Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hedgehog on March 06, 2007, 05:56:32 PM
-
Kids gets shut out of school for using the word "vagina" in a school play. ::)
WTF?
Here's a high schooler with his view on it:
http://theliberalconviction.blogspot.com/
Happened at some NY school apparently, should be in the news.
Censorship at its finest.
I remember when I went to high school in USA, we didn't read any Hunter S Thompson or Arthur Miller, despite them being great authors.
Both having a fair share of sexual content in their books.
What's with the fcuking prudeness?
-Hedge
-
Kids gets shut out of school for using the word "vagina" in a school play. ::)
WTF?
Here's a high schooler with his view on it:
http://theliberalconviction.blogspot.com/
Happened at some NY school apparently, should be in the news.
Censorship at its finest.
I remember when I went to high school in USA, we didn't read any Hunter S Thompson or Arthur Miller, despite them being great authors.
Both having a fair share of sexual content in their books.
What's with the fcuking prudeness?
-Hedge
Oh brother, we'll soon be so dehumanised by political correctness that sex will be banned forever.
-
OMG.
Another example of people just going too far.
they could have said:
snatch or pussy then i might understand. but vagina?
-
Public use of the word "vagina" is the next step towards teenagers making use of vaginas for sexual pleasure not condoned by the infallible word of God.
Hope this helps.
-
Public use of the word "vagina" is the next step towards teenagers making use of vaginas for sexual pleasure not condoned by the infallible word of God.
Hope this helps.
lol
-
Public use of the word "vagina" is the next step towards teenagers making use of vaginas for sexual pleasure not condoned by the infallible word of God.
Hope this helps.
Only you could see this matter as some sort of Christian-related madness, as if Political Correctness is a manifestation of the Catholic Church and not the loony-Left.
-
Only you could see this matter as some sort of Christian-related madness, as if Political Correctness is a manifestation of the Catholic Church and not the loony-Left.
1) What interest would the politically correct have in suppressing public use of the word "vagina"?
2) What evidence do you have that it was that agenda being promoted - rather than the one I proposed?
-
Public use of the word "vagina" is the next step towards teenagers making use of vaginas for sexual pleasure not condoned by the infallible word of God.
Hope this helps.
LOL.
Yes, vagina is one of those gateway words.
1) What interest would the politically correct have in suppressing public use of the word "vagina"?
2) What evidence do you have that it was that agenda being promoted - rather than the one I proposed?
Only someone that doesn't live in the US could think Religious Groups wouldn't be behind something like this.
-
1) What interest would the politically correct have in suppressing public use of the word "vagina"?
2) What evidence do you have that it was that agenda being promoted - rather than the one I proposed?
You must be joking, is it not the domain of the PC-Left to suppress freedom of speech? Are you really this vague in real life?
And what evidence do you have to suggest it was indeed the Church that incited this?
-
1) What interest would the politically correct have in suppressing public use of the word "vagina"?
2) What evidence do you have that it was that agenda being promoted - rather than the one I proposed?
What can you expect. He's too myopic to realize the protest was lodged on a liberal website. ::)
The girls were punished because young children were in the audience and the content of mic night was supposed to be acceptable for a general audience. They had promised apparently, not to perform that piece, but then did so anyway.
http://jjhs.klschools.org/home.aspx
-
What can you expect. He's too myopic to realize the protest was lodged on a liberal website. ::)
The girls were punished because young children were in the audience and the content of mic night was supposed to be acceptable for a general audience. They had promised apparently, not to perform that piece, but then did so anyway.
http://jjhs.klschools.org/home.aspx
Oh okay, so because it was reported by liberals clearly means it can't have been instigated by them. I never realised those two events were mutually exclusive, but hey, I'm 'mypoic' right?
I'm not seeing the Church mentioned in this piece, either.
-
Oh okay, so because it was reported by liberals clearly means it can't have been instigated by them. I never realised those two events were mutually exclusive, but hey, I'm 'mypoic' right?
I'm not seeing the Church mentioned in this piece, either.
You're much worse than myopic Bruce, but I'm being kind.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. If anything, Liberals are pro teaching of sex education in schools as opposed to the extreme right wing. But keep ranting... it seems to be your special talent.
-
You're much worse than myopic Bruce, but I'm being kind.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. If anything, Liberals are pro teaching of sex education in schools as opposed to the extreme right wing. But keep ranting... it seems to be your special talent.
And you keep bringing posts devoid of facts and intelligible insight, okay?
If I'm so easily proven wrong on any topic, you'd have no problem debating me on it, which you've thus far refused to do.
-
And you keep bringing posts devoid of facts and intelligible insight, okay?
If I'm so easily proven wrong on any topic, you'd have no problem debating me on it, which you've thus far refused to do.
What on earth are you talking about?
The difference between you and me Bruce, is that I come here because I like to train and talk to people who share my interests. I don't view the political board with the same obsessive compulsion you do. Strange that someone who is as aggressive as you, wouldn't find himself a serious politcal discussion forum to engage people in debate. But, if you did, more than likely you'd be annhilated within 6 seconds. You prefer to come here and harangue people instead.
The usual with you is basically...
You start some thread with, or post some dubious, extreme right-wing source.
People out you, and your dubious source, which you can't take.
You then proceed to insult people with derisive, disdainful remarks while you further dig yourself into a hole with your bizarre pretzel logic.
People eventually tire of your bad mouthing and respond to you in kind.
You then start to cry and moan... and demand apologies you don't deserve.
Onto the next thread. And the cycle begins again.
I don't particularly care for the way you talk to people, and since you post ad nauseum, I really don't come here very often anymore. So, no, I have no desire to engage you in debate.
-
What on earth are you talking about?
The difference between you and me Bruce, is that I come here because I like to train and talk to people who share my interests. I don't view the political board with the same obsessive compulsion you do. Strange that someone who is as aggressive as you, wouldn't find himself a serious politcal discussion forum to engage people in debate. But, if you did, more than likely you'd be annhilated within 6 seconds. You prefer to come here and harangue people instead.
The usual with you is basically...
You start some thread with, or post some dubious, extreme right-wing source.
People out you, and your dubious source, which you can't take.
You then proceed to insult people with derisive, disdainful remarks while you further dig yourself into a hole with your bizarre pretzel logic.
People eventually tire of your bad mouthing and respond to you in kind.
You then start to cry and moan... and demand apologies you don't deserve.
Onto the next thread. And the cycle begins again.
I don't particularly care for the way you talk to people, and since you post ad nauseum, I really don't come here very often anymore. So, no, I have no desire to engage you in debate.
Did you not seek me out in this thread for debate? Did you not just come here and unprovoked label me 'myopic'?
Why not take a little responsibility for what you say, Deedee. As for my apparent 'aggressive' stance, you'll no doubt be able to show where I've ever abused anyone on this website. On the contrary, it was you that came here to incite me by use of insults.
Calm down and post something more sensible, or take yourself back to the other boards where you no doubt feel less inclined to have to actually think or post with accuracy.
-
Did you not seek me out in this thread for debate? Did you not just come here and unprovoked label me 'myopic'?
Why not take a little responsibility for what you say, Deedee. As for my apparent 'aggressive' stance, you'll no doubt be able to show where I've ever abused anyone on this website. On the contrary, it was you that came here to incite me by use of insults.
Calm down and post something more sensible, or take yourself back to the other boards where you no doubt feel less inclined to have to actually think or post with accuracy.
No I did not seek you out in this thread for debate, but I do treat you exactly the way you treat other people. And it's really a matter of opinion whether I think or post with accuracy. I believe there are more than a handful of people around here who would appreciate it if you occasionally stopped to think before you post.
And I'd certainly appreciate it if you didn't send any more instructions pertaining to where I should go my way.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=132576.75
-
Only you could see this matter as some sort of Christian-related madness, as if Political Correctness is a manifestation of the Catholic Church and not the loony-Left.
And btw... do you not think you provoke people when you dismiss them as "the looney Left?"
You are quite something.
