• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Public University’s Sex Week Includes ‘Negotiating Successful Threesomes’ Event

No, I don't think I am.

As a matter of fact, I'm just about positive that I've hit the nail right on the head. :lol:

Naturally.



There is some controversy over that. The military rate was actually lower than that for the civilian population right up until the Obama Administration started raising a fuss a few years ago.

No, the rate that the military reported was lower. The actual rate was higher. Much higher

After that (and he started dismissing people left and right for not asking 'how high' whenever he told them to jump :roll: ) this ludicrously high new rate of "unreported cases" magically appeared out of thin air, and all the political pundits and feminists in Washington started wringing their hands over the so called "rape epidemic in the military."

Personally, I suspect that it's largely a politically motivated witch-hunt, like most of the rest of what's come out of our current President's dealings with the military.

Naturally. Facts you don't like must not be facts
 
Again, the functional definition of the term is as follows.

If you don't like it, tough sh*t. That is how normal people use the word.

Both threesomes and "one night stands" qualify.

No, the functional definition is sex with a number of partners of a casual nature. It's literally right there in the definition you posted. And no, actually, normal people don't use it that way. If I have a single one-night stand in high school with a girl I'd just met, and then never have sex again for the rest of my life, nobody would refer to me as promiscuous.

A greater level of success in facilitating both was precisely what the courses offered by the university were promising. Ergo, they were teaching "promiscuous" behavior, as commonly defined.

Clear, or must I break it down further for you?

Same question, back at you. If I have a threesome with only the same two women for a decade, I am not promiscuous, am I? All three of us only have sex with the other two partners. Promiscuous? Really?

I have posted them many times before. I would suggest that you read the thread.

CDC Fact Sheet 2013 - Incidence, Prevalence, and Cost of Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United States

Annual new infections: 20 million

Total Infections: 110 million

Total Medical Costs: $16 billion

Make a per-capita comparison to numbers from today and historical infections! After all, that was the line of discussion. Whether STDs are more prevalent than the past.

As an example:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats12/gonorrhea.htm

During 1975–1997, the national gonorrhea rate declined 74% after implementation of the national gonorrhea control program in the mid-1970s (Figure 11). After the decline halted for several years, gonorrhea rates decreased further to 98.1 cases per 100,000 population in 2009. This was the lowest rate since recording of gonorrhea rates began. Since 2009, the rate has increased slightly each year, to 100.2 in 2010, 103.3 in 2011, and to 107.5 cases per 100,000 population in 2012, with a total of 334,826 cases reported in the United States in 2012

So, the rates plummeted for a few decades. Bottomed out in 2009, slight rise since then. Hardly convincing towards your point.
 
Last edited:
Naturally.

No, the rate that the military reported was lower. The actual rate was higher. Much higher

Naturally. Facts you don't like must not be facts

Yes, actually. Dubious, unprecedented figures, utilizing imaginary "estimated cases" are not "facts."

They are "estimates," determined using questionable methods, for questionable reasons.

No, the functional definition is sex with a number of partners of a casual nature. It's literally right there in the definition you posted. And no, actually, normal people don't use it that way. If I have a single one-night stand in high school with a girl I'd just met, and then never have sex again for the rest of my life, nobody would refer to me as promiscuous.

Again, no. The functional definition is "casual" sex. Traditionally defined, "casual sex" is any non-committed, or non-monogamous sexual relationship.

It always has been.

What in the Hell are you guys finding so hard to understand about this? :lol:

Same question, back at you. If I have a threesome with only the same two women for a decade, I am not promiscuous, am I? All three of us only have sex with the other two partners. Promiscuous? Really?

Yes, it is still promiscuous. A "friends with benefits" relationship is promiscuous as well.

Again, anything that could be defined as being "casual sex" is, by definition, "promiscuous."

Make a per-capita comparison to numbers from today and historical infections! After all, that was the line of discussion. Whether STDs are more prevalent than the past.

As an example:

2012 STD Surveillance Gonorrhea | CDC

So, the rates plummeted for a few decades. Bottomed out in 2009, slight rise since then. Hardly convincing towards your point.

