RpTheHotrod Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 I'm talking about the "good ole days" of past generations. That doesn't exist now...and it pretty much never will. I'm just sayin, this is an attempt by them to "bring it back". As for oral giving cancer, studies have shown it's true in some cases...not 100%.....a pretty small chance....but it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by Leper Messiah theres nothing wrong with monarchs we've got a pretty harmless one Assuming you're talking about living in Great Britain, the monarchs are just a pretty face put on to sooth public relations. Official decisions have been made by the Prime Minister since...forgot the year. Atleast, thats what I got from everything dealing with Tony Blair. Not to mention if the Bush's turned the US into a monarchy(and won the soon-to-follow revolution and govermental mutiny that would undoubtable follow), it would be the most horrifying thing released on the planet since the using of the atomic bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod I'm talking about the "good ole days" of past generations. That doesn't exist now...and it pretty much never will. And never did. We're fooled by the fact that they didn't TALK about sex back in the "good ole days", but they still HAD the sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 16, 2005 Author Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod As for oral giving cancer, studies have shown it's true in some cases...not 100%.....a pretty small chance....but it's there. The hell? Source? I'm sorry but that sounds like a load of crap. *shrugs* Originally posted by ET Warrior And never did. We're fooled by the fact that they didn't TALK about sex back in the "good ole days", but they still HAD the sex. and a lot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by Kain Assuming you're talking about living in Great Britain, the monarchs are just a pretty face put on to sooth public relations. Official decisions have been made by the Prime Minister since...forgot the year. Atleast, thats what I got from everything dealing with Tony Blair. Not to mention if the Bush's turned the US into a monarchy(and won the soon-to-follow revolution and govermental mutiny that would undoubtable follow), it would be the most horrifying thing released on the planet since the using of the atomic bomb. actually our Queen is the first monarch in this country to really not take a big role in the politics of the country. She is our head of state (not, as much as he likes to think so, the Prime Minister) with a great deal of power, no less in fact than any post civil war monarch. With the current Queen her policy has always been not to interfere or get involved with the Government, a move which has enabled her to avoid really seriously annoying anyone leading to the perception she is largely symbolic. When and if we get a King Charles the Third however the monarchy might become more significant again. Incidently if Charles makes it through his reign without doing anything silly he'll be the first King Charles to avoid starting any kind of internal conflict in the country. but hopefully we'll keep our sex education program intact....(such as it is, British teen pregnancy is not exactly at a low rate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith The hell? Source? I'm sorry but that sounds like a load of crap. *shrugs* and a lot of it. Feel free to look it up. Honestly don't want to right now...but that's been a known fact for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Interesting....considering my father the doctor laughed out loud when I told him that people say you can get cancer from oral sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legameboy Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18124361.500 You too could be that one in ten thousand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
•-BLaCKouT-• Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by legameboy http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18124361.500 You too could be that one in ten thousand. OMG! That's more risky than crossing the road!! But wait... Originally posted by New Scientist The risk, thankfully, is tiny. Only around 1 in 10,000 people develop oral tumours each year, and most cases are probably caused by two other popular recreational pursuits: smoking and drinking. So not even a third of those cases are caused by oral sex, so the chances are actually less than 1 in 30,000? I'm going to go and look up the statistics on winning the lottery, being gunned down by a sniper, being hit by a meteorite... oh and the statistics for contracting potentially deadly STDs resulting from a lack of education combined with a "This is wrong and there is no other way" attitude. Originally posted by ET Warrior And never did. We're fooled by the fact that they didn't TALK about sex back in the "good ole days", but they still HAD the sex. Yup. And that's what they're trying to bring back! Originally posted by InsaneSith there have ALWAYS been sluts and whores, especially in the western societies. Exactly, that's why they call it the oldest profession. Although, while I'm on the subject, if it's the oldest one, then where did the blokes get the money to pay for it? B. Needed to insert some kind of lightness in here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 That just sucks. Well, atleast for the next generation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by •-BLaCKouT-• Exactly, that's why they call it the oldest profession. Although, while I'm on the subject, if it's the oldest one, then where did the blokes get the money to pay for it? They used to trade foods and such for services. or was that a rhetorical question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
•-BLaCKouT-• Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Kinda B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Oh.... well now people know incase they really wanted to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troopr-Undr-Fir Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by ET Warrior ...back in the day promiscuity was done, it just wasn't TALKED about, it was a quiet thing. At least, back in early days of the U.S. Back in ancient civilizations anyone of high rank/standing had sex with pretty much who they wanted when they wanted. You're sounding as if you were actually there I don't see the big deal. You have your sex organs for a reason. People/kids are going to experiment wether you like it or not. You can't surpress that urge no matter how much you think you can. It is more of a matter of trust. If you actually trust that person, then you can decide what to do. And yes I do know that sex is personal, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun Sex = Good Paranoia = Bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by legameboy http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18124361.500 You too could be that one in ten thousand. Of course you'd have to be giving oral sex to someone who already HAS the papilloma virus, which means you weren't very careful about your choice in partner which is a result of poor education on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Boy, it's a good thing I bought these HIV resistant undergarments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 There is no federal quality control of the material, just the edict to teach abstinence and limit discussion of contraception to failure rates. Scary country... She is banned by law from promoting the benefits of correctly used condoms. Scary country... Teens who 'pledge' wait around 18 months longer than their peers to have sex and have fewer partners, but once the pledge is broken only 40 per cent of males use condoms compared with 60 per cent of 'non-pledgers'. Joint research by Columbia and Yale Universities found that 88 per cent of Americans between the ages of 12 and 18 who pledge abstinence do not wait until they get married to have sex, compared with 99 per cent of 'non-pledgers'. 'By 18 to 24 they catch up with their non-pledging peers in sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy rates,' said Professor Peter Bearman of Columbia University. So, pledgers = 88% x 60% = 52% unprotected nonpledgers = 99% x 40% = 39.6% unprotected My math isn't great, but that doesn't look very good results to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by toms So, pledgers = 88% x 60% = 52% unprotected nonpledgers = 99% x 40% = 39.6% unprotected My math isn't great, but that doesn't look very good results to me... Exactly why I'm against teaching abstinence only. Atleast teach safe sex hand in hand with abstinence. "Wait until you're married, but if you're going to have sex, be safe." ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Mania Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 >Religion< Just because you are able to doesn't mean you are ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Religion in government IS TEH SUXX0RZ!!111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Exactly why I'm against teaching abstinence only. Atleast teach safe sex hand in hand with abstinence. "Wait until you're married, but if you're going to have sex, be safe." ya know? yeah. then we'd have 88% x 40% = 35.2% unprotected... (i'll stop with the pointless maths now ) Personally i'm not much into the abstinence thing, but i have no problem with them teaching it IF they also accept that not everyone is gonna do it and teach sex education (as the real world understands it) as well. Not teaching about contraception is irresponsible. Putting kids OFF using contracepting is not only irresponsible, it is immoral and dangerous. (The main reason i think the catholic church is evil scum is its insistance on killing thousands of people a year in the third world by telling them condoms don't work). Having teaching the benefits of contraception be illegal just goes to show that the US is run on religious fundamentalist grounds, not on a basis of science or reason. (It isn't even illegal to talk about contraception (which would be bad enough. ) You can talk about the drawbacks of contraception, but not the benefits. Fair and balanced... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.