-
I would be very surprised if this was something a liberal did.
Typically Bible thumpers are the ones who would try and regulate anything to do with sex in schools while extreme libs try to limit anything to do with god in schools.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You know something is seriously wrong when Deedee doesn't like you.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You know something is seriously wrong when Deedee doesn't like you.
lol, you've got a point there!
-
And btw... do you not think you provoke people when you dismiss them as "the looney Left?"
You are quite something.
It depends, do you consider yourself from this distinguished intelligentsia? If so, then yes, it would provoke you.
Let’s face it, Deedee, your biggest problem with me is just that: I expose Leftist fallacies and present a Conservative view. You despise this, and would prefer I didn’t post as much, as you’ve alluded to above. Believe me, I’m not going anywhere, and trust me when I say I’m sure I’ve had as many people throw support behind me than you’ve had mention to you the opposite. Do try and stop the hyperventilation now, it’s not very becoming.
-
Alright... you believe that you "expose" liberal fallacies. I find you make yourself look foolish most of the time. This thread is a perfect example. Rather than quickly google the school website and get relevant info as I did, you blindly lash out at liberals instead. It's an old story with you, and it's very tired. And really, someone as ill-mannered as you should probably refrain from telling others how to behave.
It's pathetic that you keep trying to attribute emotions to me which don't exist.
-
8)
-
Alright... you believe that you "expose" liberal fallacies. I find you make yourself look foolish most of the time. This thread is a perfect example. Rather than quickly google the school website and get relevant info as I did, you blindly lash out at liberals instead. It's an old story with you, and it's very tired. And really, someone as ill-mannered as you should probably refrain from telling others how to behave.
It's pathetic that you keep trying to attribute emotions to me which don't exist.
That's fine Deedee, I encourage your dissent, and would love to debate you on this, or any other political issue. Do you have anything meaningful to add to this debate, or would you rather continue this silliness we're both indulging one another in?
-
8)
Yep, this is pretty entertaining. It's not often that the Politics board disappoints.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You know something is seriously wrong when Deedee doesn't like you.
I forgot to say "hi." :)
-
It's pathetic that you keep trying to attribute emotions to me which don't exist.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133046.msg1882440#msg1882440
-
8)
any one want popcorn?
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133046.msg1882440#msg1882440
I like Bill and I agree with him about most things. [His favorable comparison of the physical courage of the 9/11 hijackers relative to our Air Force bomber pilots, for example.]
-
I forgot to say "hi." :)
Hello, it's nice to see you posting again.
I just thought of something, bruce is like true adonis and the sarcasm/squadfather account in that he's a lightning rod for posts. Of course to a lesser degree but similar all the same. He literally gets people posting, probably more than anyone else on this board. Love him or hate him he keeps the board rolling and entertaining.
-
Hello, it's nice to see you posting again.
I just thought of something, bruce is like true adonis and the sarcasm/squadfather account in that he's a lightning rod for posts. Of course to a lesser degree but similar all the same. He literally gets people posting, probably more than anyone else on this board. Love him or hate him he keeps the board rolling and entertaining.
Erm, thanks, I think.
-
Bruce, do you keep posting my 9/11-hijackers comment in the hope that you'll finally succeed in "exposing" me to the righteous scorn of all?
If your hoped-for groundswell of anti-Ribo sentiment didn't manifest the first 5 times you tried it, I wouldn't get your hopes up for the 6th. ::)
However, if you'd like to ask Berserker to make a sticky thread on the subject to give your cause maximum exposure, that's fine with me.
-
Bruce, do you keep posting my 9/11-hijackers comment in the hope that you'll finally succeed in "exposing" me to the righteous scorn of all?
If your hoped-for groundswell of anti-Ribo sentiment didn't manifest the first 5 times you tried it, I wouldn't get your hopes up for the 6th. ::)
However, if you'd like to ask Berserker to make a sticky thread on the subject to give your cause maximum exposure, that's fine with me.
I'm sorry, are you the same person that just posted a repeat of a previous post? Or should I direct my accusations of hypocrisy elsewhere?
You're a little embarassed you posted something quite so silly, aren't you.
-
You're a little embarassed you posted something quite so silly, aren't you.
Have it your way.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133064.0
-
Oh brother, we'll soon be so dehumanised by political correctness that sex will be banned forever.
I think everyone that's been critisizing BRUCE on this thread should read his take on the issue at hand.
However I think he's wrong with his analysis that it's the "looney left" that is behind the moral panic.
I would attribute this type of values to Bible thumping, "Family Values" Christian Conservatives.
Nothing suggests elsewise.
These Christian Conservatives exists in both parties actually, but mainly within the Republican Party.
-Hedge
-
I think everyone that's been critisizing BRUCE on this thread should read his take on the issue at hand.
However I think he's wrong with his analysis that it's the "looney left" that is behind the moral panic.
I would attribute this type of values to Bible thumping, "Family Values" Christian Conservatives.
Nothing suggests elsewise.
These Christian Conservatives exists in both parties actually, but mainly within the Republican Party.
-Hedge
Thanks, Hedge, for actually posting a response to me that's not an attempt at character assassination. What you've highlighted is the real issue at hand - who is responsible for this ridiculous ban and what do they represent?
I'm still yet to see any evidence it's Christian America to blame, can anyone shed any light?
-
I think everyone that's been critisizing BRUCE on this thread should read his take on the issue at hand.
However I think he's wrong with his analysis that it's the "looney left" that is behind the moral panic.
I would attribute this type of values to Bible thumping, "Family Values" Christian Conservatives.
Nothing suggests elsewise.
These Christian Conservatives exists in both parties actually, but mainly within the Republican Party.
-Hedge
It doesn't sound like it was either. According to the school website, they asked the girls not to include the vagina monologues piece in the open mic sesh because the audience was to be comprised of a general audience including much younger children. The girls promised they wouldn't, then went ahead and did it anyway. That's why they were disciplined. Doesn't sound unreasonable. Unless I'm missing something.
There is a clear difference between putting on a production of a play such as “The Vagina Monologues” and an open performance at the microphone of an excerpt from the play before unsuspecting parents and their children. In the first case, the community would have been aware of the nature of the production and could have made an educated decision to attend or not to attend based upon that knowledge. In the case of the “Open Mic Night,” the community was invited with the expectation that the pieces presented would be appropriate for the general community, including younger children. Parents and community members did not have the ability to make an educated decision about the appropriateness of the content of the presentations for younger children.
There is also a clear difference between what is read and discussed in the classroom and what is presented in an activity open to the entire community. Our judgment was guided by the forum, the audience and the students’ commitment. Our decision was made in a considered, careful and thoughtful manner.
In the meantime, the girls have gotten the whole world talking about vaginas! Vive les artistes... power to artsy-fartsy liberals. :)
-
It doesn't sound like it was either. According to the school website, they asked the girls not to include the vagina monologues piece in the open mic sesh because the audience was to be comprised of a general audience including much younger children. The girls promised they wouldn't, then went ahead and did it anyway. That's why they were disciplined. Doesn't sound unreasonable. Unless I'm missing something.
There is a clear difference between putting on a production of a play such as “The Vagina Monologues” and an open performance at the microphone of an excerpt from the play before unsuspecting parents and their children. In the first case, the community would have been aware of the nature of the production and could have made an educated decision to attend or not to attend based upon that knowledge. In the case of the “Open Mic Night,” the community was invited with the expectation that the pieces presented would be appropriate for the general community, including younger children. Parents and community members did not have the ability to make an educated decision about the appropriateness of the content of the presentations for younger children.
There is also a clear difference between what is read and discussed in the classroom and what is presented in an activity open to the entire community. Our judgment was guided by the forum, the audience and the students’ commitment. Our decision was made in a considered, careful and thoughtful manner.
In the meantime, the girls have gotten the whole world talking about vaginas! Vive les artistes... power to artsy-fartsy liberals. :)
You're missing the point.
To start censor the word "vagina" in the first place, because there are minors in the audience?