A) I was talking about the era before the Sexual Revolution. The Gonorrhea rate has gone down since the 1980s. However, that doesn't change the fact that it spiked roughly 600% between the 1950s and the mid 1970s due to all the promiscuous sex everyone was having in that era.

trends-gon-rates.gif


B) While Gonorrhea has done down since, just about every other disease out there has continued to go up. Herpes, Chlamydia, Genital Warts, and everything else besides Syphilis are massively more common than they were before the 1950s.

Here's those teen pregnancies skyrocketing because all the sluts falling

CDC - About Teen Pregnancy - Teen Pregnancy - Reproductive Health

This doesn't mean a whole lot. They've simple pushed the problem back to women's twenties instead.

NY Times - For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage
 
Last edited:
Again, no. The functional definition is "casual" sex. Traditionally defined, "casual sex" is any non-committed, or non-monogamous sexual relationship.

It always has been.

What in the Hell are you guys finding so hard to understand about this? :lol:

You want to take a poll on whether having sex with a single person makes you "promiscuous?" See how "normal people" actually use the word?
 
You want to take a poll on whether having sex with a single person makes you "promiscuous?" See how "normal people" actually use the word?

Why? So we can learn just how many Left Wing perverts out there struggle with the definitions of words? :lol:

Again, "casual sex" is "promiscuous sex." "Promiscuous sex" is "casual sex."

They're essentially two different words for the same damn thing.
 
Public University’s Sex Week Includes ‘Negotiating Successful Threesomes’ Event



Liberal academia is such a wholesome and productive way to prepare yourself for a career nowdays.

Where do I sign my daughters up for this?!

Public University actually teaching young adults how to become more decadent, deviant and morally corrupt.

Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee say

“Christians, and those rejecting the me-generation liberal dogma of ‘if it feels good do it,’ are no longer tolerable by the intellectual and cultural elite,” says George, 59, director of the James Madison program at Princeton University. Citing the political witch hunt that forced Brendan Eich’s departure as CEO of Mozilla for a small contribution to a conservative political cause, George said politically correct mobs “threaten us with consequences if we refuse to call what is good evil, and what is evil, good. They command us to confirm our thinking to their orthodoxy, or else say nothing at all.”
Princeton Professor: Cultural Elite Can No Longer Tolerate Christians | The Daily Caller

How is this NOT a prime example of how the society is descending into the abyss of depravity, loss of even the most basic restraints, subjugating them, vanquishing them, to the most basic animalistic instincts? 'if it feels good do it'. Surely we've learned nothing from history, from the fall of Rome.

How is this NOT a prime example of the liberal / progressive indoctrination in higher education?

What's next? Public support for NAMBLA? Pedophilia? Bestiality? We have NAMBLA pushing for sex with under age boys, there are groups out there who are already pushing for sex with under age children for educational purposes. It's going to get worse.

No, I see this, sexual deviancy being acceptable, as the worst possible of things to teach our young adults.
 
Last edited:
...The class is explicitly meant to attract young, single men looking to "hook-up."...

The best target audience for safe sex education/reminders.
 
The best target audience for safe sex education/reminders.

In which case, it should offered as such; not paired with a bunch of nonsense promising to teach young men how to more successfully negotiate one night stands and threesomes, or classes offering to instruct students in "O face, oral sex" techniques.

Which is, as already noted, the problem with this whole thing in the first place. It isn't teaching anything objectively useful. It isn't even pretending to do so.

It is blatantly promoting sexual deviancy and glorifying promiscuous behavior. It is doing so in the interests of indoctrinating students into a certain, "sex positive," lifestyle and way of thinking.

Again, where's "marriage week?"

Where's the "How to date a girl while still being a gentleman" class?

Is there any particular reason why the university must officially sanction classes promoting salacious and potentially dangerous behavior, but not it's counter-point?

The ideological agenda behind this farce is so completely transparent as to be utterly laughable.
 
