Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[LashL]

Not to mention that in a culture that's less sexually inhibited, actually cheating - that is, someone having sex with someone else than their spouse without that spouse's knowledge and approval - might well go down instead of up. Because the couple will be open to talk and discuss their own sexual emotions and desires, and that in turn will lead to greater sexual compatibility, as well as increased mutual respect.

<snipped much goodliness for the sake of brevity>

So to re-iterate: A sexually open couple will be more likely to respect each other's desires, they will be less likely to actually start cheating on another, and they will be more likely to stay together in a healthy relationship.

So why should we not condone the exploration of this path?

Yes, I agree.

AvalonXQ seems to just assume that anyone having sex with anyone other than a spouse/significant other is "cheating" but fails to consider all of the consensual sexual interaction amongst consenting adults that also occurs, in all kinds of situations. What I would like to know is why anyone ought to be able to tell me what I, as a consenting adult, can or cannot do in an consensual adult sexual relationship. I do not understand for the life of me the mindset that would suggest that governments - of all things - should concern themselves with my consensual adult sex life.

As former Canadian prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, famously said in respect of "what's done in private between adults" way back in 1967 before I even started kindergarten: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." That remains true today.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Its patriarchal attitudes, men are scared to express themselves in our culture and are even more scared of women being sexually free. Nothing scarier to a patriarch than a sexually free woman. She's automatically considered a whore for expressing her self freely.

 

[Caper]

I only read bits and pieces of this thread....and I what I got from it was that apparently Rick Santorum is a Nazi.....and maybe the most evil person to ever grace the earth.... I bet he eats 3 puppies for breakfast.

 

[RandFan]

I only read bits and pieces of this thread....and I what I got from it was that apparently Rick Santorum is a Nazi.....and maybe the most evil person to ever grace the earth.... I bet he eats 3 puppies for breakfast.

Nothing so exotically evil. Just a garden variety bigot. If he wasn't taken seriously by the GOP he would be overshadowed by Fred Phelps.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In any event, you would do much better in a Muslim nation.

I think you mean Santorum and other social conservatives.

I am not a social conservative.

Way too many people in this thread are acting like I agree with Santorum because I'm trying to explain his views. I thought you, at least, knew better.

 

[RandFan]

I think you mean Santorum and other social conservatives.

I am not a social conservative.

Way too many people in this thread are acting like I agree with Santorum because I'm trying to explain his views. I thought you, at least, knew better.

Sorry. Fair enough then.

 

[AvalonXQ]

AvalonXQ seems to just assume that anyone having sex with anyone other than a spouse/significant other is "cheating" but fails to consider all of the consensual sexual interaction amongst consenting adults that also occurs, in all kinds of situations.

I don't think they fail to consider it; I think they consider it unimportant relative to the situations where it is cheating and it is harmful.

Something doesn't have to be harmful every time, or even most of the time, for us to want to ban it.

For instance, I would submit that most of the time, drunk drivers do not get in accidents. If someone pointed out the harm caused by drunk driving, we would not accept the counterargument that the person "fails to consider all of the harmless drunk driving that occurs".

 

[Lowpro]

While you are correct to say the majority of HIV infections have been spread through heterosexual intercourse, less through homosexual acts and illegal IV drug use, Ryan White was infected from hemophiliac blood products collected in the US during the height of the homosexual HIV epidemic here.

Just want to keep to the facts. RP is still spouting a lot of bull here.

Well no !@(! but a virus doesn't pick your sexual orientation either. It is FAR MORE LIFELY (by virtue of homosexuals versus heteros) that Ryan White got infected by contaminated blood from a homosexual donor. HIV doesn't discriminate, as Falwell might have led us to believe, and only believe because such a "fact" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Believe what you want, but to take Ryan White and hold him up as an anti-gay posterchild is sick. I don't care two @!(! about what Robert Prey thinks about it. If he wants to hijack AIDS in his anti-buttsex agenda, he's got another thing coming.

 

[Robert Prey]

yes, but nothing that is exclusively queer sexual acts.
as i said before, there are many queers, myself included, who do not have anal sex.
oral sex is much safer than even vaginal sex, and manual sex is entirely safe.

so just what are you referring to?

Anal sex by homosexuals and to a lesser extent by a clueless woman with a bi-sexual partner or one that shares needles.

 

[Upchurch]

Anal sex by homosexuals and to a lesser extent by a clueless woman with a bi-sexual partner or one that shares needles.

But not the the sexual activity of the heterosexual population that has AIDS?