WTF? ???
Prudeness gone wild.
I salute these kids for revolting against the system, taking a stand against censorship.
They're essentially fighting for the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, just like the fathers of the constitution did.
-Hedge
-
According to the school website, they asked the girls not to include the vagina monologues piece in the open mic sesh because the audience was to be comprised of a general audience including much younger children.
Because if they learn it's called a vagina - rather than a "down there" - they won't be as ashamed of having one.
Which will make them less inhibited about masturbating with it.
Which will give them sexual pleasure not condoned by the infallible word of God.
Look, if you want to stamp out masturbation because the Bible says it's naughty, go ahead and say so. Then endure the scorn and ridicule that such a posture deserves.
-
Because if they learn it's called a vagina - rather than a "down there" - they won't be as ashamed of having one.
Which will make them less inhibited about masturbating with it.
Which will give them sexual pleasure not condoned by the infallible word of God.
Look, if you want to stamp out masturbation because the Bible says it's naughty, go ahead and say so. Then endure the scorn and ridicule that such a posture deserves.
This is why i like you Rib. You just say it as it is and stay true to what you believe.
I don't agree with most of your stuff however ;D
This i happen to agree with.
-
Because if they learn it's called a vagina - rather than a "down there" - they won't be as ashamed of having one.
Which will make them less inhibited about masturbating with it.
Which will give them sexual pleasure not condoned by the infallible word of God.
Look, if you want to stamp out masturbation because the Bible says it's naughty, go ahead and say so. Then endure the scorn and ridicule that such a posture deserves.
I agree with Ozmo: the thing I like about you is you aren't afraid to say what you believe or acknowledge how extreme your positions may be. And I also agree with Ozmo that I don't agree with most of what you say, particular the really extreme nonsense like your terrorist comments (which I find outrageous).
That said, you are way off base when it comes to sex and the Bible. (1) Sexual pleasure isn't prohibited by the Bible. Have you ever read some of the love letters in the Old Testament between Solomon (I think it was him) and one of his women? (2) the Bible doesn't talk about masturbation.
-
This is why i like you Rib. You just say it as it is and stay true to what you believe.
I don't agree with most of your stuff however ;D
This i happen to agree with.
3:10 into the clip...
Keepin' it real!!! 8)
-Hedge
-
3:10 into the clip...
Keepin' it real!!! 8)
-Hedge
"You're not supposed to go to jail you low expectation having Mutha Fucka". ;D
-
3:10 into the clip...
Keepin' it real!!! 8)
-Hedge
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I agree with Ozmo: the thing I like about you is you aren't afraid to say what you believe or acknowledge how extreme your positions may be. And I also agree with Ozmo that I don't agree with most of what you say, particular the really extreme nonsense like your terrorist comments (which I find outrageous).
That said, you are way off base when it comes to sex and the Bible. (1) Sexual pleasure isn't prohibited by the Bible. Have you ever read some of the love letters in the Old Testament between Solomon (I think it was him) and one of his women? (2) the Bible doesn't talk about masturbation.
I think Rib is hilarious and I love the sardonic sense of humor!
Btw... Beach Bum, isn't there reference in the bible to the unacceptability of "spilling one's seed on the ground?"
-
You're missing the point.
To start censor the word "vagina" in the first place, because there are minors in the audience?
WTF? ???
Prudeness gone wild.
I salute these kids for revolting against the system, taking a stand against censorship.
They're essentially fighting for the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, just like the fathers of the constitution did.
-Hedge
Nah, I don't think I'm missing the point. I can see where the school would have reservations about open mic performance material...and I don't think I'd drag my kid to see the Ginie Monologues... however brilliant it is. The school said that had the girls wanted to put on a performance of the play in its entirety and advertised it as such... they would have agreed. In fact, there are lots of high schools that put on the performance for Valentine's Day every year all across the continent. So it wasn't a question of censorship, per se. Just the forum.
Perhaps you're just arguing that the States is more puritanical regarding sexual matters than other parts of the world. In that, you are correct, and you are correct in attributing this to the influence of the religious right.
Anyway, no harm, no foul. The girls got a one-day detention, and in exchange they got to talk to the author of Ginie Monologues and world-wide publicity. I hope at least one of them fast-tracks a career in the arts out of this!
-
I thought playing the pork piccolo was condemned as "the sin of Onan", etc.
Apparently, it's slightly more complicated.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm
-
I think Rib is hilarious and I love the sardonic sense of humor!
Btw... Beach Bum, isn't there reference in the bible to the unacceptability of "spilling one's seed on the ground?"
Deedee I recall reading something about the "seed" reference, but it has been a while. I'll look for it when I get home tonight (after Lost). Haven't replaced the battery on my e-Bible in the office.
I don't recall ever really being taught anything about masturbation growing up, and I spent about 11 years in a private Christian school and my entire life in church. That doesn't mean it hasn't been "taught" by certain segments of Christianity, but I have no experience with any of that kind of teaching.
-
8)
8) 8)
-
Look, if you want to stamp out masturbation because the Bible says it's naughty, go ahead and say so. Then endure the scorn and ridicule that such a posture deserves.
Where exactly in the Bible does it say you're not allowed to masturbate, Ribonucleic?
-
That's not important. The point is that this censorship had absolutely no connection with liberal political correctness whatsoever, as you claimed. In point of fact, most of the censorship taking place in schools across the US is encouraged, loudly, by the religious right. Anyone who thinks overwise, is not well-informed on the subject
-
That's not important. The point is that this censorship had absolutely no connection with liberal political correctness whatsoever, as you claimed. In point of fact, most of the censorship taking place in schools across the US is encouraged, loudly, by the religious right. Anyone who thinks overwise, is not well-informed on the subject
Excuse me? Are you talking to me?
Have you disproved that it was not, in fact, Leftists (not liberals, as you say) that caused this to occur? Am I to assume you polled the instigators as to their socio/political agenda?
You also have not proved it was the religious Right.
And thanks for the ol' 240 'you're-not-well-informed-but-I-can't-show-you-why' statement.
-
Excuse me? Are you talking to me?
Have you disproved that it was not, in fact, Leftists (not liberals, as you say) that caused this to occur? Am I to assume you polled the instigators as to their socio/political agenda?
You also have not proved it was the religious Right.
And thanks for the ol' 240 'you're-not-well-informed-but-I-can't-show-you-why' statement.
Nice to see you pointing out the distinction between Leftists and liberals.
-Hedge
-
I don't recall ever really being taught anything about masturbation growing up
Me either... I had to figure it out on my own. Fortunately, ...I'm a quick study. ;D :P
-
That's not important. The point is that this censorship had absolutely no connection with liberal political correctness whatsoever, as you claimed. In point of fact, most of the censorship taking place in schools across the US is encouraged, loudly, by the religious right. Anyone who thinks overwise, is not well-informed on the subject
That's debatable Deedee. There is a lot of censorship when it comes to religious expression in schools (not talking about school prayer). Someone (was it me?) posted a story the other day about a kid who couldn't wear a Jesus costume at school. That kind of censorship is done by liberals, not conservatives.
-
Me either... I had to figure it out on my own. Fortunately, ...I'm a quick study. ;D :P
LOL. ;D
-
That's debatable Deedee. There is a lot of censorship when it comes to religious expression in schools (not talking about school prayer). Someone (was it me?) posted a story the other day about a kid who couldn't wear a Jesus costume at school. That kind of censorship is done by liberals, not conservatives.
Spot on, it's the Left that indulges in the removal of free speech. Christianity was the cornerstone for democracy and freedom of expression.
-
Spot on, it's the Left that indulges in the removal of free speech. Christianity was the cornerstone for democracy and freedom of expression.
At the same time, you will see many Christian Conservatives pushing to get prayer and Christianity into regular classes.
It goes both ways.
I'm for a secular society, where religion is kept at home.
Religion should never be allowed into schools either.
BRUCE, you would be surprised how big following Intelligent Design has among Christian Conservatives in the USA.