Last edited:
Why? So we can learn just how many Left Wing perverts out there struggle with the definitions of words? :lol:

Again, "casual sex" is "promiscuous sex." "Promiscuous sex" is "casual sex."

They're essentially two different words for the same damn thing.


It's great fun, Mr. Thomas. Well, when using a little common sense and precautions, of course. In my humble opinion - along with the proof of mega-millions of conservatives existing and participating in the human experience called sex - sex isn't driven by political philosophies.

I'll never go to my grave with the regrets of being a sexual prude. In my day...my life was filled with some pretty exciting women.

Life is so short, Mr. Thomas. Guilt, shame, remorse created in the minds of the masses by people who spend their lives convincing other people how to indulge in them....is the real sin.

No, I'm not Satan's kid...maybe. ;)
 
Liberals....deep down you know their insane.

Conservatives... deep down you know that homeschooling didn't work for them. It's not "their" insane, it's "they're" insane. Maybe you should have tried liberal public school instead.
 
I don't see any problem with this whatsoever. In fact I think it's a good thing to have open and healthy discussion about how to improve communication and better please one's partner. Why is this bad exactly? It's adults.
 
You certainly can get in trouble for getting pregnant (or getting a girl pregnant) at an inopportune time, or for sleeping with the wrong person. "Adultery," for instance, is actually a crime punishable under the UCMJ.

Now, again, I never said that military members couldn't be promiscuous. Hell! The only time I've ever really been "promiscuous" myself, for however brief a period it might have been, was in the military.

I'm simply saying that it isn't quite the same "free-for-all" culture that you're going to find on college campuses. There are differences.

None of which was what we were talking about. We were talking about picking up strangers from a bar. Hard to get into trouble for those things you mentioned just from doing that except in that off chance you pick up say an officer or you are married, or they are.

It is the same type of "free for all" culture that you find on college campuses though. There are very few differences in reality. You are trying to make college out to be much different than it truly is, exaggerating the true situation.
 
None of which was what we were talking about. We were talking about picking up strangers from a bar. Hard to get into trouble for those things you mentioned just from doing that except in that off chance you pick up say an officer or you are married, or they are.

It is the same type of "free for all" culture that you find on college campuses though. There are very few differences in reality. You are trying to make college out to be much different than it truly is, exaggerating the true situation.

Alright. Let's back this thing up. We've lost sight of our goal here.

First off, we're both right. Yes, service members are held to a higher standard of conduct than civilians. No, this does not mean that they are less promiscuous.

Secondly, the original issue of debate here was the nature of "one night stands" on college campuses, and whether or not they could be said to be heavily reliant upon (usually poor) drunken decision making.

In that vein, while bar hook-ups certainly do happen in the military, it's a lot more common, in my experience, to simply find service members screwing around with opposite sex members of their own units that they happen to work with on a regular basis than it is to see them taking home strangers or one time acquaintances in the middle of the night. Considering that many of those liaisons take place on deployments, alcohol and drugs often aren't involved.

Prostitution plays a much, much larger role in (male) military promiscuity than it does for men in the civilian world as well. Bragg, for instance, is infamous for its prostitutes, as is basically any posting overseas. This doesn't necessarily have to be a "drunken" pursuit either.

In short, while there are similarities between college and military sexual cultures, there are many differences as well. Military promiscuity is usually not as heavily bar and club focused as the college variety, and it isn't as heavily tied to substance abuse.

With civilian college students, by way of contrast, somewhere around 80% report being either intoxicated or high during their last hook-up, and a large number involve partners who are only "acquaintances" at best as well. In short, substance abuse is, for all intents and purposes, an intrinsic aspect of the experience of college promiscuity, as is the incautious selection of partners.

Frankly, if you're trying to claim that I'm wrong about that, and that both of the above are intrinsic aspects of military and civilian sexual experiences alike, I'm not really sure how you think that helps your case here anyway. :lol:

It would actually only go to prove mine. It would show that cultures which promote promiscuous behavior tend to almost universally breed irresponsible behavior as well, and that no amount of training or discipline can remove that fundamental aspect of promiscuous endeavors.
 
