns with sexual activity because it is not their fucking business.

No. You are stating that since you're fine with promiscuity, then society should not have a problem with it. You are, on one hand, arguing we shouldn't generalize from a conservative point of view, then turning around and arguing that we should generalize from your point of view. Why? What makes your view so great? The fact that it's yours?

xchrisx wrote:secondly, my point is that condoms work. stupid people fuck them up. the fact remains, condoms work. i don't give a shit about what happens to the stupid people, that's their problem.

Again. You are talking about society, and how society should change. Condoms may work great under laboratory conditions, but real life isn't a laboratory condition. There's a night of drunken sex, the hot chick that you've been trying to get with for weeks who finally says yes, but you don't have a condom, there's rips, tears, using old condoms, the list goes on.
And if you don't care about the "stupid people," then why the fuck are you so concerned with their opinions about being promiscious?

xchrisx wrote:1.right, and there's also certain groups of the population [ gay men, prostitutes and drug addicts ] that your average straight guy or gal is not going to be screwing with. these people are the majority of HIV infected individuals in the states. your chance of contracting it randomly goes waaay down when you remove them.

So you're supporting my point? That your statistics don't work in real life?

xchrisx wrote:2. AIDS is the worst and most easily spread, that's why i selected it. pregnancy? it's impossible to get pregant when 0.0ml of semen gets in. use a condom, use it right, you've got nothing to worry about.

Your original argument was "you have a 99.96% chance of not getting AIDS having unprotected sex." You are trying to argue that promiscuity is okay by stating the rather small odds of getting AIDS from unprotected sex, which is a smokescreen trying to prevent me from noticing that the odds of getting pregnant, or any of a number of other STD's will, of course, make having unprotected sex much more dangerous. You are now trying to change your argument to take condom use back into account. I call shennanigans.

xchrisx wrote:actually, i have shown clearly and logically how promiscuity is not wrong. which, btw, you have made no argument to show how it is morally imperissble in a rational setting.

Your "rational setting" is one that rarely occurs within society. AGAIN you are trying to assume that your personal experience is the same as that of all society. THIS DOES NOT WORK. What is rational to you, is not rational to someone else, or under different circumstances.
Yes, if you have a perfect condom, and it is used perfectly a perfect 100% of the time, then there is rather little risk of problems. But in real life we don't get that many "perfects" together.
In real life, only 42% of non-married women used condoms 100% of the time, in the US. (source)
If I'm going to be involved with someone in that way, then I damn well have the right to know if she's been doing things that can kill me later.

xchrisx wrote:the only things that can be called "wrong" are things that directly violate the rights of others. since all human rights stem from the right to be free of the use of force, generally, anything that invovles iniating force against another party is wrong. this includes taxation, but it does not include getting your rocks off.

And sleeping around (which, in real life, will not always involve a perfect record of perfect condom use as I pointed out above) and then having sex with someone, with the possibility of transmitting a disease, would directly violate the rights of the unsuspecting party.
By the way, where is it written that a girl has the right to not be called a slut? Last time I checked, it was totally within my right to freedom of speech to call a girl a slut.

xchrisx wrote:all you have show me is that there are a number of negative side effects to sleeping around. fine. why does that make doing it "wrong"? if somebody chooses to go out and have sex with 15 different people in their lifetimes, and then they feel bad "emotionally" about it afterwards, that is THEIR PROBLEM. "society" has no fucking business sticking it's nose in.

I have shown you a number of negative side effects. You yourself said "the only things that can be called "wrong" are things that directly violate the rights of others." I'd say having unprotected sex, or improper condom use during sex (WHICH DOES HAPPEN, despite all your wishes it didn't) and then possibly giving me a disease that renders me sterile or dead violates my rights in a rather huge way.

If you'd like to continue, then fine. From the report you linked to (here):
"In vitro trials have reported HIV leakage in 0-100% of the condoms tested, with all but one brand between 0.0% and 54%. "
That's up to 54% of condoms leaking the HIV virus. Yes, I feel safer already.
"...providing an estimate of condom effectiveness for preventing pregnancy of 90.7% to 98.6%."
So, on average, 1-10 of your 100 friends are going to be sacked with a kid as a result of their sexual lifestyles. Not very big percentage in the long run? I'd say it's pretty important to those 10 people.
"In a study setting, individuals are instructed in the proper use of condoms and may be more motivated; condom effectiveness may be lower outside of the research setting. For example, the condom's effectiveness in reducing pregnancy is lower among younger and less-educated users, because user failure increases"
So, outside of a lab, your stats tend to fall over.
The report also says "It is difficult, however, to make a single overall estimate of condom effectiveness." So I'm going to have to call most of your statistics into question.

Look. Your own report is helping to shoot down your own posts. How fun.

Oh, and since you somehow forgot to address them, here's two of my points you missed from earlier.

"Also, public lice, herpes, genital warts are all transmitted by skin to skin contact. Not fluid transmission. Condoms don't cover all of the skin affected by these diseases."

"And does my decision to call a girl a slut harm you directly? Then why the fuck are you calling me on it."