IMO, the Religious radicalisation of the Republican Party may very well be its downfall. :'(
-Hedge
-
Spot on, it's the Left that indulges in the removal of free speech. Christianity was the cornerstone for democracy and freedom of expression.
The left is also responsible for "thought crimes." Definitely a partisan angle, on both sides, when it comes to censorship.
-
Excuse me? Are you talking to me?
Have you disproved that it was not, in fact, Leftists (not liberals, as you say) that caused this to occur? Am I to assume you polled the instigators as to their socio/political agenda?
You also have not proved it was the religious Right.
And thanks for the ol' 240 'you're-not-well-informed-but-I-can't-show-you-why' statement.
Yes, silly bunt, this time I'm talking to you.
I think you need to look up the meaning of political correctness. The reason for the censorship was of a moral nature. It's not the same thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the correct labeling of a female bodypart. Vagina is not a dirty word. It is not offensive to women to hear their vaginas being called a vagina. That's why those girls wanted to shout it from the stage. That's why the liberal author wrote and called her work the Vagina Monologues. It's self-evident that this is not an issue of political correctness at all. Are you saying Bruce, that the vagina is a bad word and it offends you?
-
Spot on, it's the Left that indulges in the removal of free speech. Christianity was the cornerstone for democracy and freedom of expression.
What a ridiculous statement.
-
At the same time, you will see many Christian Conservatives pushing to get prayer and Christianity into regular classes.
It goes both ways.
I'm for a secular society, where religion is kept at home.
Religion should never be allowed into schools either.
BRUCE, you would be surprised how big following Intelligent Design has among Christian Conservatives in the USA.
IMO, the Religious radicalisation of the Republican Party may very well be its downfall. :'(
-Hedge
I disagree, Hedge. I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in God, but I do feel the belief system does have a place in education systems of predominately Christian societies like the US. No one should be forced to believe in any one piety, however, for the majority that do, both sides can be presented. Pretending most people in the US aren't following the word of Christ isn't an effective means to dealing with religion. For me, it's important the desires of the majority are at least represented; thus allowing the student to make an informed decision.
As for the 'religious radicalisation' of the Republican Party, well, I certainly don't see things that way.
Christianity is an excellent belief system that encourages freedom of expression and capitalistic ideals. Even as an Agnostic, I can have faith in the overall good that is created by Christianity in the West.
-
The left is also responsible for "thought crimes." Definitely a partisan angle, on both sides, when it comes to censorship.
Yes, Orwell was magnificent and instrumental in noticing this in the Left and bringing it to the attention of the wider community.
-
Yes, silly bunt, this time I'm talking to you.
I think you need to look up the meaning of political correctness. The reason for the censorship was of a moral nature. It's not the same thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the correct labeling of a female bodypart. Vagina is not a dirty word. It is not offensive to women to hear their vaginas being called a vagina. That's why those girls wanted to shout it from the stage. That's why the liberal author wrote and called her work the Vagina Monologues. It's self-evident that this is not an issue of political correctness at all. Are you saying Bruce, that the vagina is a bad word and it offends you?
You clearly have comprehension issues. Have I not condemned this banning?
-
You clearly have comprehension issues. Have I not condemned this banning?
No dearest, it is you who has comprehension issues. Did you even read the statement put out by the school? The girls were punished (one day detention) because they lied to the faculty. They said they were not going to do something, then did it anyway. I don't know, but where I come from, lying has always had consequences attached.
The girls were not prohibited from expressing their right to freedom of speech in that the school would have been willing to accomodate the play in its entirety if it were advertised as such. So there was in effect, no censoring or banning of the material in a larger sense... in particular, usage of the word vagina.
YOU are the one claiming that this is an issue of political correctness. It isn't. It's a moral issue. And of course, once again it is you who is so quick to claim, (without knowledge of circumstances) that this is an issue of right versus left. It isn't.
-
No dearest, it is you who has comprehension issues. Did you even read the statement put out by the school? The girls were punished (one day detention) because they lied to the faculty. They said they were not going to do something, then did it anyway. I don't know, but where I come from, lying has always had consequences attached.
The girls were not prohibited from expressing their right to freedom of speech in that the school would have been willing to accomodate the play in its entirety if it were advertised as such. So there was in effect, no censoring or banning of the material in a larger sense... in particular, usage of the word vagina.
YOU are the one claiming that this is an issue of political correctness. It isn't. It's a moral issue. And of course, once again it is you who is so quick to claim, (without knowledge of circumstances) that this is an issue of right versus left. It isn't.
Weren't you the one that blamed the religious-Right for this crusade against female genitalia?
-
Weren't you the one that blamed the religious-Right for this crusade against female genitalia?
Actually in my very first post on this thread, I said that the girls were punished for lying. Look at your subsequent posts. I was merely responding to your insistence that it's the "left" which censors and bans and used this case as an example for your claim. (It seems to me that you use the words "left" and "liberal" interchangeably, whatever serves your whim of the moment.) I then pointed out to you that in actuality, it is more often than not the religious right which objects to any discussion of sexuality taking place in schools. If you are unaware of this, I suggest you read up on it before you come to any more conclusions.
-
Actually in my very first post on this thread, I said that the girls were punished for lying. Look at your subsequent posts. I was merely responding to your insistence that it's the "left" which censors and bans and used this case as an example for your claim. (It seems to me that you use the words "left" and "liberal" interchangeably, whatever serves your whim of the moment.)
It's humorous you attack me for doing this, when it was, in fact, you that used the words interchangeably. I have not, and do not.
Where I come from, Liberal is the name given to our Conservative Government, which is just one of the reasons why I don't use it in tandem with 'Left'.
-
That's debatable Deedee. There is a lot of censorship when it comes to religious expression in schools (not talking about school prayer). Someone (was it me?) posted a story the other day about a kid who couldn't wear a Jesus costume at school. That kind of censorship is done by liberals, not conservatives.
I was talking about sexuality. As I said earlier, labeling a woman's vagina as such is not offensive, nor is it politically incorrect. It is in fact, the politically correct way to address a woman's private parts in a public forum.
It would however have been politically incorrect to call a vagina something which might have denigrated women, or made them feel excluded or lesser in some way.
-
It's humorous you attack me for doing this, when it was, in fact, you that used the words interchangeably. I have not, and do not.
Where I come from, Liberal is the name given to our Conservative Government, which is just one of the reasons why I don't use it in tandem with 'Left'.
You dismiss anyone with liberal leanings as "leftist." It's fairly obvious to everyone here that you do that.
There is no socialist/fascist movement with any clout in the US. No fascist movement has any political power to censor or ban anything. There are basically only two political affiliations to choose from, republican and democrat. So when you refer to the "left" with regard to US politics, who are you referring to? Everyone here infers that you mean liberals.
-
I was talking about sexuality. As I said earlier, labeling a woman's vagina as such is not offensive, nor is it politically incorrect. It is in fact, the politically correct way to address a woman's private parts in a public forum.
It would however have been politically incorrect to call a vagina something which might have denigrated women, or made them feel excluded or lesser in some way.
I was just referring to these comments: "In point of fact, most of the censorship taking place in schools across the US is encouraged, loudly, by the religious right. Anyone who thinks overwise, is not well-informed on the subject."
I think it's an overstatement to say censorship in schools is done mostly by the religious right. Most of the censorship that I hear/read about in the schools involves either religious expression or something PC-related. I think I (or someone else) posted a story the other day about the kid who was punished for using the word "gay." This kind of stuff, along with the paranoia about religion, happens far too often.
-
Where did this all go?
Typically the conservative Christians censor anything sexual while liberals try to take anything religous out of schools.
Chances are this was decided by some Conservative with a religous leaning. it's not likely it was a liberal.
And from what i read, it seems they had some obligation to cater to the audience of parents and younger children. In others words: political correctness.
-
Where did this all go?
Typically the conservative Christians censor anything sexual while liberals try to take anything religous out of schools.
Chances are this was decided by some Conservative with a religous leaning. it's not likely it was a liberal.
