• 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

sangha said:
Just because some wack jobs on the internet think it's going to promote promiscuity doesn't mean that it actually will.
Click to expand...

Damn, nobody has any fun anymore. What's wrong with kids today?
 
eohrnberger said:
Better relationships through better communication, fine.

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

“Sex Week”, with “Negotiating Successful Threesomes”, “O-Face Oral”, and “BJs and Beyond”, seems to be just going a bit too far.

Have we learned nothing from history? The Roman's, their hedonism, and their fall?

Never mind that this university is probably doing this with public money.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole is when you blame the fall of the Roman Empire on their sex lives.

Communication is key to finding more pleasure in sex. And pleasurable sex can be vital to ensuring that people build strong relationships. In addition, these seminars include information about the difference between a respectful sexual relationship and abusive or at least unhealthy sexual relationships. This is about building many different aspects of sex. There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning how to make sex pleasurable. It does not encourage more promiscuous sex. In fact, it can easily be said to encourage less promiscuous sex since if a young person is finding sexual satisfaction in one or just a few people, then they don't need to sleep around. This might not apply to all, but it likely would apply to many college students.
 
eohrnberger said:
As a public exposition to an intended audience, what does the intended audience have to say about it?

One example:

10156145_648532785245064_6892309883927068030_n.jpg


And again:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...34348022.79259.100002650463256&type=1&theater

It's not about sex-ed. It's about celebrating sex, that does not sound safe or responsible.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...34348022.79259.100002650463256&type=1&theater

The debate about it from the students themselves continues. Some pro-mostly guys, and some against, mostly girls. Most interesting was the objectifying women, which, last I heard, wasn't really being fair to the fairest sex. At least not how I was raised. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

You mean conservative students, who think that all sex is bad don't approve of these types of seminars? Say it isn't so? :roll:

These students have no real clue what any of these lectures/seminars are about. They are repeating the lies they have been fed by pundits that talking about how pleasurable sex can be automatically leads to people, especially young people, being unsafe and/or irresponsible about sex, even if what they are learning includes information about being responsible and safe when it comes to sexual encounters.

Not all students will agree with things. And that's fine. But these students' opinions about these are not more important than students who would want to go to these lectures/seminars. They are just as ignorant, and I would say even more so, since they are ignoring anything that does not agree with their view on this, about what the content of these seminars really is.
 
roguenuke said:
In addition, these seminars include information about the difference between a respectful sexual relationship and abusive or at least unhealthy sexual relationships. This is about building many different aspects of sex.
Click to expand...

Again, only as you, and people who share your ideology, define these terms. :roll:

I'm not sure what you find so difficult to understand about this, but your's is not the way most normal people define these concepts, nor want to see them presented.

The claim that courses teaching promiscuous techniques will somehow, paradoxically, result in less promiscuous sex, is also simply non-nonsensical.

roguenuke said:
You mean conservative students, who think that all sex is bad don't approve of these types of seminars? Say it isn't so?

These students have no real clue what any of these lectures/seminars are about. They are repeating the lies they have been fed by pundits that talking about how pleasurable sex can be automatically leads to people, especially young people, being unsafe and/or irresponsible about sex, even if what they are learning includes information about being responsible and safe when it comes to sexual encounters.

Not all students will agree with things. And that's fine. But these students' opinions about these are not more important than students who would want to go to these lectures/seminars. They are just as ignorant, and I would say even more so, since they are ignoring anything that does not agree with their view on this, about what the content of these seminars really is.
Click to expand...

Right, so we're "free to disagree" just so long as your sexual ideology of choice continues to be the one officially endorsed by the school, and preached to its student body using public funds.

How charitable of you! :roll:
 
roguenuke said:
Hyperbole is when you blame the fall of the Roman Empire on their sex lives.

Communication is key to finding more pleasure in sex. And pleasurable sex can be vital to ensuring that people build strong relationships. In addition, these seminars include information about the difference between a respectful sexual relationship and abusive or at least unhealthy sexual relationships. This is about building many different aspects of sex. There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning how to make sex pleasurable. It does not encourage more promiscuous sex. In fact, it can easily be said to encourage less promiscuous sex since if a young person is finding sexual satisfaction in one or just a few people, then they don't need to sleep around. This might not apply to all, but it likely would apply to many college students.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the only thing that the Romans did that caused their fall, but the hedonism and corruption that became pervasive in their society certainly had something to do with it.

