Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
This canard, btw, is also often used to justify the fleecing of men for child care payments, but don't get me started on that whole thing.
And minimizing the dangers of HPV because it "usually" clears without "symptoms" makes about as much sense as saying that smoking is no big deal, because life-long smokers "usually" don't get lung cancer.
"Also, if you don’t think your partner can handle that consequence, don’t have sex with him or her." This is crazy practical advice on communication. YOU might have it all figured out, but does your partner?
If their attitudes are mainly confined to their own lives, why, exactly, do you give a shit?
That said, there is a vaccine for the most common forms of HPV, and my kids have been inoculated.
there's nothing sex-negative in the Humanist Approach to Happiness that was quoted in this post.
choose carefully, use protection, get tested for STDs, know the risks and make sure you and your partner are mature and responsible enough to handle the worst case scenario. not a negative thing in there.
so what does the author do? why of course, she rewrites the article to suit her need to get a rant off. "never have sex because you'll die or get pregnant" is not the lesson in the Humanist Approach to Happiness quoted here. anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that.
oh, and this liberal, geeky, nerdy, perverted atheist blogger is comfortable using the term "deep South" to show her disgust. Why am i not surprised?
@6 really? I know writing a snide comment is easier than actually informing yourself, but it's not too much effort to click through to where the original excerpt was poster (at A Friendly Atheist). You didn't even have to go through the 133 comments in depth to see that there was overwhelming pushback. Yes there were some people who agreed, but by and large the reaction was negative. And as a regular reader I can guarantee that if they were to define themselves, a large portion of people there would define themselves as Humanists.
Also, Dan - wtf? Of all people, I thought you would second everything in that excerpt, rather than call it sex negative crap??? What on earth is sex-negative in it?
"you might want to hold off on having sex."
"don't have sex with him or her."
The excerpt seems to suggest that only couples in mutually exclusive, stable, responsible, STD free, emotionally mature, financially independent relationships should be having sex. Well, fuck, that's a mood killer.
SEX might kill you, says that author. If it's not sex-negative to threaten people with death for having unprotected or careless sex, I don't know what is.
No sexually transmitted disease you might catch will kill you*. It's hyperbolic and dishonest to suggest otherwise. Such suggestions can only be meant to scare people away from sex. Using STDs and pregnancy as bogeymen is quintessentially sex negative. Yes, you should be careful. You should be smart and take precautions. But the author of the Humanist's Handbook goes too far in the direction of the sex-phobic "moral leaders" common in the contemporary theistic religions. That is what Ms. McCreight is so vehemently reacting to.
BFT
*offer only valid for those in the developed, western, health insured middle-class and above (a category which includes 99% of all humanists).
It is, um gee I don't know... true???
No matter where you live and what kind of insurance you have, there is no guarantee that HIV drugs will work in your case. There is no guarantee that the cervical cancer that HPV gives you will be spotted on time (sometimes it's so deep inside cervical canal that pap smears can't detect it no matter how responsible you are about your check-ups.)
Look, people, you're saying that it's sex-negative to put the information out there (while it's sex-positive to do what? hide information from people?). I resent that. Everyone who wants to have sex should have access to this information because that's the only way for them to give INFORMED CONSENT.
sorry to kill your mood. but i kinda prefer sex with stable, responsible, STD free, emotionally mature folks. i guess it's a kink in the mind of some savage blog readers.
but nice job on the jen-like response, adding the financially independent stuff that was never there.
AIDS still kills. and sex can result in pregnancy. for someone to suggest otherwise for the purpose of some hits on a blog is beyond irresponsible. for Mr. Savage to point to that blog, well, unfortunately, it's not that surprising.
I LOVE SEX. GAY SEX. STRAIGHT SEX. dr. seuss could write a book about how much i love sex. HIV kills. sex can result in pregnancy. THESE ARE FACTS. if this scares you away from sex, perhaps you should be scared away from sex.
in fact, what the author is trying to do is not to scare people away from sex, but to remind people of the consequences of their behavior and to act accordingly. you know, to be an adult.
but go on, rant away. for those like you and Jen and sometimes dan, who care more about ranting than educating, the rant will never end.
but, allow me a quick rant - FUKK YOU!
Or fuck your monogamous partner 24/7, with or without drawn curtains. Oh wait, responsibility is supposed to be sex-negative. My bad.
1) Some STDs will kill you, like HIV, the one conveniently left out.
2) GC, Chlamydia, Syphilis and Herpes are indeed not serious and can be treated, but only if you're aware you're infected. Since they are often asymptomatic, you need testing if you have had unprotected sex to know for sure. That's not sex negativity- that's a fact.