And from what i read, it seems they had some obligation to cater to the audience of parents and younger children. In others words: political correctness.
I don't think Christian conservatives try to censor anything sexual. They just advocate taking a different approach to teaching sex ed (i.e., abstinence over condoms).
-
Where did this all go?
Typically the conservative Christians censor anything sexual while liberals try to take anything religous out of schools.
Chances are this was decided by some Conservative with a religous leaning. it's not likely it was a liberal.
And from what i read, it seems they had some obligation to cater to the audience of parents and younger children. In others words: political correctness.
No I would say that catering to the audience of parents with younger children falls under the category of keeping age-inappropriate material from children... that falls under the heading of sexuality-based censorship. I would lump that with sex education. Political correctness refers to a precept that one group of people should not be made to feel less than others.
-
I was just referring to these comments: "In point of fact, most of the censorship taking place in schools across the US is encouraged, loudly, by the religious right. Anyone who thinks overwise, is not well-informed on the subject."
I think it's an overstatement to say censorship in schools is done mostly by the religious right. Most of the censorship that I hear/read about in the schools involves either religious expression or something PC-related. I think I (or someone else) posted a story the other day about the kid who was punished for using the word "gay." This kind of stuff, along with the paranoia about religion, happens far too often.
That's why I explained later that I was referring to sexuality-based censorship.
Btw... I doubt that any Christian conservative school would ever allow the Vagina Monologues to be enacted on school grounds.
-
I don't think Christian conservatives try to censor anything sexual. They just advocate taking a different approach to teaching sex ed (i.e., abstinence over condoms).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right)
read under issues:
Opposition to sex education classes in public schools. A spectrum of views exist, from
* advocation of no sex education in public schools to
* advocation of abstinence to
* advocation of chastity in concert with cautions about the purpose of advertising
i probably could dig up more stuff elsewhere but i don;t have the motivation for it.
-
No I would say that catering to the audience of parents with younger children falls under the category of keeping age-inappropriate material from children... that falls under the heading of sexuality-based censorship. I would lump that with sex education. Political correctness refers to a precept that one group of people should not be made to feel less than others.
ok, makes sense.
(that's what i really meant ;D)
-
ok, makes sense.
(that's what i really meant ;D)
Lol! ;D
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right)
read under issues:
Opposition to sex education classes in public schools. A spectrum of views exist, from
* advocation of no sex education in public schools to
* advocation of abstinence to
* advocation of chastity in concert with cautions about the purpose of advertising
i probably could dig up more stuff elsewhere but i don;t have the motivation for it.
So the spectrum of views (according to the person who compiled this information) ranges from "no sex education," to teaching abstinence, to "chastity" and "cautions." The "no sex education" part supports the point you just made, but not the rest. Abstinence, chastity, etc. are forms of sex education.
I think we might have different definitions of sex ed? I think teaching a kid about sex, but giving them certain rules (for instance, wait till you’re married), is sex ed.
-
So the spectrum of views (according to the person who compiled this information) ranges from "no sex education," to teaching abstinence, to "chastity" and "cautions." The "no sex education" part supports the point you just made, but not the rest. Abstinence, chastity, etc. are forms of sex education.
I think we might have different definitions of sex ed? I think teaching a kid about sex, but giving them certain rules (for instance, wait till you’re married), is sex ed.
yep perhaps we have different definitions,
I'm just saying that not allowing someone to say vagina sounds like something the religious right would do. It doesn't sound like something the liberal left would do.
-
yep perhaps we have different definitions,
I'm just saying that not allowing someone to say vagina sounds like something the religious right would do. It doesn't sound like something the liberal left would do.
Not allowing someone to say vagina is stupid.
I think you're assuming abstinence education means you don't talk about sex. I'm not sure how other parents do it, but I have very explicit, abstinence-based sex education discussions with my kids. Haven't had the birds and bees talk with my little one (her day is coming soon), but the other three know what everything is, how everything works, how and why people have sex, etc.
-
btw... not sure if you guys are aware of what the Vagina Monologues are all about. I loved it, most women do, :D but I can see where the school might have some misgivings about how the material was handled.
I Was Twelve, My Mother Slapped Me: a chorus describing many young women's and girls' first menstrual period.
My Angry Vagina, in which a woman humorously rants about injustices wrought against the vagina, such as tampons, douches, and the tools used by OB/GYNs
My Vagina Was My Village, a monologue compiled from the testimonies of Bosnian women subjected to rape camps.
The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could, in which a woman recalls memories of traumatic sexual experiences in her childhood and a self-described "positive healing" sexual experience in her adolescent years with an older woman. In the original version, she is 13, but later versions would change her age to 16. This particular skit has sparked numerous controversies and criticisms due to its content (see below).
The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy, in which a dominatrix for women discusses the intriguing details of her career and her love of giving women pleasure. In several performances it often comes at the end of the play, literally climaxing with a vocal demonstration of a "triple orgasm."
Because He Liked to Look At It, in which a woman describes how she came to love her vagina because of a sexual experience with a man who was in awe of vaginas.
I Was There In The Room, a monologue in which Eve Ensler describes the birth of her granddaughter.
-
Dude . . . . :-X
I remember the one and only time one of my girls asked me a question about her menstrual cycle. I told her: "talk to the hand. I don't do periods. Go talk to your mother." :)
-
Dude . . . . :-X
I remember the one and only time one of my girls asked me a question about her menstrual cycle. I told her: "talk to the hand. I don't do periods. Go talk to your mother." :)
Lol! I got the same from my father.
-
I don't think Christian conservatives try to censor anything sexual. They just advocate taking a different approach to teaching sex ed (i.e., abstinence over condoms).
christian conservatives as a group are not really in a position to censor anything in society at large but they do use their various groups to exert pressure to push their view about sex and sexuality on society.
Here's one example from a couple of years ago:
Conservative Christians Protest Movie on Kinsey
Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based broadcasting empire of psychologist James Dobson, has been working for nearly two years -- ever since it learned that director Bill Condon was planning to make the film -- to enlist scholars outside the evangelical Christian community to help "debunk" Kinsey's research, Hamrick said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2472-2004Nov21.html
-
christian conservatives as a group are not really in a position to censor anything in society at large but they do use their various groups to exert pressure to push their view about sex and sexuality on society.
Here's one example from a couple of years ago:
Conservative Christians Protest Movie on Kinsey
Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based broadcasting empire of psychologist James Dobson, has been working for nearly two years -- ever since it learned that director Bill Condon was planning to make the film -- to enlist scholars outside the evangelical Christian community to help "debunk" Kinsey's research, Hamrick said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2472-2004Nov21.html
Shocking. This post would seem to directly refute the point that Christian Conservatives don't try to sensor anything sexual.
Truly truly shocking.
-
Shocking. This post would seem to directly refute the point that Christian Conservatives don't try to sensor anything sexual.
Truly truly shocking.
Here's some christ inspired advice from Dr. Dobson on how to make sure your kid doesn't grow up to be gay:
"Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger"
-
He'd get faster results from giving his a Playboy mag. ;D
-
Here's some christ inspired advice from Dr. Dobson on how to make sure your kid doesn't grow up to be gay:
"Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger"
WTF. Is that real or is that a parody?
I hope it's a parody.
-
WTF. Is that real or is that a parody?
I hope it's a parody.
that is completely f'ng real
here's the link: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm
you need to scroll down to ~ the middle of the page (at least that's how it appears on my monitor)
-
that is completely f'ng real
here's the link: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm
you need to scroll down to ~ the middle of the page (at least that's how it appears on my monitor)
OMG, you were right, it's completely real. :o
Reading that made me a little sick to my stomach. I can't even fathom anyone thinking that idiocy is real.
The title is just, WOW. "Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?"
-
OMG, you were right, it's completely real. :o
Reading that made me a little sick to my stomach. I can't even fathom anyone thinking that idiocy is real.