Last edited:
Alright. Let's back this thing up. We've lost sight of our goal here.

First off, we're both right. Yes, service members are held to a higher standard of conduct than civilians. No, this does not mean that they are less promiscuous.

Secondly, the original issue of debate here was the nature of "one night stands," and whether or not they could be said to be heavily reliant upon (usually poor) drunken decision making.

In that vein, while bar hook-ups certainly do happen in the military, it's a lot more common, in my experience, to simply find service members screwing around with opposite sex members of their own units that they happen to work with on a regular basis than it is to see them taking home strangers or one time acquaintances in the middle of the night. Considering that many of those liaisons take place on deployments, alcohol and drugs often aren't involved.

Prostitution plays a much, much larger role in (male) military promiscuity than it does for men in the civilian world as well. Bragg, for instance, is infamous for its prostitutes, as is basically any posting overseas. This doesn't necessarily have to be a "drunken" pursuit either.

In short, while there are similarities between college and military sexual cultures, there are many differences as well. Military promiscuity is usually not as heavily bar and club focused as the college variety, and it isn't as heavily tied to substance abuse.

With civilian college students, by way of contrast, somewhere around 80% report being either intoxicated or high during their last hook-up, and a large number involve people who are only "acquaintances" at best. In other words, substance abuse is, for all intents and purposes, an intrinsic aspect of the experience, as is the incautious selection of partners.

Frankly, if you're trying to claim that I'm wrong about thar, and that it is an intrinsic aspect of both the military and civilian sexual experience, I'm not really sure how you think that helps your case here anyway. :lol:

It would actually only go to prove mine. It would show that cultures which promote promiscuous behavior tend to almost universally breed irresponsible behavior as well, and that no amount of training or discipline can remove that fundamental aspect of promiscuous endeavors.

And having lived in Hawaii, where there is every branch of the military, I can tell you that the bars were filled with many more servicemembers, particularly getting drunk, than college students. The vast majority of those servicemembers at home were likely to simply hookup with someone from a bar, possibly even a drunken college student than with someone from their unit. Unit relationships were much more likely to be that, longer relationships rather than one-night-stands.

Plus, the military is cracking down hard on the purchasing of prostitutes, not so much on simply going out and hooking up in a bar (except in trying to ensure they don't take home someone who is so drunk it is really rape).

The problem is that neither the military nor colleges work toward teaching about healthy sexual encounters, rather only try to tell both "don't sleep around", which obviously does not work. It is like when you teach a child, you don't punish them without giving them an explanation for why they are being punished and work toward changing that behavior. In fact, the best way to change the behavior of a child is to explain to them, in terms they can understand, why they shouldn't do something, rather than simply making rules for them to obey and saying "because I said so". The difference is though that you are teaching adults when it comes to college students and servicemembers, which means that they can be taught why they shouldn't do certain activities, those that are actually harmful to them (having unsafe sex, staying in unsafe/unhealthy relationships) and teach them how to build healthier, safer relationships, of many kinds, which is what these workshops are about.
 
And having lived in Hawaii, where there is every branch of the military, I can tell you that the bars were filled with many more servicemembers, particularly getting drunk, than college students. The vast majority of those servicemembers at home were likely to simply hookup with someone from a bar, possibly even a drunken college student than with someone from their unit. Unit relationships were much more likely to be that, longer relationships rather than one-night-stands.

Plus, the military is cracking down hard on the purchasing of prostitutes, not so much on simply going out and hooking up in a bar (except in trying to ensure they don't take home someone who is so drunk it is really rape).

And which bars were you going to exactly? :lol:

Charleston is a huge military town. It also has at least four different colleges. You're certainly not going to find any more service members than college students in any of our bars. You'll be lucky to see any, in point of fact.

No, not all intra-unit relationships are monogamous either. Hell! I went through AIT with a guy who screwed half of our graduating class all by himself without giving any of his conquests a second thought afterwards.

Frankly, as far as the prostitution goes, cracking down too much would strike me as being a mistake.