According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[SUP][9][/SUP] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle. In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire.
Click to expand...
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

civic virtue defined:

Civic virtue is the cultivation of habits of personal living that are claimed to be important for the success of the community. The identification of the character traits that constitute civic virtue have been a major concern of political philosophy. The term civility refers to behavior between persons and groups that conforms to a social mode (that is, in accordance with the civil society), as itself being a foundational principle of society and law.
Click to expand...
Civic virtue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hard to focus on maintaining your empire if, in the forefront of your mind and focus, is on intoxication, debauchery, promiscuity, and orgies.

I'd say that western civilization, with it's permissive sexual revolution going on, it's focus on 'Me, Me, Me', is on a similar trajectory. It would appear that the Islamic fundamentalists think so, and are trying to take advantage of it.
 
roguenuke said:
You mean conservative students, who think that all sex is bad don't approve of these types of seminars? Say it isn't so? :roll:

These students have no real clue what any of these lectures/seminars are about. They are repeating the lies they have been fed by pundits that talking about how pleasurable sex can be automatically leads to people, especially young people, being unsafe and/or irresponsible about sex, even if what they are learning includes information about being responsible and safe when it comes to sexual encounters.

Not all students will agree with things. And that's fine. But these students' opinions about these are not more important than students who would want to go to these lectures/seminars. They are just as ignorant, and I would say even more so, since they are ignoring anything that does not agree with their view on this, about what the content of these seminars really is.
Click to expand...

I don't think the comments that I highlighted were saying that 'Sex is bad'. They were saying that the whole things was inappropriate for a publicly funded college venue.

I think that you are belittling their valid concerns and opinions because they differ with your own.
 
I can see the billboards now:

"The University of New Mexico. We'll teach ya how to getcha some!"
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't think the comments that I highlighted were saying that 'Sex is bad'. They were saying that the whole things was inappropriate for a publicly funded college venue.

I think that you are belittling their valid concerns and opinions because they differ with your own.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't inappropriate to be taught in a manner that is completely voluntary and actually is likely to reduce things like drunken hookups, date rapes, possibly unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and might even improve relationships on campus, which are all things that benefit the academic environment, even if they only happen a little.

I feel that their concerns are not valid at all. They are making assumptions based off of their ideology. If they had proof/evidence that these seminars were encouraging actual unhealthy sexual behavior, then I would consider their complaints. But since they are basing their complaints off of the titles of the seminars and their assumptions, then they don't get more consideration.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it isn't inappropriate to be taught in a manner that is completely voluntary and actually is likely to reduce things like drunken hookups, date rapes, possibly unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and might even improve relationships on campus, which are all things that benefit the academic environment, even if they only happen a little.

I feel that their concerns are not valid at all.
Click to expand...
Of course not.

roguenuke said:
They are making assumptions based off of their ideology.
Click to expand...
Seems like there a lot of that going on in this forum.:roll:
roguenuke said:
If they had proof/evidence that these seminars were encouraging actual unhealthy sexual behavior, then I would consider their complaints. But since they are basing their complaints off of the titles of the seminars and their assumptions, then they don't get more consideration.
Click to expand...

Of course not. So much for tolerance of differing opinions. Standard response: 'Quash it!'
 
eohrnberger said:
Of course not.

Seems like there a lot of that going on in this forum.:roll:

Of course not. So much for tolerance of differing opinions. Standard response: 'Quash it!'
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that those students who oppose such things shouldn't be allowed to do so, and even protest or share those feelings. However, they also shouldn't automatically be considered valid concerns worthy of action just because they have "concerns" or feel as they do. They need valid reasoning.
 
Is this course about actually being able to successfully arrange a threesome or actually having it be fun?
 
roguenuke said:
...likely to reduce things like drunken hookups....

....and might even improve relationships on campus....
Click to expand...

There is really no evidence to support this whatsoever. It is simply what you have read into course, combined with your completely subjective ideological opinion of what "healthy sex and relationships" should look like.

