'Ethical Sluts' CNN Health Promotes Promiscuity, Demeans Monogamy
CNNHealth has joined the rising chorus of anti-monogamy voices in the liberal media. In a weekly blog post for “The Chart,” Dr. Ian Kerner discussed a new book called “The Gaggle,” by Jessica Massa, in which single women are encouraged to date at least three men at a time.
According to Massa, the pressure of choosing someone to commit to dissipates when there are more than two men to choose from. “As a woman, having a ‘gaggle’ (of men) provides you with a love life full of possibility,” she said. Different men can fulfill different needs and desires. Kerner succinctly summarized the premise of Massa’s book: “it’s a post dating world you’re living in, and that means you have to shed your one-to-one mind set and start thinking in terms of one to many.”
That sounds harmless enough, if a bit mercenary. But predictably for a sexologist who writes about things like how straight couples can learn a thing or two from gay ones, and the best sex toys on the market, Kerner took it further. “Nor does being single have to equal celibate,” he wrote. “It’s your love-life, so do it your way. As long as you’re open and honest with your dates -- and practice safe sex -- there’s no reason why you can’t be intimate with more than one person.” In the brave new sexual world, the only rule is safe sex.
He cited another book, titled, “The Ethical Slut,” in which women are taught how to “juggle multiple sex partners and enjoy intimacy safely and ethically.” To Kerner, the book is “groundbreaking.”
The CNN sex guru neglected to mention any repercussions of this laissez-faire lifestyle, such as the risk of STDs and the fact that multiple relationships cripples intimacy.
Kerner closed with a shot against marriage. “Marriage is wonderful for many, but it’s not the right choice for everyone.”
Authors like Massa, hyped by “experts” like Kerner, have adopted a radical approach to sexuality – one that declares that traditional monogamous relationships are nearly impossible and even possibly harmful. The Huffington Post has consistently made a mockery of monogamous relationships by promoting ‘dating sites’ like Ashley Madison, and The Today Show was comfortable broaching the topic.
- Ryan Robertson's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"Groundbreaking?"
Submitted by JeffC... on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:22pm.
More like "an author put a bunch of excuses for immoral behavior in a book and that makes the author an expert and the behavior okay."
Ethical Slut is an oxymoron
Submitted by libBuster on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:21pm.
According to the dictionary a slut is "an immoral or dissolute woman;". Using ethical is like saying "cruel kindness".
isn't this just the sexual
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:16pm.
isn't this just the sexual revolution of the 60's re-hashed...
having sex with many men within the same month or so - that's just mary tyler moore all over again...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
So does this mean I'm allowed to have my harem
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:25pm.
so I'm not chained down to just one woman?
Or is that sexist?
legally?
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:57pm.
I am not sure, but I think if you are not legally married and you don't actually register them as a harem you can keep up to three women to serve at your beck and call like Charlie Sheen did.
Good luck with that!
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:58pm.
;)
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Me Blonde?
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:06pm.
I am a happily married man.
Why the heck would I even think one second about being rich and famous, have my own tv show, live in a mansion, eating at wherever restaurant I want, Three beautiful women to..........umm where was I again? ;-)
GildedCage
Submitted by Lamdog on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:38pm.
I don't know it depends on what you call happiness? I got tired of that so called life when I was in my late twenty. At the end the day all you had is a series of meaningless relationship who upon your departure would not remember you from your bank account.
I agree
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:04pm.
It is much more important to have somebody you love and can depend on. Having a trust and a bond is priceless.
My point is if some people want to find somebody they have great sexual chemistry with as well as mental, I have no problems with that
Harem
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:04pm.
It depends on if you are currently married and your wife has a gun. If she doesn't and you start a harem, dont eat her cooking. Just a heads up.
See, those are the kinds of pointers
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:50pm.
I can't get from Weiner, Spitzer and Clinton.
Know what would make that perfect....?
Submitted by NeoKong on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:30pm.
Some drug and alcohol abuse too.
Promiscuity is a Citizens Duty
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:37pm.
So maybe the future will be "Brave New World" and not "1984".
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Huxley
Submitted by rusino on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 8:13am.