Forgive my bluntness here, but you're a lot less likely to catch an STD from a prostitute, especially in a country where that kind of thing is legal and regulated, than you are from the kind of young woman liable to give it up for free in a bar. :lol:

Prostitutes approach sex as a job. They have a vested interest in using protection if they want to maintain their livelihood, and they also have a vested interest in staying sober enough to make sure that neither they nor their john's forget it.

Bar skanks kind of... Well, don't. They're "just looking to have a good time."

Just sayin'...

The problem is that neither the military nor colleges work toward teaching about healthy sexual encounters, rather only try to tell both "don't sleep around", which obviously does not work. It is like when you teach a child, you don't punish them without giving them an explanation for why they are being punished and work toward changing that behavior. In fact, the best way to change the behavior of a child is to explain to them, in terms they can understand, why they shouldn't do something, rather than simply making rules for them to obey and saying "because I said so". The difference is though that you are teaching adults when it comes to college students and servicemembers, which means that they can be taught why they shouldn't do certain activities, those that are actually harmful to them (having unsafe sex, staying in unsafe/unhealthy relationships) and teach them how to build healthier, safer relationships, of many kinds, which is what these workshops are about.

Are you serious with this crap? :lol:

Really?

Really, really??

May I remind you that this event focuses around classes with titles like: "How to get laid," "How to negotiate a threesome," and "How to give 'O face' oral sex?"

These are all salacious topics, focusing around sexual behavior in a blatantly promiscuous context.

Where do "healthy relationships" even begin to enter into the equation here?

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that no aspect of what you're selling here makes any sense whatsoever. First off, there is no such thing as "safe," "responsible," or "healthy" promiscuity anymore than there is such a thing as safe, responsible, or healthy binge drinking. The entire purpose of both acts are thrill-seeking irresponsibility for selfish personal satisfaction. The fact that the two almost universally go hand-in-hand with one another simply makes the problem that much worse.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think anything taught by this university in a class focusing on either "getting laid," or "negotiating threesomes," will further the cause of "creating healthy relationships."

Secondly, if the purpose here really was to teach "safe sex," they wouldn't need half a dozen different courses, all promising instruction in other, completely unrelated promiscuous behaviors, to do it.
 
Last edited:
And which bars were you going to exactly? :lol:

Charleston is a huge military town. It also has at least four different colleges. You're certainly not going to find any more service members than college students in any of our bars. You'll be lucky to see any, in point of fact.

No, not all intra-unit relationships are monogamous either. Hell! I went through AIT with a guy who screwed half of our graduating class all by himself without giving any of his conquests a second thought afterwards.

Frankly, as far as the prostitution goes, cracking down too much would strike me as being a mistake.

Forgive my bluntness here, but you're a lot less likely to catch an STD from a prostitute, especially in a country where that kind of thing is legal and regulated, than you are from the kind of young woman liable to give it up for free in a bar. :lol:

Prostitutes approach sex as a job. They have a vested interest in using protection if they want to maintain their livelihood, and they also have a vested interest in staying sober enough to make sure that neither they nor their john's forget it.

Bar skanks kind of... Well, don't. They're "just looking to have a good time."

Just sayin'...



Are you serious with this crap? :lol:

Really?

Really, really??

"How to get laid."

"How to negotiate a threesome."

These are both blatantly promiscuous behaviors. Where do "healthy relationships" even begin to enter into the equation here?

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that no aspect of what you're selling here makes any sense whatsoever. First off, there is no such thing as "safe," "responsible," or "healthy" promiscuity anymore than there is such a thing as safe, responsible, or healthy binge drinking. The entire purpose of both acts are thrill-seeking irresponsibility for selfish personal satisfaction. The fact that the two almost universally go hand-in-hand with one another simply makes the problem that much worse.

In short, the words "healthy relationship" and "one night stand" don't even belong on the same page, let alone in the same sentence, or the same seminar. I'm frankly stunned that you seem to think they do.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think anything taught by this university will further the cause of "healthy relationships."