Frankly, where your first assertion is concerned, the course titles and general tone in which the subject is being approached suggests exactly the opposite, in point of fact.

roguenuke said:
I'm not saying that those students who oppose such things shouldn't be allowed to do so, and even protest or share those feelings. However, they also shouldn't automatically be considered valid concerns worthy of action just because they have "concerns" or feel as they do. They need valid reasoning.
Click to expand...

The school is misappropriating public funds to advocate partisan political ideologies and promote deviant, and often dangerous, sexual behavior among its student body.

Is that not "valid" reason enough to oppose it?

Should the Rastafarians be able to host a "Ganja Week" touting the wonders of Marijuana next?

Would that "benefit the academic environment" as well? :roll:
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
I'm not saying that those students who oppose such things shouldn't be allowed to do so, and even protest or share those feelings. However, they also shouldn't automatically be considered valid concerns worthy of action just because they have "concerns" or feel as they do. They need valid reasoning.
Click to expand...

Of course the measure of what 'valid reasoning' is or is not, would lie with someone as yourself? Got it.
 
eohrnberger said:
Of course the measure of what 'valid reasoning' is or is not, would lie with someone as yourself? Got it.
Click to expand...

It lies with the school, which obviously has no issue with this and likely finds it to be a good idea, since they are sponsoring it.
 
Gathomas88 said:
There is really no evidence to support this whatsoever. It is simply what you have read into course, combined with your completely subjective ideological opinion of what "healthy sex and relationships" should look like.

Frankly, where your first assertion is concerned, the course titles and general tone in which the subject is being approached suggests exactly the opposite, in point of fact.

The school is misappropriating public funds to advocate partisan political ideologies and promote deviant, and often dangerous, sexual behavior among its student body.

Is that not "valid" reason enough to oppose it?

Should the Rastafarians be able to host a "Ganja Week" touting the wonders of Marijuana next?

Would that "benefit the academic environment" as well? :roll:
Click to expand...

Bull. They are using funds to teach students to have better sexual relationships. You have no evidence to prove otherwise. Titles of seminars that disagree with what you consider "healthy sexual relationships" are not evidence of anything.
 
roguenuke said:
Bull. They are using funds to teach students to have better sexual relationships.
Click to expand...

According to your completely subjective partisan ideology and worldview, and no one else's. :roll:

Your lack of objectivity on this subject is duly noted. However, it doesn't change much of anything. The fact of the matter remains that this is a wholly inappropriate abuse of power, and the University deserves every ounce of bad press and legal trouble it gets into over it.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Accorded to your completely subjective partisan ideology and worldview, and no one else's.

Your lack of objectivity on this subject is duly noted, but it doesn't change much of anything. This is wholly inappropriate, and the University deserves every ounce of bad press and legal trouble it gets into over this farce.
Click to expand...

Research shows that teaching children/teens/young adults about sex in a healthy manner reduces things like unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and unsafe sex in general. Talking about this stuff is good.

HEP - Sexual Health: Communication & Relationships Resources

Regarding contraception, the evidence is robust that sexual communication predicts greater sexual safety and the use of protection:
Click to expand...

Why Aren't We Talking to Our Partners About Sex? | Psychology Today

It isn't merely my subjective partisan opinion that talking about sex is a good thing, makes sex safer and healthier. This is supported by research.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Accorded to your completely subjective partisan ideology and worldview, and no one else's. :roll:

Your lack of objectivity on this subject is duly noted, but it doesn't change much of anything. The fact of the matter remains that this is a wholly inappropriate abuse of power, and the University deserves every ounce of bad press and legal trouble it gets into over it.
Click to expand...

I hadn't even considered the University's bad press and potential legal trouble for putting this sort of thing on.

Can you just imagine if equal access were applied?

*OMG* They may have to even allow a . . . *shudder* . . . conservative to speak on campus *shock*!! :eek:
 
roguenuke said:
Research shows that teaching children/teens/young adults about sex in a healthy manner reduces things like unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and unsafe sex in general. Talking about this stuff is good.

HEP - Sexual Health: Communication & Relationships Resources

Why Aren't We Talking to Our Partners About Sex? | Psychology Today

It isn't merely my subjective partisan opinion that talking about sex is a good thing, makes sex safer and healthier. This is supported by research.
Click to expand...