The title is just, WOW. "Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?"
try to fathom millions of Americans listening to this guy's advice on all sorts of topics
-
try to fathom millions of Americans listening to this guy's advice on all sorts of topics
A sad and pathetic flock of sheep following the sheep herder.
I still can't get over that title. As if homosexuality is an ear infection or a head cold. Something that a little medicine can cure or a little preventative action can stop from happening.
Pound a square peg into a square hole with your son? Take a shower with your son so that he can see your penis is bigger than his? WTF.
There are some effed up people living in this world.
-
christian conservatives as a group are not really in a position to censor anything in society at large but they do use their various groups to exert pressure to push their view about sex and sexuality on society.
Here's one example from a couple of years ago:
Conservative Christians Protest Movie on Kinsey
Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based broadcasting empire of psychologist James Dobson, has been working for nearly two years -- ever since it learned that director Bill Condon was planning to make the film -- to enlist scholars outside the evangelical Christian community to help "debunk" Kinsey's research, Hamrick said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2472-2004Nov21.html
I don't blame him. This is a good thing. Dr. Dobson disagrees with Kinsey and wants to provide alternative evidence. Providing an alternative viewpoint, pointing our junk science, and/or "debunking" research certainly isn't censorship.
-
Here's some christ inspired advice from Dr. Dobson on how to make sure your kid doesn't grow up to be gay:
"Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger"
And the problem with this is . . . ? Boys and girls are different. You cannot raise them the same way. He's absolutely right about that. Most people who have sons and daughters understand this. I use very different approaches with my son and daughters.
But I did teach my son how to use an iron and ironing board for the first time tonight. How gay is that? :-\
And regarding homosexuality, I think (with admittedly no scientific support), a boy's relationship with his father plays a huge role in the boy's development, masculinity, and possibly homosexuality. I think the lack of a strong father in the home is responsible for a host of problems, including increased crime, the lack of civility, the almost complete disappearance of true gentlemen . . . possibly increased homosexuality.
-
I don't blame him. This is a good thing. Dr. Dobson disagrees with Kinsey and wants to provide alternative evidence. Providing an alternative viewpoint, pointing our junk science, and/or "debunking" research certainly isn't censorship.
what if the alternative viewpoint is even junkier science?
-
try to fathom millions of Americans listening to this guy's advice on all sorts of topics
lol. Tell me about it. :D I listen to him all the time, like millions of other Americans. I've read his books. He's terrific. I don't always agree with him (e.g., the Terry Schiavo matter), but he has been real blessing to me as a parent. We're lucky to have him.
-
what if the alternative viewpoint is even junkier science?
Present them both.
-
And the problem with this is . . . ? Boys and girls are different. You cannot raise them the same way. He's absolutely right about that. Most people who have sons and daughters understand this. I use very different approaches with my son and daughters.
But I did teach my son how to use an iron and ironing board for the first time tonight. How gay is that? :-\
And regarding homosexuality, I think (with admittedly no scientific support), a boy's relationship with his father plays a huge role in the boy's development, masculinity, and possibly homosexuality. I think the lack of a strong father in the home is responsible for a host of problems, including increased crime, the lack of civility, the almost complete disappearance of true gentlemen . . . possibly increased homosexuality.
nothing is gay about learning how to use an iron
who said it was gay?
did you shower with your son so he could be sure to see that your penis was larger than his .... and therefore.... be straight?
-
Present them both.
who says there are just two?
and how will we decide the hierarchy of value?
I know how I would but what if you don't agree?
-
nothing is gay about learning how to use an iron
who said it was gay?
did you shower with your son so he could be sure to see that your penis was larger than his .... and therefore.... be straight?
I was joking about it being gay. I've been ironing my own clothes (except for the stuff I take to the cleaners) since my sister taught me how to iron as a little kid. I remember it used to take me 45 minutes to iron one set of BDUs when I was in the Army.
And where did Dr. Dobson say you have to show your son your penis so he won't be gay?
-
who says there are just two?
and how will we decide the hierarchy of value?
I know how I would but what if you don't agree?
I didn't. If there is one method that is clearly superior to the other, then present the stronger method. If there are legitimate questions about multiple methods, present them all. If one is clearly junk science, keep it out.
What are we talking about anyway? If the issue is censorship, the quote talking about debunking Kinsey is not censorship.
-
I was joking about it being gay. I've been ironing my own clothes (except for the stuff I take to the cleaners) since my sister taught me how to iron as a little kid. I remember it used to take me 45 minutes to iron one set of BDUs when I was in the Army.
And where did Dr. Dobson say you have to show your son your penis so he won't be gay?
this is the link to Dobson's advice on how treat and (presumably even better) prevent homosexuality.
It might be closer to 3/5ths than 1/2 down the page. I don't know how to highlight it inside the link but I did excerpt the paragraph. The rest of it is equally nutty (IMO)
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm
-
I think Rib is hilarious and I love the sardonic sense of humor!
Btw... Beach Bum, isn't there reference in the bible to the unacceptability of "spilling one's seed on the ground?"
Found it: Genesis 38:8-10. Onan was told to sleep with his (I think) dead brother's wife. He had sex with her but "spilled" his load on the ground and lost his life in the process. Has nothing to do with masturbation.
-
I didn't. If there is one method that is clearly superior to the other, then present the stronger method. If there are legitimate questions about multiple methods, present them all. If one is clearly junk science, keep it out.
What are we talking about anyway? If the issue is censorship, the quote talking about debunking Kinsey is not censorship.
granted the excerpt from Dobson has veered off the point of conservative christians trying to "censor anything sexual"
What if I think Dobson is just junk and not even science?
-
Nothing like taking a young boy into the shower and showing him a fully mature nude male body, and a fully mature male nude penis in all it's magnificent glory. Yep, ...nothing like creating questions, curiosity and fascination with the naked male anatomy at a very young age to drive all possible thoughts of homosexuality out of the lad. ::)
-
lol. Tell me about it. :D I listen to him all the time, like millions of other Americans. I've read his books. He's terrific. I don't always agree with him (e.g., the Terry Schiavo matter), but he has been real blessing to me as a parent. We're lucky to have him.
I'm guessing this time you're serious
-
this is the link to Dobson's advice on how treat and (presumably even better) prevent homosexuality.
It might be closer to 3/5ths than 1/2 down the page. I don't know how to highlight it inside the link but I did excerpt the paragraph. The rest of it is equally nutty (IMO)
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm
Okay. I read it. He doesn't say showing your son your penis will prevent homosexuality.
Great read though.
-
I'm guessing this time you're serious
This time? I read the link with Dr. Dobson's discussion of homosexuality and his analysis makes sense to me. I'm a big fan of his.
-
granted the excerpt from Dobson has veered off the point of conservative christians trying to "censor anything sexual"
What if I think Dobson is just junk and not even science?
Then you think Dobson is just junk and not even science. That was easy. :)
-
This time? I read the link with Dr. Dobson's discussion of homosexuality and his analysis makes sense to me. I'm a big fan of his.
yes this time becaue just a few posts earlier you were joking about ironing being gay
-
Okay. I read it. He doesn't say showing your son your penis will prevent homosexuality.
Great read though.
BB - taken completely out of context you are correct. Dobson does not expclicity say that in order to prevent your son from being gay you need to show him your penis.
However - the title of article is - Can Homosexuality be TREATED and PREVENTED - and the part about showering with your son so he can see your adult penis is part of an overall prescription to affirm his maleness for the purpose of, presumably, the treatment and/or prevention of GAYNESS
Here's another gem from the same article:
The most important message I can offer to you is that there is no such thing as a "gay child" or a "gay teen." [But] left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75 percent chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.14
He's of course referencing the highly scientific study called: A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
left "untreated"?
I wonder what the treatment is - maybe more time in the shower staring at your dad prick or perhaps more time in the workshop pounding square pegs in square holes. I wonder if the treatment would work better or worse with a round peg in a round hole? Maybe Dobson should contact Harvard Medical School to see if they can conduct a study on square vs round pegs in the treatment and prevention of homosexuality in children
What about the other 25% of those kids where the "treatment" doesn't work. What are they supposed to do.