Why not?

 

[Robert Prey]

While you are correct to say the majority of HIV infections have been spread through heterosexual intercourse, less through homosexual acts and illegal IV drug use, Ryan White was infected from hemophiliac blood products collected in the US during the height of the homosexual HIV epidemic here.

Just want to keep to the facts. RP is still spouting a lot of bull here.

Factually incorrect.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

 

[joobz]

Anal sex by homosexuals and to a lesser extent by a clueless woman with a bi-sexual partner or one that shares needles.

Are you trying to claim that the ~8000 new infections in women from hetereosexual sex were all caused by the woman sleeping with a bi-sexual man?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Are you trying to claim that the ~8000 new infections in women from hetereosexual sex were all caused by the woman sleeping with a bi-sexual man?

That's one very busy bi-sexual man!

 

[RandFan]

I don't think they fail to consider it; I think they consider it unimportant relative to the situations where it is cheating and it is harmful.

Something doesn't have to be harmful every time, or even most of the time, for us to want to ban it.

For instance, I would submit that most of the time, drunk drivers do not get in accidents. If someone pointed out the harm caused by drunk driving, we would not accept the counterargument that the person "fails to consider all of the harmless drunk driving that occurs".

Instead of drunk driving how about recreational driving? See, you haven't told us what the relative risks for cheating are? Arguing on behalf of someone else doesn't get you out of certain responsibilities. If cheating is comparatively closer to drunk driving than recreational driving when it comes to risk then you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise you are making an unfair comparison.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Instead of drunk driving how about recreational driving? See, you haven't told us what the relative risks for cheating are? Arguing on behalf of someone else doesn't get you out of certain responsibilities. If cheating is comparatively closer to drunk driving than recreational driving when it comes to risk then you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise you are making an unfair comparison.

No, I think the comparison's fair regardless of the relative risks.

The point is to refute the notion that we need to consider how often an activity is non-harmful when condemning that activity for causing harm. Or are you claiming that if the number of people able to safely drive drunk suddenly increased, it would no longer make sense to discourage drunk driving?

 

[gnome]

I think I can comment on this to help distinguish.

Drunk driving has a known, studied effect on one's ability to drive safely. Engaging in an open relationship does not have a biological effect that causes harm regardless of the persons' intentions... so, it's appropriate to focus on personal responsibility in the latter case.

 

[Travis]

Anal sex by homosexuals and to a lesser extent by a clueless woman with a bi-sexual partner or one that shares needles.

Or, you know heterosexual sex without condoms. The only kind Santorum wants legal.

That's one very busy bi-sexual man!

I bet he's French Canadian.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I think you mean Santorum and other social conservatives.

I am not a social conservative.

Way too many people in this thread are acting like I agree with Santorum because I'm trying to explain his views. I thought you, at least, knew better.

I followed you, don't worry!

 

[RandFan]

No, I think the comparison's fair regardless of the relative risks.

The point is to refute the notion that we need to consider how often an activity is non-harmful when condemning that activity for causing harm. Or are you claiming that if the number of people able to safely drive drunk suddenly increased, it would no longer make sense to discourage drunk driving?

You COMPLETELY missed my point. Why not use the risky behavior of recreational driving? Unless you want to get an association between drunk driving and sex. Right? You could have made the same point with a different example, right?

And you still have not identified what the relative risks are, right? So, as far as you know driving to the beach is far riskier than cheating, right?

I'll grant you your premise. I don't think it is given in good faith.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You COMPLETELY missed my point. Why not use the risky behavior of recreational driving? Unless you want to get an association between drunk driving and sex. Right? You could have made the same point with a different example, right?

Any example of "we condemn/prohibit all of activity X even though many, many people engage in activity X without causing harm" would make the same point, yes.
However, as we don't condemn/prohibit all recreational driving, it wouldn't make my point.
Why not use baking apple pie, or street preaching? Because they also don't satisfy the necessary criterion of activity X for the point I was making.

LashL was making the point that it was unfair to condemn Activity A (extramarital sex) without first considering the significant fraction of Activity A that is not harmful to anyone. I was pointing out that we already condemn other activities like Activity X (drunk driving) based on the severity of the rare harmful events and without first considering the signifcant fraction of Activity X that is not harmful to anyone.

It is a valid point that there also exists Activity Y (driving sober) wherein the severity of rare harmful events might be the same as Activity X but the event is not condemned -- but I don't think it's reasonable to ask why I didn't choose as Activity X something that doesn't fit the above argument.