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.
That isn't exactly correct it goes further some in the Catholic Church teach that sin leaves a permanent stain on the (soul) that isn't reversible even with confession I've heard this crap actually taught I grew up in a religious Catholic family. Kids are taught that they are basically damaged goods if they have sex before marriage particularly the girls. I think the teachings are causing harm to these kids the Church may mean well but it is abusive spreading this sort of dogma. I have little children taught that a pure soul is white and each sin causes a permanent ugly brown stain little kids believe that crap.
I'm not a Catholic, so I wouldn't know about that.
What you describe at least seems inconsistent with orthodox Christian Soteriology.
That's because the methodology doesn't set out to establish a temporal relationship in causality. It's based on a basic questionnaire pro-forma that doesn't cover things such as onset of symptoms. (That's why it's a larger study - it's simpler and looks at the issue in less detail).
This means you can't use it as proof for the idea that casual sex and depression are in a reverse causal relationship.
Unlike you though, I'm not stating it as outright fact. I'm merely offering my opinion on the matter. You can't really take one small study and claim that beyond all reasonable doubt that it is true, nor can you apply the same standard to everyone. Plus, the study doesn't really talk about a 'no strings' relationship - and some argue that it's healthy. Its focus is one-time encounters.
I never claimed anyone directly accused me, hence the use of the word 'implication'.
Thankfully, I don't pay much attention to those who believe they are trained psychologists because they read a few journals. Thank you for you opinion though.
Good. Then I suggest you follow through with what you say and not behave as if people are insulting you directly.
Unlike you though, I'm not stating it as outright fact. I'm merely offering my opinion on the matter. You can't really take one small study and claim that beyond all reasonable doubt that it is true, nor can you apply the same standard to everyone.
I am not dismissing the study outright.
Not at all. At best you can say that this is evidence for a proposition.
If you consider it unconvincing, the usual procedure is to provide some good reasons why.
Unfortunately, all you've offered so far are hand-waving arguments and red herrings.
I have already explained why. If you choose to dismiss what I say as red herrings then that is entirely your prerogative. It's hard to argue with people who set their own benchmark for a convincing argument.
I'm not a Catholic, so I wouldn't know about that.
What you describe at least seems inconsistent with orthodox Christian Soteriology.
Well that's why I put my two cents in because of personal experience. There are many people in positions of influence within the Church that pretty much pass on what was taught to them it is an institution that doesn't question authority and most of the followers are ignorant of the official dogma. I think the whole institution is completely off base on sex education and many other things and what I described isn't a unique experience.
I have already explained why. If you choose to dismiss what I say as red herrings then that is entirely your prerogative. It's hard to argue with people who set their own benchmark for a convincing argument.
Well let's see ...
You've given no positive evidence at all for why the reverse causal relationship is true.
You've given no good reasons for why the evidence for a direct causal relationship is false.
That's pretty much a no go by anyone's "benchmark" for a convincing argument, wouldn't you say?
I'm pretty sure I have explained myself. If you don't think my explanations are good enough for you then that is not my problem. Continue on your merry way.
I'm pretty sure I have explained myself. If you don't think my explanations are good enough for you then that is not my problem. Continue on your merry way.
Helpfully, you seem to have linked an article that contradicts your own arguments:
Sometimes the hookup group has higher depression or lower self-esteem than the no-hookup group (particularly among women), other times the hookup group has lower depression and higher self-esteem (particularly among men), and very often there are no differences between the two groups.
The fact that those who don't have adverse outcomes report "higher self-esteem" is a truism and a red herring. It doesn't make the Russian Roulette risk of an adverse outcome from a casual sex encounter any less substantial or real.
Last edited by MarineBlue; 04-25-2015 at 07:51 PM..
The problem is that it isn't reality, or realistic. People always have and always will engage in casual sex. It is how we are programmed. What isnt real is a "soul".
Is there anything wrong in trying to educate our children not to engage in casual sex? No, of course not. But you HAVE to accept reality and educate on safe sex too.
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.
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.