You are so right. It is an old book. It was also Prophetic. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. A beacon on the future written in 1934!
Marriage may not the right choice for everyone.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:41pm.
Yup, same with butt plugs.
It true SOL
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:54pm.
Marriage is not for everybody. Some people wait till they find the right chemistry with somebody, sometimes it takes time to find the right person, and for some that means playing the field.
Sol, So that's what's tapped N' threaded into the VP's head.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:14pm.
Left thread for sure. There are pills for that...Tryphorgetin....
19 seconds of Merchandise.. lol.
One word for lib replies... Potatoe...
You Didn't Build That.
Date
Submitted by Lamdog on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:45pm.
Maybe its me? When did dating become synonymous with sex. Someone should tune this author in to a Maury Povich show where these followed her advice and can't tell who the baby daddy is after 5 different DNA test.
They wonder why women are increasingly unhappy?
"When did dating become synonymous with sex?"
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:10pm.
Good question, Lamdog. I think that it was right after I quit dating and got married!
I happen to live in a town nowadays where "gaggles" are apparently very popular. The LuGButT's showed the way for the straight population of what used to be called "swingers." (Are they still called that?) Some of us old, monogamous, boring types just refer to the guys as "lucky," and the gals as, well, I can't say because I'll cause someone pain, I'm sure.
What is really funny is that I think the whole 'arrangement" has been a setup by the LuGButT's to increase their targets of opportunity, so to speak, by creating more amoral and immoral swingers population that they (the LuGButT's) can then infiltrate and move them to the next level. They convince the straight people that you can't really be cool unless you mix gays in with your gaggle.
Is that a brilliant move or what?
Best of all, they've convinced the "straight" people involved that they aren't really gay just because they have gay relations with the LugButT's. Hey, it's just a party.
So, straight guys, I know you think that you can dish it out, but watch your back and be prepared to prove that you can take it, too!!
It is all very confusing to old straight, boring guys, but it sure is entertaining to watch some of the conflicts that develop from this sort of gaggle-action.
What my husband and I have goes far beyond sex
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:06pm.
Sex is great when you know your partner isn't a serial killer and he's not comparing you to the girl he had last night. But it's also about the whole idea of loving someone, and experiencing the good and bad times together. I couldn't have made it through the last 18 months without my husband. And I couldn't have counted on him if I knew he might walk out looking for fun with someone else. It makes me that much more devoted to him, even though he insists on watching BOR every night.
O'Reilly EVERY night?
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:52pm.
Damn, that is love.
I even go see BOR in person for him.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 4:29pm.
But on the other hand, my husband is buying me a latte from DunkinDonuts right now, so it all evens out.
Huh?
Submitted by BeanMan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:15pm.
So why buy the whole cow if you can get the milk for free, right? Or why but the whole pig if all you want is a little sausage?
After all, isn't that what dating is all about, how good someone is in bed? The other 45 or 50 years of marriage are sheer drudgery if they're not any good in bed.
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
IDontKnow
Submitted by Lamdog on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:55pm.
To judge your spouse by how good she is in bed is setting up for divorce before the ink is dry on the marriage license. Call me old fashion. I married my wife not because how good she was in bed but because I wanted to build a life together and could not imagine starting one with another. Just cause me crazy...
Here the kicker: Call me crazy I heard rumours that some women are not good in bed. I never ran into one.
Forget about class, grace, self-control and commitment.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:26pm.
Hell, those concepts are outmoded to the irresponsible, disgraceful and commitment-phobic liberal hedonist. It's all about genital gratification.
Forget that not sleeping around shows that you have grace and class, and you are discerning in your choices in life. Forget about having any degree of self-control because you're not supposed to be made to feel ashamed or guilty for behaving like a pig. Forget about sharing a loving partner to whom you pledge your fidelity. Nah. Just throw all of that out the window and hope you don't get a highly-resistant form of Gonorrhea, a resistant strain of HIV or another sexually transmitted pathogen that causes long term damage. Forget about being responsible for your own actions.
Sorry. I believe in having the class to remain true to my beautiful wife and showing the self-control to honor the commitment I made to her to remain faithful even in times of the worst adversity.
Sad commentary that any mainstream news organization would reduce humanity to a set of genital interactions.