So, again, Ganja, Binge Drinking, and "Gun Love" weeks, yes or no? :roll:

Surely, the same logic applies there. Does it not?

Hell! Maybe we should have a "drunken bar fight" week while we're at it! We clearly need to talk about violence, and the proper way to inflict it, so that we can prevent these students from hurting themselves, yes?

Also, for the record, nice usage of weasel words. "Communication," as a generalized concept, is great.

Communication in the context of "How to get laid," and "How to negotiate a threesome," on the other hand?

Yea... Not so much. That's just your opinion
 
eohrnberger said:
I hadn't even considered the University's bad press and potential legal trouble for putting this sort of thing on.

Can you just imagine if equal access were applied?

*OMG* They may have to even allow a . . . *shudder* . . . conservative to speak on campus *shock*!! :eek:
Click to expand...

Exactly. Where's "Marriage Week?"

Where's the class on "How to negotiate a monogamous relationship?"

Anyone who can't see the blatant partisan agenda at play here is either dumb as a box of rocks or simply playing stupid in order to avoid having to admit the obvious.
 
Gathomas88 said:
So, again, Ganja, Binge Drinking, and "Gun Love" weeks, yes or no? :roll:

Surely, the same logic applies there. Does it not?

Hell! Maybe we should have a "drunken bar fight" week while we're at it! We clearly need to talk about violence, and the proper way to inflict it, so that we can prevent these students from hurting themselves, no?

Also, for the record, nice usage of weasel words. "Communication," as a generalized concept, is great.

Communication in the context of "How to get laid," and "How to negotiate a threesome," on the other hand?

Yea... Not so much. That's just your opinion
Click to expand...

None of those things can actually be shown to reduce something that a university might find affects students, like these sexual communication classes/seminars do, except maybe the "Gun Love" week, which I would be all for if the seminars included gun safety and training and laws and our rights concerning guns (did you assume that I am an anti-gun person?, I'm for responsible gun ownership and not acting like a douchebag with your guns, but still maintaining 2nd Amendment rights).

You are not paying attention to the logic, but rather going off on your own tangents in relation to your own beliefs.

There was not one entitled simply "how to get laid", but rather included more. And since there is nothing truly dangerous about threesomes or getting laid in itself.
 
roguenuke said:
None of those things can actually be shown to reduce something that a university might find affects students, like these sexual communication classes/seminars do, except maybe the "Gun Love" week, which I would be all for if the seminars included gun safety and training and laws and our rights concerning guns (did you assume that I am an anti-gun person?, I'm for responsible gun ownership and not acting like a douchebag with your guns, but still maintaining 2nd Amendment rights).

You are not paying attention to the logic, but rather going off on your own tangents in relation to your own beliefs.

There was not one entitled simply "how to get laid", but rather included more. And since there is nothing truly dangerous about threesomes or getting laid in itself.
Click to expand...

No, that is what you are doing. The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a bunch of classes instructing students in how to successfully acquire promiscuous sex and threesomes will serve to "reduce" much of anything. As a matter of fact, they are being deliberately marketed in such a way as to all but bash students over the head with the idea that they will actively promote deviant behavior instead.

You're apparently "A-okay" with that simply because it happens to fit in with your political ideology. :roll:

Instruction in safe sex is fine. Instruction in communication in relationships is fine.

The ideological and moral context in which these concepts are being presented at this university, however, is not. It is inappropriate, partisan, and non-objective.

That's frankly all there is to it.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Exactly. Where's "Marriage Week?"

Where's the class on "How to negotiate a monogamous relationship?"

Anyone who can't see the blatant partisan agenda at play here is either dumb as a box of rocks or simply playing stupid in order to avoid having to admit the obvious.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that marriage isn't something that people learn about? I'm all for a seminar about building healthy, committed relationships, including marriage between all people. Willing to bet that was actually included in that week somewhere, just not mentioned since it wasn't something "sensational" enough to be noteworthy and ignored for the self-righteous outrage of the conservatives. If not, it isn't like we should be encouraging college students to actually get married while still in college either.

Hell, this isn't even the first year some of these seminars have happened.

http://news.unm.edu/news/unm-womens-resource-center-hosts-sex-week-presentations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom