Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (20340)	8/2/2001 2:44:40 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

To prove a point through alleged consequences, you would have to separate those unwanted events that follow from promiscuity and those that follow from going steady. My guess is that the latter group have few STDs or pregnancies. Second, you would have to build a case that the risks are sufficiently great that to engage in the sort of activity I have suggested is irresponsible. That was the point of the automotive analogy. If it is not irresponsible of me to get in a car, because the risks are reasonable, and if society is not remiss for permitting automotive traffic, despite deaths and dismemberment, than how does one assess the risks associated with sex in a caring, long term relationship that falls short of marriage? Again, I don't have the statistical breakdown, but I would guess that no one would judge the risks to be prohibitive, on a comparative basis. I personally think that marriage should be entered into solemnly, and that every reasonable attempt to stay together should be made. In other words, the barrier to divorce should be very high, certainly as a matter of conscience, and I think as a matter of law. For this very reason, it makes sense to have lesser degrees of commitment, more easily suspended, before making so strong an avowal. In such a circumstance, what people do with their sexual impulses is a matter of interest. I am looking for a clear reason to forbid them from acting on their impulses, albeit responsibly........

To: one_less who wrote (20340)	8/2/2001 3:18:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Entering into sexual relations with a partner you are trying on for size (going steady with) however, opens the door to the devestating consequences that define the current normative standard. Brees, you keep saying this but you aren't making your case. If a couple, say Dick and Jane, decide to get to know each other better through sex before they get married, how is it that there is any greater risk of STD or any other of your dire consequences than if they had just gone ahead and gotten married? They're the same two people doing exactly the same thing, they're just not married. Karen