One last note on your argument "If you have a perfect record of using a condom perfectly" then I'd say well, no shit. If everything was totally different than it was now, then yes, everything would be totally different.

Posted: **1/14/2003, 7:49 am**

No. You are stating that since you're fine with promiscuity, then society should not have a problem with it. You are, on one hand, arguing we shouldn't generalize from a conservative point of view, then turning around and arguing that we should generalize from your point of view. Why? What makes your view so great? The fact that it's yours?

why should society see it from my point of view? i'm right. secondly, it's NOT the business of the government, the guy down the street or some people on the internet to judge persons based on how many people they've slept with. it's none of "societies" business. don't agree? prove me wrong.

Condoms may work great under laboratory conditions, but real life isn't a laboratory condition. There's a night of drunken sex, the hot chick that you've been trying to get with for weeks who finally says yes, but you don't have a condom, there's rips, tears, using old condoms, the list goes on.
And if you don't care about the "stupid people," then why the fuck are you so concerned with their opinions about being promiscious?

i'm tired of talking about condoms. my point is very simple. if you take the proper care when selecting and using a condom, you reduce the danger to yourself to an almost non existent percetile, save for some skin contact diseases. i don't care if some people have sex without condoms etc. etc. if you're careful, you won't have any problems.

your argument is because some people cannot properly use a device, the device is flawed. this is a fallacy.

So you're supporting my point? That your statistics don't work in real life?

what? i was pointing out that the chances of getting AIDS are even lower then i originaly posted for most straight men. how does that support your point about my statstics?

You are trying to argue that promiscuity is okay by stating the rather small odds of getting AIDS from unprotected sex,

actually i'm trying to argue that promiscuity is ok because it is. still waiting on you to show me why it's "wrong".

And sleeping around (which, in real life, will not always involve a perfect record of perfect condom use as I pointed out above) and then having sex with someone, with the possibility of transmitting a disease, would directly violate the rights of the unsuspecting party.
By the way, where is it written that a girl has the right to not be called a slut? Last time I checked, it was totally within my right to freedom of speech to call a girl a slut.

lying to a potential sex partner about being STD free and sleeping around are two very different things. nice try though. one is a direct violation of your rights and the other is not. one is wrong and one is fine. guess which is which.

I'd say having unprotected sex, or improper condom use during sex (WHICH DOES HAPPEN, despite all your wishes it didn't) and then possibly giving me a disease that renders me sterile or dead violates my rights in a rather huge way.

actually, i've never said i don't believe people don't use condoms wrong. once again, the fact that somebody may be using it wrong does not change the fact that when used properly, it is highly effective.

it's not the condoms fault that you don't know how to use it. so don't blame the condom if it fails.

and you're using the same logical fallacy here as you did above. don't.

And does my decision to call a girl a slut harm you directly? Then why the fuck are you calling me on it

read my post. i said you don't have the right to insult people. then i followed that up with "you can CALL someone on whatever you want..."

Also, public lice, herpes, genital warts are all transmitted by skin to skin contact. Not fluid transmission. Condoms don't cover all of the skin affected by these diseases.

i believe i conceded that condoms are not totally effective against contact trasmitted diseases, but that also depends on the affected area.

you still have not shown me in any logical and reasonable way on why sleeping around [ something that has no effect on you ] is wrong. it isn't.

i know a girl who at 17 had been with 17 different guys. she had never gotten pregnant and she has never had an STD.

the fact is, you can spout off your "sex education" indoctrination all you want, but i live in the real world and i see people every day out there having sex, using condoms, and not getting sick or pregnant.[/b]

Posted: **1/14/2003, 8:48 am**

I love that every time Narbus posts, he has this thought provoking post that takes up half of a page. Like he's carefully read every single post and knows exactly what he wants to say. :thumbs:

Posted: **1/14/2003, 2:20 pm**

I just feel so stupid.

Posted: **1/14/2003, 2:50 pm**

xchrisx, Narbus has a better sense of logic than you. He continuously is able to dismiss your hazy logic pretty much every time. Sometimes you guys are just talking about two different things and its just a point of view......but I have to agree with Narbus. You just ignore things about humans that you shouldn't. Yes.......Condoms do work.....but yes they DO break, and you can still get diseases with them on......and if you don't care about others, well that's just a shitty attitude to have towards human beings.

Being promiscuous isn't necessairly bad......its just a way of life for some people who are liberal to sexual freedom. But to ignore sexually related problems on a social, physical, and mental scale is pretty ignorant. Obviously people shouldn't be labelled as being promiscuous in public with a big P on their forehead, but if its nothing to be ashamed about, why are you so defensive. STD's are a worry.......and celebrities advertising sex to sell records should be held more accountable (hence criticism)......if everyone acted like people did in "Dirrty" I think we would all be infected with something. I think that being promiscuous accentuates a certain need for females to present themselves as being "sexy" and worrying about superficial qualities when they are not psychologically ready for it. I keep seeing girls that are like 10-12 try and dress "sexy". It makes me think that Christina Aguliera showing her promiscuous side is indeed a corruptive ideal that I think is prevalent in the initial debate we had.

ClumsyMonkey.net

Stripped