Sorry Doctor
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:40pm.
Nobody is not saying having a happy home life is wrong. Nobody is saying you should not be faithful to your spouse if that is what makes you happy.
As far as grace and class sir. I find somebody with grace and class is Rush Limbaugh. He is on top of his field, he is responsible for his own actions and he is miles ahead of his competition and has nothing to ashamed of.
He is also a man that has had multiple wives and has been caught with Viagra. Now I cannot prove Limbaugh was having sex with more than one women at the same time, but he was obviously having a sex life which is called fornication with what folks like you find equally repulsive.
Not all conservatives think like that The ones that preach freedom and equality, but have such words like pigs to describe people they disagree with. I think if Romney becomes President, he will no longer have to placate social conservatives, which in my book is good thing.
Oh puhleeze.....
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:40pm.
Shawn,
Rush Limbaugh was "caught" with Viagra? It's a legally approved and prescribed medication in the United States. Being "caught" with it is a rather absurd observation on your part.
I always have been a very strong Catholic, and to my personal beliefs (along with many others on this board) that means sex outside of marriage is a no go. Overindulgence in many other things is also a no go, but not just to my personal beliefs but my medical training as well.
As for the "pigs", self-control means self-control in all urges and not just in sex. It means overindulgence to the point of physical and/or psychological harm in anything. Piggish behavior can take any form from greed to hunger to avarice to lust to what-have-you. When we say "moderation is a good thing", we don't just mean it medically. We mean it in life. About the only things that anyone could not overindulge in are faith and humility. Those two exceptions among the myriad of other life experiences are notable.
I don't know if you know much about Romney, but he is a strong Mormon and their beliefs are in many ways their standards of behavior are narrower than Catholicism. He can't have caffeine or other stimulants and he can't smoke or drink. He is a social conservative himself by religious conviction.
The only thing I agree with about your post is that Rush Limbaugh does have grace and class. The rest of your post is meaningless.
Yes caught.
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:00pm.
You need a prescription don't you? Can you get it over the counter? Romney is not as focused on the social issues even though he is a Mormon. I believe Joe Biden is CatholIc isn't he?
The republican party would easily win elections if they did not have to please social conservatives and I believe their influence is waning. Evidence is Bachman and Santorum having to back Romney. Republicans realize there is more to this election than sins of the flesh.
Rush Limbaugh wanted to have sex before marriage and same with a lot of people. It's unfortunate folks like you aren't happy living a good marriage for yourself but you feel a need to tell others what is right and moral.
What are you asking?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:24pm.
I have prescribed Viagra and other drugs in that class to male and female patients alike, but when I practice medicine I check my personal moral values at the door. That's the ethical standard of my profession. Problem is, I have a corresponding duty to warn about behaviors that can be dangerous to the patient. I counsel because it is what I am required to do. I am not there to deliver a sermon, but to warn the patient about known risk factors and how to mitigate or limit their risk. Got that?
In case you haven't noticed, I am not a politician and this is not a legal forum and we do not make policy. Everybody here, including YOU and JustAl makes moral judgments and commits them here to electronic posterity. So what? Like no one is allowed to say "perhaps it's not a good idea to sleep around in an era when drug-resistant sexually transmitted diseases are rampant even in those "nice people" who practice safer sex"?
Sorry to burst your bubble, shawn. Every action and decision has consequences, and this attempted minimization of them is contorted to the point where personal responsibility is evaporating faster than pure alcohol on a heated surface. Whenever you sleep with someone, you are also figuratively sleeping with everyone else they have ever slept with and so on. STDs are at an all time high, and encouraging promiscuity without consideration of the consequences goes directly against my ethics as a physician. As a public health officer in my county, I see where patients who made ill-advised choices divert precious public health care resources away from others who truly need it. I hardly need lectured on this being a point of civil liberties. It's a point of public health that perhaps promiscuity is the last thing anyone should consider.
Nothing is wrong with having an opinion
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:39pm.
Of course it okay to think monogamy is the best policy and having sex before marriage is wrong. However if somebody else is having relations before marriage, why have such a harsh opinion for somebody else's choice
Yes there are STD's but not everyone will get one every time they have sex before marriage or get pregnant. Some people want to have some variety before getting married, and some don't. Live and let live.
