promiscuity and STD's (Putin, state, permit, religion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not talking about abstinence, just not having INDISCRIMINATE sex with strangers for the sake of "hooking up."
Of course there are "no studies" showing INDISCRIMINATE sex damages the spirit . . . it is common sense amongst people who are spiritually evolved.
You don't even see dogs having INDISCRIMINATE sex . . . that should tell you something. What I mean by that is that you don't see dogs in the street getting it on with numerous partners . . .
I am not talking about abstinence, just not having INDISCRIMINATE sex with strangers for the sake of "hooking up."
Of course there are "no studies" showing INDISCRIMINATE sex damages the spirit . . . it is common sense amongst people who are spiritually evolved.
You don't even see dogs having INDISCRIMINATE sex . . . that should tell you something. What I mean by that is that you don't see dogs in the street getting it on with numerous partners . . .
That's because most dogs have owners who control their behaviors. Male dogs generally hump anything that's solid enough not to buckle during the times when female dogs are in heat, including tables, chairs, legs, stuffed animals... So I'm not entirely sure how you got to that statement.
Feel free to elaborate on exactly what spiritually evolved means, and why it is that the findings of the claimed "spiritually evolved" cannot be verified through legitimate studies.
And there's nothing that indicates that consensual, safe sex between two mentally and physically healthy people, even strangers, has to be unhealthy or damaging, neither to the psyche nor body.
I am not talking about abstinence, just not having INDISCRIMINATE sex with strangers for the sake of "hooking up."
Of course there are "no studies" showing INDISCRIMINATE sex damages the spirit . . . it is common sense amongst people who are spiritually evolved.
You don't even see dogs having INDISCRIMINATE sex . . . that should tell you something. What I mean by that is that you don't see dogs in the street getting it on with numerous partners . . .
"the spirit" ??? What is that and how can we repair it once it's "damaged"
Has anyone ever thought about how rare AIDS and STD's would be if we still held sex as something sacred and intimate? I'm not pushing religion in this. I'm in reference to the 60's and the sexual revolution, free love, etc.
But AIDS wasn't around in the 1960's because the U.S. government had yet to invent the virus in top-secret labs and then release it in two major cities--Los Angleles & New York--in 1980, via a distribution network which used the guise of handing-out free, clean needles to drug addicts. Look it up. And the whole "tainted monkey blood from Africa" thing was merely a ruse: the government just released the same synthetic virus in Africa at around the same time so as to misdirect the perceived pathology of AIDS.
Last edited by DrummerBoy; 03-19-2011 at 09:13 PM..
It's perfectly doable to have multiple partner and still practice safe sex. It's called condoms.
Perhaps you didn't know that a variety of ugly and permanent STDs - such as herpes - are spread not just through seminal / vaginal fluid but also through skin contact in the genital area during certain times of viral shedding. This may occur even when you can't see obvious symptom signs and/or when the other person isn't necessarily even aware that they are contagious. A condom won't help you there.
Perhaps you didn't know that a variety of ugly and permanent STDs - such as herpes - are spread not just through seminal / vaginal fluid but also through skin contact in the genital area during certain times of viral shedding. A condom won't help you there.
Herpes also infects through saliva. I never claimed that condoms completely eliminates the possibility of contracting an STD, I said it severely reduced the risk, there's a difference.
If one is to completely remove the possibility of STD's, you'd have to abstain from sex all together. Since that's not a realistic possibility for most people, using condoms until you find a sexual partner you feel secure with, is a very good method of protecting yourself from STD's. No, it's not 100% efficient, but it's so close it makes no difference.
HIV transmits through blood, does that mean I shouldn't help someone in a car accident, if I have cuts on my hands?
No, it's not 100% efficient, but it's so close it makes no difference.
This again is a good backdrop for me to illustrate my point: condoms are "close to 100%" efficient with respect to certain STDs. With other STDs, they're really much less helpful. So it is a real difference, because you can use condoms every time and still wind up regularly itching your genital herpes sores for the rest of your life. People should consider things like this when deciding how much to rely on condoms when it comes to risky sex.
This again is a good backdrop for me to illustrate my point: condoms are "close to 100%" efficient with respect to certain STDs. With other STDs, they're really much less helpful. So it is a real difference, because you can use condoms every time and still wind up regularly itching your genital herpes sores for the rest of your life. People should consider things like this when deciding how much to rely on condoms when it comes to risky sex.
You can also kiss someone, quite innocently, even a family member, then have oral sex with a partner and give it to them that way. Again, no sex nor physical contact with another human being is 100% "safe". Does that mean we should avoid contact with people unless we're wearing a haz-mat suit?
Condoms, when used in it's designated manner, severely reduce the risk of contradicting any STD. This is proven beyond reasonable doubt, if one is to use one for protection, the risks of contracting an STD, including herpes, is very small.
When it comes down to it, the risk of being in a car crash on your way to the place you're going to have the "risky sex" is far superior to the risk of contracting an STD.
So why is it that people should steer away from a completely natural act, simply because there's a minute risk of an infection which, for the most part is, non lethal infections that are relatively easily treatable?
Why would the 60's have changed anything about human sexual behavior?
People are not any different (or doing anything different) than they were 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago.
The birth control pill was introduced in the 60's. IT's one of the reason the "Free Love" movement started. Women could have sex without the risk of pregnancy
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.