Dobson would actually have to include some science in his stuff before he could even rise to the level of junk
-
BB - taken completely out of context you are correct. Dobson does not expclicity say that in order to prevent your son from being gay you need to show him your penis.
However - the title of article is - Can Homosexuality be TREATED and PREVENTED - and the part about showering with your son so he can see your adult penis is part of an overall prescription to affirm his maleness for the purpose of, presumably, the treatment and/or prevention of GAYNESS
Here's another gem from the same article:
The most important message I can offer to you is that there is no such thing as a "gay child" or a "gay teen." [But] left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75 percent chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.14
He's of course referencing the highly scientific study called: A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
left "untreated"?
I wonder what the treatment is - maybe more time in the shower staring at your dad prick or perhaps more time in the workshop pounding square pegs in square holes. I wonder if the treatment would work better or worse with a round peg in a round hole? Maybe Dobson should contact Harvard Medical School to see if they can conduct a study on square vs round pegs in the treatment and prevention of homosexuality in children
What about the other 25% of those kids where the "treatment" doesn't work. What are they supposed to do.
Dobson would actually have to include some science in his stuff before he could even rise to the level of junk
This guy Dobson CLEARLY implies that showering with your son in order for him to see your larger penis is a means of prevention to being gay. How it can be interpreted any other way I have no idea.
He also says that rough housing and the ubiquitous "pound a square peg into a square hole" are means of prevention to being gay.
Your final sentence sums it up nicely.
Did you read that part about "prehomosexuality"?
Mark appears to have a condition we might call "prehomosexuality," and unless he and his entire family are guided by someone who knows how to assist, the probabilities are very great that he will go on to experience a homosexual lifestyle.
What do we know about this disorder? Well first, it is a disorder, despite the denials of the American Psychiatric Association.
This guy's a piece of work.
-
yes this time becaue just a few posts earlier you were joking about ironing being gay
Isn't it? :D I was joking about me teaching my son to iron being gay. Maybe "sissy" is a better word. I don't think sissy = gay. But I do worry about that boy, because my wife constantly has him in the kitchen teaching him how to cook and all. :-\ (I'm joking about him learning how to cook possibly causing him to be gay.)
-
BB - taken completely out of context you are correct. Dobson does not expclicity say that in order to prevent your son from being gay you need to show him your penis.
However - the title of article is - Can Homosexuality be TREATED and PREVENTED - and the part about showering with your son so he can see your adult penis is part of an overall prescription to affirm his maleness for the purpose of, presumably, the treatment and/or prevention of GAYNESS
Here's another gem from the same article:
The most important message I can offer to you is that there is no such thing as a "gay child" or a "gay teen." [But] left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75 percent chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.14
He's of course referencing the highly scientific study called: A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
left "untreated"?
I wonder what the treatment is - maybe more time in the shower staring at your dad prick or perhaps more time in the workshop pounding square pegs in square holes. I wonder if the treatment would work better or worse with a round peg in a round hole? Maybe Dobson should contact Harvard Medical School to see if they can conduct a study on square vs round pegs in the treatment and prevention of homosexuality in children
What about the other 25% of those kids where the "treatment" doesn't work. What are they supposed to do.
Dobson would actually have to include some science in his stuff before he could even rise to the level of junk
Straw he believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and is not genetic. I agree with him. As do many others. What is "junk" is the argument that homosexuality is genetic, because there is no science to support this belief.
-
Isn't it? :D I was joking about me teaching my son to iron being gay. Maybe "sissy" is a better word. I don't think sissy = gay. But I do worry about that boy, because my wife constantly has him in the kitchen teaching him how to cook and all. :-\ (I'm joking about him learning how to cook possibly causing him to be gay.)
sorry, sometimes I have a hard time picking up on irony in written form (seriously), and especially late at night. I am a bit depressed to find out that you take Dobson seriously. I find this guy to be a complete loon and I'm always baffled by seemingly intelligent people who not only give this guy a pass but actually take him seriously (no offense).
-
Straw he believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and is not genetic. I agree with him. As do many others. What is "junk" is the argument that homosexuality is genetic, because there is no science to support this belief.
so it's junk to believe that homosexuality is genetic therefore it must only be a choice?
And that conclusion is not equally junk?
Do you remember when you chose to be straight?
btw - key word - belief
He starts with the proposition that it's a sin (based on his belief system) and then goes on to provide a very weird and down right creepy prescription to "cure" people.
who knows if it's genetic or not? Even if in the future this is proven conclusively do you think such proof would even matter to guys like Dobson? Their beliefs seem to be immune to evidence.
BTW - my personal belief is that I couldn't care less if it's genetic or a choice. It's clearly part of the human condition and as long as it's among consenting adults - Who Cares? The same goes for heterosexuals - consenting adults, none of my business.
If you're againts homosexuality then you clearly just have to choose not to be gay right? If you're still having gay thoughts then just go shower with your dad and spend your evenings pounding square pegs into square holes and eventually you'll want to have sex with women (assuming you're a man of course). I wonder if girls follow this advice if they'll want to strap-on and have sex with a woman. I suppose that would have to be the subject of another scientific study
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread from it's original theme which I think was about vaginas.
We all know that it's OK to love vaginas (unless you're a girl of course - then you've made the wrong choice) ;D
-
sorry, sometimes I have a hard time picking up on irony in written form (seriously), and especially late at night. I am a bit depressed to find out that you take Dobson seriously. I find this guy to be a complete loon and I'm always baffled by seemingly intelligent people who not only give this guy a pass but actually take him seriously (no offense).
Yes I take him seriously. Like I said, I've read his books and listened to him on the radio many times. This week in fact. I don't agree with everything he says, but when it comes to child rearing he is pretty much right on the money. I'd be surprised if you actually listened to him and came away believing he is a loon. You probably wouldn't agree with what he says, but he's not by any means a nut.
-
so it's junk to believe that homosexuality is genetic therefore it must only be a choice?
And that conclusion is not equally junk?
Do you remember when you chose to be straight?
btw - key word - belief
He starts with the proposition that it's a sin (based on his belief system) and then goes on to provide a very weird and down right creepy prescription to "cure" people.
who knows if it's genetic or not? Even if in the future this is proven conclusively do you think such proof would even matter to guys like Dobson? Their beliefs seem to be immune to evidence.
BTW - my personal belief is that I couldn't care less if it's genetic or a choice. It's clearly part of the human condition and as long as it's among consenting adults - Who Cares? The same goes for heterosexuals - consenting adults, none of my business.
If you're againts homosexuality then you clearly just have to choose not to be gay right? If you're still having gay thoughts then just go shower with your dad and spend your evenings pounding square pegs into square holes and eventually you'll want to have sex with women (assuming you're a man of course). I wonder if girls follow this advice if they'll want to strap-on and have sex with a woman. I suppose that would have to be the subject of another scientific study
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread from it's original theme which I think was about vaginas.
We all know that it's OK to love vaginas (unless you're a girl of course - then you've made the wrong choice) ;D
It is junk to advocate that homosexuality is genetic when there is no science to support this view.
I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and Y, just like you.
You may consider his discussion of a "cure" to be weird, but the fact is there are many people who have engaged in the homosexual lifestyle and subsequently left this lifestyle.
I'm not "against" homosexuals. I disagree with the lifestyle and do not support homosexual marriage (or "civil unions"). Most of the voting public agrees. What many people do is equate a disagreement with the lifestyle to "bigotry" or "hatred." Many Christians don't help this view by engaging in the "God hates f ags" rhetoric, etc. People who truly follow Christ's teachings should not have a problem disagreeing with a lifestyle choice, but getting along with and working with those same people. Everyone has issues (and I know not everyone believes homosexuality is an "issue").
I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government. I'm going to start a thread about this one day, but our state government in Hawaii has done some wild stuff in this area, including redefining gender.
-
It is junk to advocate that homosexuality is genetic when there is no science to support this view.