Fine, shawn.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:45pm.
My "harsh" opinion is my personal opinion--not my professional opinion.
The problem with "live and let live" is that it has downstream consequences for public health that no one wants to consider, lest their conquest for the night decide that the risk isn't worth it.
Just don't ask to use public resources, like NIH funding for sexually transmitted diseases, when your decision turns out to have disastrous results.
So
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:57pm.
OK, Your a legend, an institution, the gold standard of what class and grace are.
Happy now?
Jealous of Doc Sam?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:00pm.
.
LMAO
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:01pm.
Not by any stretch! I actually pity him.
I wouldn't.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:10pm.
As Doc Sam goes through surrounded by his family he will know greater fulfillment than a sexual experiences can provide. Of course, that's not saying he's losing out on great sex. Married sex is a wonderful thing.
It's All Relative
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:22pm.
His married sex may be a great thing for him, yours for you and mine for me. The point is that people who don't go that way are no less entitled to respect for the way they choose to live their lives.
The holier than thou attitude is reason for ridicule.
~No one is "entitled" to respect
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:25pm.
Respect is earned, and the idea of anyone claiming that they're entitled to respect regarding their sex lives is ludicrous.
I Disagree
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:28pm.
A gentleman respects everyone. But anyone can loose it.
Funny thing is
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:30pm.
Men are the ones who lose respect for women who sleep around.
No
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:46pm.
That would be boys, not gentlemen.
Let me clue you in on something
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:49pm.
There aren't many gentlemen out there.
Let me clue you in on something
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:49pm.
There aren't many gentlemen out there.
~Like you just did
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:31pm.
with your unprovoked sneer at docsam.
Sneer?
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:43pm.
I spoke the truth, I respectfully pity anyone who feels such a terrible weight of responsibility.
~DocSam made a very general comment in refuation
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:51pm.
of the liberal premise this article describes. You responded to that comment as if it were a direct attack on your lifestyle, which is unknown to everyone here but yourself. Defensive, much? You betray yourself by your insecurity.
Hint: Nobody gives a flying rat's ass what you do or what poor bast@rd you do it to. Relax.
LOL
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:55pm.
Gee thanks, I usually have to argue with leftist to enjoy such adolescent ad homonym attacks. I'm starting to think there's a hell of a lot of pent up sexual frustration amongst the supporters of this article. But, alas, I've had enough.
Your wit and grace along with the good doctor's and cajun2 have undone me. Back to reality for me, while you three stay where ever it is you are.
~Hahahahahahaha
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:01pm.
My dear fellow, you opened up this exchange with a slam on the doc and now you're not liking how that worked out for you. That's fine, take a few cheap parting shots at the women and scuttle off.
I think the idea that women can have
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:36pm.
Indiscriminate sex is worthy of ridicule. Even using "safe sex" precautions there are risks of disease. There is also the physical danger a woman puts herself in by having sex with men she doesn't know. I don't care what you say, a woman who sleeps around is not looked at with the same respect by men as one who doesn't. That's human nature, and I don't see it changing on account of this "study".
Oh I'm so hurt Al.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:13pm.
Were you ever a member of a County Board of Health? DId you ever have to look at the sexually transmitted diseases statistics? Did you ever have to look at those numbers and make policy decisions about how public resources were going to be used?
Seems too many people forget that personal choices often have very public implications, such as treating drug-resistant TB or gonorrhea acquired during unprotected sex. Or HIV transmitted through the sharing of contaminated needles. Or any other communicable disease transmitted through what is often referred to as a "victimless" crime, like taking illicit drugs or engaging in very high risk behavior that leads to consequences requiring use of public resources to treat or to mitigate.
Perhaps you should re-direct your pity onto those people who were denied health care resources for reasons outside of their control because public moneys had to be re-directed towards those who made a stupid decision.
As I Said
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:20pm.
You are the gold standard.
You are the arbiter of what should be allowed because people can't make their own decisions. It must be lonely way up their in the intellectual stratosphere, the duty to enforce morality that goes along with it must be daunting.
come on drsam*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:23pm.
