Cookie Boycott?

[Jerr Conner]

Jerr ideally it's a parents job to teach their kids about sex.

Ideally, yes.

I learned quite by accident when I found an adult video in my parents room. I probably wouldn't have been aware of sex even with everything during puberty, unil much later, and then I know I'd have jumped in it, because of the 'rebelious' part of me.

As far as repurcussions, I can only speak for the class I took in High School. They did show the repurcussions of STD's, in detail, on slides.

[Donut]

Cerek!! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

Where'd it go? Second thoughts?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: Cerek!! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] Where'd it go? Second thoughts?

No second thoughts about what I said, just the manner in which it was said. John D. Harris already pointed out the "double standard" of some members regarding their "tolerance" so there was really no reason for me to re-hash what he had already said.

I also saw The Passion of the Christ yesterday. It was an extremely incredible and moving film. It also reminded me the Love Jesus Christ brought to this world - and that He extended that love to everyone, including his tormenters.

In that respect, there was no reason for me to re-make the point that had already been made by Mr. Harris.

I will re-post my comments in as time permits, but without the redundancy of repeating a point that has already been well illustrated.

[Donut]

Originally posted by John D Harris: You better ask yourself why this woman is to be put down for deciding what is exceptable and will be allowed when the daughter is hers.

That isn't the point JD. She is quite within her rights to make that decision.

But given the level of intimacy that she must have had with her husband at some time to produce a daughter, why on earth should a few pictures embarass her with her husband!?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: You better ask yourself why this woman is to be put down for deciding what is exceptable and will be allowed when the daughter is hers.

That isn't the point JD. She is quite within her rights to make that decision.

But given the level of intimacy that she must have had with her husband at some time to produce a daughter, why on earth should a few pictures embarass her with her husband!? [/QUOTE]The embarassment comes from the fact that her daughter saw that same brochure, Donut. Speaking as a parent myself, I can certainly say that many things that I normally wouldn't even pay attention to become very embarassing if my 7yr old or 5yr old happens to see them too.

For example, I saw the spoof movie of "The Fugitive" the other day. It had the main character from the Airplane and Naked Gun movies (Leslie Nelson??). Both of my boys were in the room too. They thought the movie was very funny - especially the scene where the train actually CHASES Nelson through the woods). Later, though, there was a scene where he returns to his house (the scene of the crime) and "relives" his encounter with the real criminal. He walks into the house and is attacked by this guy. They grapple and fall to the floor wrestling each other. During this series of scenes, the two men end up in various "sexual positions". Of course it is supposed to be unintentional on thier part but is intentional on the directors part in order to get a laugh from the audience. That is fine when the movie is in the theater where 5 and 7 year olds would not have a chance to see it, but it definitely embarassed (and upset) me that they could see something like that just by clicking the remote. And the movie was NOT on a premium channel. It was on our basic cable. The fact that neither of my boys really understood the significance of the different "positions" did nothing to lessen my embarassment - and I immediately changed channels to something else.

By the same token, I can certainly understand why the woman in Texas would be upset and embarassed that her daughter had been given a brochure containing illustrations of sexual behavior. If my son were to recieve a similar brochure from the Boy Scouts, you can be sure the organization would find out just how "barbaric" this daddy can be when his children are given sexually explicit material without his knowledge.

As for those that were derisively INtolerant of the woman's embarassment and felt it was necessary to make unfounded insults regarding her sexual relationship with her husband - let me debunk your arguments for you.

I am a conservative Christian that happens to fully enjoy the sex life I have with my wife. Yet I would be JUST as embarassed as this woman if such a brochure was given to one of my boys. Even though my 7yr old is very mature for his age (in certain areas), he is NOT ready to be presented with such material. However, just because I am embarassed for sexual material to be shown to my son without my knowledge does NOT mean I am embarassed by sex in general NOR does it mean I am afraid to talk to my children about it. I have 3 boys, so I will be having 3 "talks" as they grow old enough. Actually, I expect to have many more talks than that, but I WILL be the one to sit down and explain intercourse and conception to them. When they start dating, I will be the one to explain the dangers of STD's, unexpected pregnancies, and the risk thier girlfriends' gun-toting father to them.

The fact that I don't want my 7yr old seeing pictures of a boy masturbating does NOT mean I am afraid to approach the subject myself when I feel the time is right or necessary.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: You better ask yourself why this woman is to be put down for deciding what is exceptable and will be allowed when the daughter is hers.

That isn't the point JD. She is quite within her rights to make that decision.

But given the level of intimacy that she must have had with her husband at some time to produce a daughter, why on earth should a few pictures embarass her with her husband!? [/QUOTE]Good question Donut.
There can be and most likely are reasons other then some stated in the above posts. Cerek addressed some, another could be that this lady is religious and believes talking about sex outside of marriage is not something she wishes to engage in or condone. It could be she holds her sex life with her husband in such high reguard and so personal that pictures depicting others in sexual acts/matters, are offensive to her, or she feels it makes light of the intimate personal nature of sex in a loving relationship. It could be she's uptight, but what ever the reason not enough info is given for any inferances or assumption to be made. Especially when so many have be-moaned intolerance of ones views, then engage in the very same type of intolerance themselves. And from reading the posts it is the point that her actions are unacceptable. My question to those putting her and her actions down/unacceptable. What gives them the right to find something unacceptable, yet not this lady.