I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and Y, just like you.
You may consider his discussion of a "cure" to be weird, but the fact is there are many people who have engaged in the homosexual lifestyle and subsequently left this lifestyle.
I'm not "against" homosexuals. I disagree with the lifestyle and do not support homosexual marriage (or "civil unions"). Most of the voting public agrees. What many people do is equate a disagreement with the lifestyle to "bigotry" or "hatred." Many Christians don't help this view by engaging in the "God hates f ags" rhetoric, etc. People who truly follow Christ's teachings should not have a problem disagreeing with a lifestyle choice, but getting along with and working with those same people. Everyone has issues (and I know not everyone believes homosexuality is an "issue").
I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government. I'm going to start a thread about this one day, but our state government in Hawaii has done some wild stuff in this area, including redefining gender.
I'm not saying whether is genetic or not. I have no clue.
There are many many things that we can't yet (perhaps never) adequately explain.
I am saying that you can't use the lack of evidence of the cause as proof that it's a choice
The present lack of an irrefutable genetic cause does not in any way constitute proof that it's a choice
I'm not that versed on the science so maybe you can explain how being born with an "X and a Y" makes you straight.
Are you saying that being straight is genetic? - Seriously I dont understand your point here but I'm open to the science if you'd care to explain it to me.
All that aside - Dobsons recommendations are downright creepy and weird (IMO)
To your last point - about forcing certain lifestyle choices - I assume you're talking about the christian right trying to force their beliefs into secular society at large via the government.
I can't think of any other "special interest" group that has more power, influence, and organization prowess (and $$$$'s) than conservative christians.
We've all seen the news stories of the Republican candidates trying to get the "blessing" of conservative religious leaders (if not - here's a sample: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150516/site/newsweek/) and we've all seen news stories about what the top evangelical leaders think of each candidate (another sample: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/giuliani.baptists.ap/index.html and http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070216/25860_Social_Conservatives_Lack_Top_Presidential_Pick,_Says_Evangelical_Leader.htm)
-
I'm not saying whether is genetic or not. I have no clue.
There are many many things that we can't yet (perhaps never) adequately explain.
I am saying that you can't use the lack of evidence of the cause as proof that it's a choice
The present lack of an irrefutable genetic cause does not in any way constitute proof that it's a choice
I'm not that versed on the science so maybe you can explain how being born with an "X and a Y" makes you straight.
Are you saying that being straight is genetic? - Seriously I dont understand your point here but I'm open to the science if you'd care to explain it to me.
All that aside - Dobsons recommendations are downright creepy and weird (IMO)
To your last point - about forcing certain lifestyle choices - I assume you're talking about the christian right trying to force their beliefs into secular society at large via the government.
I can't think of any other "special interest" group that has more power, influence, and organization prowess (and $$$$'s) than conservative christians.
We've all seen the news stories of the Republican candidates trying to get the "blessing" of conservative religious leaders (if not - here's a sample: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150516/site/newsweek/) and we've all seen news stories about what the top evangelical leaders think of each candidate (another sample: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/giuliani.baptists.ap/index.html and http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070216/25860_Social_Conservatives_Lack_Top_Presidential_Pick,_Says_Evangelical_Leader.htm)
Straw if there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic, how could it not be a choice?
Being born with an X and Y makes you a male instead of a female, so yes I'm saying the fact you were born a male automatically makes you a heterosexual male . . . unless you choose to start having sex with other men.
We have to agree to disagree on whether Dobson's views are "creepy." That's hyperbole IMO.
Christian conservatives are not trying to "force" their views on others. They are using the electoral process, which is what most adult Americans have the right to do. If you disagree with the legislative agenda and/or candidates supported by Christian conservatives, then go to the polls and vote. That's how our democracy works.
-
Straw if there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic, how could it not be a choice?
Being born with an X and Y makes you a male instead of a female, so yes I'm saying the fact you were born a male automatically makes you a heterosexual male . . . unless you choose to start having sex with other men.
We have to agree to disagree on whether Dobson's views are "creepy." That's hyperbole IMO.
Christian conservatives are not trying to "force" their views on others. They are using the electoral process, which is what most adult Americans have the right to do. If you disagree with the legislative agenda and/or candidates supported by Christian conservatives, then go to the polls and vote. That's how our democracy works.
you're making a specious argument here - Just because you can't prove a genetic cause does not prove it's a choice (nor does it even mean there aren't multiple and/or overlapping causes)
If I show you a magic rock that keeps tigers out of my backyard and I claim that it works because there are no tigers in my backyard would you accept that as proof?
Let's take the argument in reverse
Please show me proof being gay is a choice - if you can't does that prove it's genetic?
I don't really know where to go with your second statement. If I understand what you're saying it is that if you're born a male then are you automatically "straight" until the point that you choose to be gay. Is that it?
If so, again - you'll need to provide the proof of choice on it's own merit
would you agree that if it's OK for conservative christians to lobby for their interest then it's OK for any other group to do so.
You did write " I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government" - What's the difference? - other than you may agree with one group and not the other(s)
And - I did say that it was my opinion that Dobsons recommendations were creepy - to each his own. I assume if you have a son you'll be spending some time together in the shower and also with the wooden peg board.
-
you're making a specious argument here - Just because you can't prove a genetic cause does not prove it's a choice (nor does it even mean there aren't multiple and/or overlapping causes)
If I show you a magic rock that keeps tigers out of my backyard and I claim that it works because there are no tigers in my backyard would you accept that as proof?
Let's take the argument in reverse
Please show me proof being gay is a choice - if you can't does that prove it's genetic?
I don't really know where to go with your second statement. If I understand what you're saying it is that if you're born a male then are you automatically "straight" until the point that you choose to be gay. Is that it?
If so, again - you'll need to provide the proof of choice on it's own merit
would you agree that if it's OK for conservative christians to lobby for their interest then it's OK for any other group to do so.
You did write " I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government" - What's the difference? - other than you may agree with one group and not the other(s)
I think we're going in circles. I'm not sure what more I can say about the genetic vs. choice thing. There is no scientific proof that men have sex with men because they are genetically programmed to do so. I don't need to disprove this, which is what you're asking me to do, because there is no proof that men are genetically predisposed have sex with other men.
I have no problem whatsoever with Christians and homosexuals lobbying legislatures. I do have a problem with homosexuals trying to force homosexual marriage on society, which is why I vote against endorsing this practice. I use my vote to express my problems with their agenda, not censorship. People who have the same problem with Christian conservatives pushing certain issues should vote against those issues as well. For example, I am opposed to vouchers for public schools, because I think they violate church-state separation. Christian conservatives strongly support this issue. I support their right to lobby for vouchers, but I have voted against that issue at least once.
-
I think we're going in circles. I'm not sure what more I can say about the genetic vs. choice thing. There is no scientific proof that men have sex with men because they are genetically programmed to do so. I don't need to disprove this, which is what you're asking me to do, because there is no proof that men are genetically predisposed have sex with other men.
I have no problem whatsoever with Christians and homosexuals lobbying legislatures. I do have a problem with homosexuals trying to force homosexual marriage on society, which is why I vote against endorsing this practice. I use my vote to express my problems with their agenda, not censorship. People who have the same problem with Christian conservatives pushing certain issues should vote against those issues as well. For example, I am opposed to vouchers for public schools, because I think they violate church-state separation. Christian conservatives strongly support this issue. I support their right to lobby for vouchers, but I have voted against that issue at least once.
Even the "genetic vs choice" debate is presumptive - who's to say those are the only two options and/or that the are totally separate.
My point all along has been that you can't use the lack of proof of a purely genetic cause as the sole proof (or really any proof) of the "it's a choice" position - That is my point - plain and simple
Lack of tigers in my backyard does not prove that my tiger repelling rock is what's keeping them away
BTW - I supsect that conservative christians really don't care much about the genetic vs. choice argument. I think it's really just a smoke screen to provide shelter for their prejudice against something that their belief system tells them is a "sin" (again my opinion)