Secondly, if the purpose here really was to teach "safe sex," they wouldn't need half a dozen different courses, all promising instruction in other, completely unrelated promiscuous behaviors, to do it.

10 zip codes in Hawaii, on Oahu, beat the top populace zip code in Charleston, SC (which I have lived close to as well in the military, in Goose Creek, although I was not old enough to get drunk there but could still get in the bars, at least at the time, and even went to Thee Southern Belle) when it comes to military population. 3 more zips beat the second and third highest for Charleston. So yes, there are more servicemembers in Hawaii than there are in SC. There are also fewer students in Oahu than in Charleston, likely due to the fact that the island is only about 4 times as big as Charleston, with a lot of open spaces and government owned spaces, with people living on only about half the island. Honolulu is only about half the size of Charleston, if that.

Prostitution isn't legal in the US. And most military members sleep with someone here in the US, usually someone they pick up in a bar, a stranger. There simply aren't enough women in the military to, putting it bluntly, go around. My husband and I met in a bar. Both military, different branches. We went out prior to doing anything though. This is what happens.
 
10 zip codes in Hawaii, on Oahu, beat the top populace zip code in Charleston, SC (which I have lived close to as well in the military, in Goose Creek, although I was not old enough to get drunk there but could still get in the bars, at least at the time, and even went to Thee Southern Belle) when it comes to military population. 3 more zips beat the second and third highest for Charleston. So yes, there are more servicemembers in Hawaii than there are in SC. There are also fewer students in Oahu than in Charleston, likely due to the fact that the island is only about 4 times as big as Charleston, with a lot of open spaces and government owned spaces, with people living on only about half the island. Honolulu is only about half the size of Charleston, if that.

Prostitution isn't legal in the US. And most military members sleep with someone here in the US, usually someone they pick up in a bar, a stranger. There simply aren't enough women in the military to, putting it bluntly, go around. My husband and I met in a bar. Both military, different branches. We went out prior to doing anything though. This is what happens.

I don't necessarily know how true that is across the board. However, seeing as how we're not likely to get concrete confirmation on it one way or another, we might as well just drop the subject.

It's really wasn't the subject of this thread in the first place.

Needless to say, plenty of people sleep around both inside their units and out.
 
I don't necessarily know how true that is across the board. However, seeing as how we're not likely to get concrete confirmation on it one way or another, we might as well just drop the subject.

It's really wasn't the subject of this thread in the first place.

Needless to say, plenty of people sleep around both inside their units and out.

They sleep around mainly outside of the units, even if occasionally it occurs inside the units, but it isn't always one night stands, hookups. And it isn't that different than what college students do. I would bet that college students are less likely to simply "hook up" than military members. I can find plenty of information that supports my stand on this too.

One-Night Stands In College: Are We Having Them? | Her Campus

And while they do happen, despite this, the point of the seminars really wasn't to encourage more one night stands that result in negative emotions or judgements of one or both participants, but rather, almost certainly to change these things. In fact, none of the seminars actually said "one night stands" or simply "hookups".
 
I wish they would I course workshops on the consequences of irresponsible sex. Things like stds and other health issues, the failure rate of condoms, how unwanted pregnancies have affected people's ability to pursue aspirations, statistics on abandonment after an unplanned pregnancy, the affects on society due to fatherless homes, etc.
 
I wish they would I course workshops on the consequences of irresponsible sex. Things like stds and other health issues, the failure rate of condoms, how unwanted pregnancies have affected people's ability to pursue aspirations, statistics on abandonment after an unplanned pregnancy, the affects on society due to fatherless homes, etc.

Here's what the man who is leading many of the presentations said
“Whether it’s how to use lube and condoms to enhance the safety and pleasure of a blow job or how to have … a ‘Safe Sex Elevator Speech’ so you can have a safe and healthy threesome, all of my classes, no matter how outrageous, provocative, or explicit the titles may be teach adults better communication and intimacy skills, offer accurate sexual health information, and do so in a non-fear based and ‘edutaining’ environment,” he said.
 
Back
Top Bottom