You are just another one of those "judgemental" folks out there. Please focus on individual pleasure and forget about logic, maturity, boundaries, consequences, responsibility....ya' know, the adult stuff..
I know Caj. I'm just a judgmental person, unlike Al.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:27pm.
It always seems the ultra-Libertarians are the first ones complaining when they acquire a resistant STD and demand the government take action to do something about it while simultaneously complaining that they want government out of their crotches.
Rather interesting dichotomy, eh?
Feel Free
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:34pm.
Use any search engine you like with my user name, which I've used for years on a number of blogs, and find one, single, solitary post in which I write that government should have ANY responsibility in healthcare other than fulfillment of contractual agreements with veterans and employees.
Since you're so keen on facts. . .prove your statement.
Now, that's a dichotomy.
Very easy to prove, Al-sy.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:41pm.
What makes you think I was talking specifically about you in that context?
Fair Enough
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:45pm.
I'll amend my request to proof that Libertarians are the first to want more government heatlhcare interference.
Two rather interesting pieces.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:00pm.
http://libertariananswers.com/what-happens-to-public-health-research-in-...
and
http://www.calgaryliberal.com/2010/07/01/a-libertarian-argument-for-publ...
Public health falls under the "general welfare" clause. As Tom Clancy so aptly pointed out, the constitution is not a death pact. The role of government in providing public health services, including research and preventative measures, is in tune not only with the general welfare clause, but also with the corresponding duties that EVERY health care professional has to first do no harm, second to advance only that which is good for the patient, and final ethical requirement to respect individual choice. It should be noted that first do no harm often obviates the judgment of a recalcitrant patient who is a danger to themselves or others.
The Shelter of the Statist and the Socialist
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:09pm.
Yes, yes, with the "General Welfare" clause there really isn't need for all the rest of the wasted ink, now is there?
The Shelter of the Statist and the Socialist
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:09pm.
Yes, yes, with the "General Welfare" clause there really isn't need for all the rest of the wasted ink, now is there?
Hmmmm...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 10:01pm.
I fail to see where docsam advocated the government doing anything that would interfere with your life in any way.
But "libertarians" can't help it. Anything they see provokes the knee-jerk response to call everyone they disagree with either a "statist" or a "Socialist" or both.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Can't argue with someone like you who refutes
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:25pm.
Cold hard facts with insults.
Insults?
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:31pm.
As I said, I pity the responsibility of those who must decide for others. The anti-gun folks try the same line of logic as yours, so do the global warmists. They, like you and the good Dr. know what's best for others.
I insulted nobody, literally.
Really? You weren't being snarky
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:41pm.
When you called Doc Sam the gold standard?
No one here is calling for intervention in anyone's private life. What I am objecting to is the false premis that promiscuity is a good thing. The term "ethical slut" is one of the stupidest I've ever heard. And Doc Sam has clearly illustrated the health risks, which are totally ignored in this article.
JustAl*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:47pm.
Since you brought up the analogy to gun control.....let's compare
Even pro gun advocates agree that you must register your gun, take a safety class, and follow the law in your state. Even those in favor of individual rights and choices are also adult enough to recognize that there must be some boundaries within those choices to minimize deadly consequences, to prevent chaos in our society. Is order and individual responsibility too much for you to bear in a civilized society?
Not Even Close
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:01pm.
I've been a shooter for over four decades, and no one I know agrees that guns should be registered, that safety classes should be mandatory.
As for "state laws" by pure coincidence I just pointed out minutes ago in an article on pjmedia that the federal government should overturn all of these "state" laws and municipal laws because the do not have the authority to override the Constitution.
You, sir (or madame as the case may be), paint with way too broad a brush. I think I'll trust the Constitution over the judgment of cajun2 when it comes to prevention of chaos in our society, thanks all the same.
Mine is comment #22:
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/06/18/a-nation-of-paper-not-of-me...
justal*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:14pm.
sorry but it was you who compared edicts of behavior to gun control. Now you want to make all states comply to one 'mandate"? Interesting dichotomy in your thinking. Individuals all have different views and actions of behavior. No humans can live in a large open society without some order or boundaries. The boundaries can be set by various sources which is why we often have dissenting opinions.