I don't care if she is uptight/fridged, I'm not married to her [img]smile.gif[/img] nor do I condem intolerance/bias/prejudices while having them myself, as "Dirty Harry" says a man has got to know his limitations. I say if you want to be intolerant/bias/prejudice you have the right, go for it. Then we can talk about the merits/reasons of them.

[ 03-05-2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Night Stalker]

JD

Nice quip. I don't recal actually taking a position in the matter, just mentioning that an inference of that sort given the data provided could be made.

Second, an inference not equivilent to an assumption. They are similar, in that they are both guesses, but the similarity ends there. An assumption is a guess on a pre-existing criterium prior to performing an exercise or computation that produces a data set. The better the assumptions made, the better the data set will be. An inference is a deduction based on a given data set. The more complete and accurate a data set is, the better deductions can be made from that set.

I did say that they were over broad generalizations, but given 1) the comment of the woman and 2)general Amercian comfort level talking about sex, that that deduction could be made. Never did I pass judgement on that position though, though one could be implied by my tone of response .... and what did you say about assumptions? Actually, it would be an inference.

Finally since you seem to want to expose the hypocracy of those that cry tolerance. Tolerating an idea is not the same as acception the idea. It is just accepting that other ideas have the right to exist. I accept her right to her position. I just find her comment about viewing the content with her husband would be embarassing interesting.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: JD Nice quip. I don't recal actually taking a position in the matter, just mentioning that an inference of that sort given the data provided could be made. Second, an inference not equivilent to an assumption. They are similar, in that they are both guesses, but the similarity ends there. An assumption is a guess on a pre-existing criterium prior to performing an exercise or computation that produces a data set. The better the assumptions made, the better the data set will be. An inference is a deduction based on a given data set. The more complete and accurate a data set is, the better deductions can be made from that set. I did say that they were over broad generalizations, but given 1) the comment of the woman and 2)general Amercian comfort level talking about sex, that that deduction could be made. Never did I pass judgement on that position though, though one could be implied by my tone of response .... and what did you say about assumptions? Actually, it would be an inference. Finally since you seem to want to expose the hypocracy of those that cry tolerance. Tolerating an idea is not the same as acception the idea. It is just accepting that other ideas have the right to exist. I accept her right to her position. I just find her comment about viewing the content with her husband would be embarassing interesting.

The only problem with your "inference" Night Stalker is that the data set and criterium used for the inference is woefully inadequate. Your inference is based on a single comment made by a stranger. You know nothing of her background, upbringing, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or her moral values. As John D. pointed out, there are a number of reasons why she may have felt embarassed. I mentioned a few and Mr. Harris mentioned others. Your second assumption about the willingness of the population in general to discuss sex is another broad-based assumption without any data offered to back it up.

The problem with "inferring" something is that most inferences are made from a biased POV - whether deliberately or accidentally. You are basing your inference on your perception of two very general pieces of data without any supporting evidence to support your preconceived presumptions.

The result is that your "inference" has a better chance of being wrong than it does of being correct due to the lack of specific data used to support the assumptions made to reach it.

And - YES - that is an "inference" of my own regarding your inference.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: JD Nice quip. I don't recal actually taking a position in the matter, just mentioning that an inference of that sort given the data provided could be made. Second, an inference not equivilent to an assumption. They are similar, in that they are both guesses, but the similarity ends there. An assumption is a guess on a pre-existing criterium prior to performing an exercise or computation that produces a data set. The better the assumptions made, the better the data set will be. An inference is a deduction based on a given data set. The more complete and accurate a data set is, the better deductions can be made from that set. I did say that they were over broad generalizations, but given 1) the comment of the woman and 2)general Amercian comfort level talking about sex, that that deduction could be made. Never did I pass judgement on that position though, though one could be implied by my tone of response .... and what did you say about assumptions? Actually, it would be an inference. Finally since you seem to want to expose the hypocracy of those that cry tolerance. Tolerating an idea is not the same as acception the idea. It is just accepting that other ideas have the right to exist. I accept her right to her position. I just find her comment about viewing the content with her husband would be embarassing interesting.

NS,
I guess it made an A** out of you and me we're in fairly close agreement, I particularly like the last paragraph about tolerating vs acception of an idea. On a differant thread dealing with the same subject from the opposite view. In the vast majority of early posts if I was to take the posts and change only the subject(afore mentioned woman, and sexual matterial given out by PP) to something else. There would be cries of Intolerance that would ring this forum even though as you point out there is a differance between accepting and tolerating.

[ 03-05-2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Timber Loftis]

*runs into thread*
[img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

*runs out* [img]graemlins/shooter18.gif[/img]

As you can tell, I personally don't embarrass as easily as some of you.