When we have complete narcissists in our society, those without concern for others nor consequences,generally are those that contribute to disorder and at the same time call out for individual freedom. There goes that "weighty sense of responsibility". Free at last. A population of 300million totally wasteful , narcissistic, pleasure seeking irresponsibile adolescents will bring down a society quicker than the plague.
Freedom from Consequences
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 10:06pm.
JustAl demands freedom and expects it will be given to him for the asking.
Above all, JustAl wants absolute freedom from consequences. He doesn't even want to be reminded that consequences exist. If you remind him they exist, you are just a statist or a Socialist who hates America and the Constitution.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As we are engaged in an electronic medium, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:00pm.
it would seem a bit of an exaggeration to portray someone's comments or opinions as some type of 'responsibility' to make decisions for others.
"They, like you and the good Dr. know what's best for others."
Deciding whether a phrase is insulting, versus, say, just snarky - isn't that difficult.
You come across, in the instance regarding doc sam, anyway, JustAl, as being insulting.
Referring to cajun2 as a "sir" doesn't particularly show a huge degree of awareness regarding these threads either.
MD
The Tone of the Post in Question
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:06pm.
Struck me as rather condescending. And I find condescension insulting.
By bringing his own marital status and sexual preference into the discussion my assumption was that he had the "responsibility" to show a better way, in fact I think he drew that contrast specifically, though it's been a while since I read the original post.
Thank you for pointing out the gender neutrality of the handle "cajun2", I've amended my post.
I apologize to all. . . if I was wrong.
~Good grief
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:17pm.
Do not we all use our personal experience to illustrate a point now and then?
Get over yourself. If you're so happy with your choices your feathers wouldn't be so easily ruffled.
agree justal*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:28pm.
Your first few posts and replies to drsam were, insulting and condescending to women. I replied in kind. The fact that I am an old lady should in no way be a factor in the substance of debate or differing views on any issue.
Drsam and I have a different world view of behavior and society due to our professions and those views are in no way intended to be used to "control" peoples behavior. What we were trying to do is to show that there are other multiple reasons for rules and mores in our society that go far beyond one's individual rights and pleasures. Drsam and I were both in professions where we deal with "consequences" of irresponsible behavior. As I stated, an opposing opinion on any issue is not simply an error nor irrelevant. It is a difference due to one's world view. May I suggest you try to enlarge your world view just a tad.
ADD: Hey Bru...GMTA...;-)
seems fair if
Submitted by katiejane on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:35pm.
women get to have multiples "As long as you’re open and honest with your dates -- and practice safe sex -- " men should be able to be honest and tell those women they think they're disposable sluts not anyone with potential for an actual long term relationship.
Or
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:00pm.
That they consider them responsible adults who can run their own lives without worry about what judgmental people screech about or the need to be legally tied to a relationship.
JustAl*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:13pm.
From your comments, its obvious that you were not paying attention when you and your dad were having "the talk" a few weeks ago.
TheyDo
Submitted by Lamdog on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:04pm.
The sad part most of the so called men tell women exactly that, I am here for the booty only. Somewhere deep inside someone forgot to paraphrase the movie Joy Luck Club forgot to tell them of their worth. Here two prime examples: Michael Douglas and Maureen Dowd and George Clooney and insert name. What is it about women that are willing to settle for being men play things has always puzzled me?
Well Lamdog
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 6:08pm.
Its article like this and groups like NOW that encourage women to think that way. Obviously many men, including some here, find that works for them. They didn't mention children in this article did they? It wouldn't be convenient to go into that issue.
Jessica Massa is a repressive woman
Submitted by gopcongress on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 4:03pm.
Why is Jessica Massa against gay relationships? Why can't other women be with other women? Or with transgenders?
Massa is SOOO behind the times. Makes you wonder if she's not going to vote for Obama, who HAS gotten into bed (figuratively?) with the radical gay rights agenda.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
The words "Ethical" and CNN
Submitted by John21 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 4:55pm.
The words "Ethical" and CNN should never be used in the same article, ever.
CNN does not possess the capability to understand the meaning of the word "Ethical" that is why they are part of the propaganda media.