• 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

Where did you get that they were going to teach "how absolutely amazing it is <to> go and try to take home drunk strangers from bars and clubs"? Nothing in those titles said that.

"How to negotiate a threesome."

"How to get laid."

You were saying? :roll:

Not everyone at a bar or club is drunk or a stranger.

Oh, well that's good news! The sober ones that you actually know are more likely to rape you!

The fact of the matter is that you don't know what really is safe or responsible sex, only what you want to believe is "safe and responsible sex".

Statistically speaking, I can say with 100% confidence what "safe" and "responsible" sex is and is not.

I hate to break it to you, but it's not "sleeping around," no matter how much latex you use.

It is in no way a waste of time to teach students how to develop healthier sexual relationships, even if they had absolutely nothing in there about practicing safe sex.

Sooo... Again.

"How to negotiate threesomes" and "How to get laid," equates to "healthier sexual relationships" in your mind?

:screwy
 
"How to negotiate a threesome."

"How to get laid."

You were saying? :roll:

Oh, well that's good news! The sober ones that you actually know are more likely to rape you!

Statistically speaking, I can say with 100% confidence what "safe" and "responsible" sex is and is not.

I hate to break it to you, but it's not "sleeping around."

Sooo... Again.

"How to negotiate threesomes" and "How to get laid," equates to "healthier sexual relationships" in your mind?

:screwy

None of those things mention drunk strangers, alcohol at all for that matter, clubs or bars, or anything else you are claiming. Threesomes and more can have healthy relationships (already posted the link earlier). And getting laid is basically having sex. Hard to have a healthy sexual relationship if you aren't "getting laid".
 
None of those things mention drunk strangers, alcohol at all for that matter, clubs or bars, or anything else you are claiming. Threesomes and more can have healthy relationships (already posted the link earlier). And getting laid is basically having sex. Hard to have a healthy sexual relationship if you aren't "getting laid".

Out of curiosity, did you ever actually go to college? :lol:

As far as all that "polyamory" nonsense is concerned, I'm sure that the roughly 1% of people out there who can actually pull that kind of thing off will greatly appreciate all the time and money the school has spent on their account. :roll:
 
Last edited:
None of those things mention drunk strangers, alcohol at all for that matter, clubs or bars, or anything else you are claiming. Threesomes and more can have healthy relationships (already posted the link earlier). And getting laid is basically having sex. Hard to have a healthy sexual relationship if you aren't "getting laid".

i could understand his outrage if this was a required curriculum
but the students attend of their own volition
why the angst about them becoming more educated about matters of sexuality
it's almost as if one seeks to equate sexuality with dirty/disgusting; residue from the old south
 
Out of curiosity, did you ever actually go to college? :lol:

I am going to online college now. I went into the Navy, which is one big frat house with a small sorority living with them and a few older, more responsible people mixed in to supervise them, especially true during the first couple of years, while I was in training. Do you have delusions that somehow people that aren't in college at that age range have completely different experiences than college students do? We don't.

You said that these seminars were going to be about teaching college students to pick up drunken strangers in clubs and bars. You have no idea what these seminars are about at all, given the fact that you don't recognize that you can go home/sleep with someone who a) you didn't pick up from a club or bar, and/or b) is not drunk, and/or c) isn't a stranger to you.
 
i could understand his outrage if this was a required curriculum
but the students attend of their own volition
why the angst about them becoming more educated about matters of sexuality
it's almost as if one seeks to equate sexuality with dirty/disgusting; residue from the old south

It simply goes to show how fundamentally screwed up the priorities of modern education happen to be.

These people are going into six figures worth of debt for degrees that largely don't even ensure employment after graduation anymore.

How do schools react to this? By perpetuating the "school is about partying and putting adulthood on hold" stereotype, and basically hosting a "how to be good at being a slut week," simply because it's something the overwhelmingly Liberal staff happen to support.

It is "disgusting"... On many different levels.

I am going to online college now. I went into the Navy, which is one big frat house with a small sorority living with them and a few older, more responsible people mixed in to supervise them, especially true during the first couple of years, while I was in training. Do you have delusions that somehow people that aren't in college at that age range have completely different experiences than college students do? We don't.

You said that these seminars were going to be about teaching college students to pick up drunken strangers in clubs and bars. You have no idea what these seminars are about at all, given the fact that you don't recognize that you can go home/sleep with someone who a) you didn't pick up from a club or bar, and/or b) is not drunk, and/or c) isn't a stranger to you.

The fact of the matter is that college campuses have a culture all their own. That culture revolves largely around spoiled and self-entitled Middle Class white kids rebelling against mommy and daddy by getting into every kind of trouble they can possibly imagine within a four year span of time.

In that vein, "hook-ups" at bars and clubs are basically ubiquitous. They are actually more common than dating in the current day and age.

Most of the time, those liaisons take place under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both.

Again, take my word for it, modern college students do not need any more encouragement from "enlightened" Liberal professors in order to "experiment" or behave like irresponsible imbeciles. They manage just fine on their own. :roll:
 
The fact of the matter is that college campuses have a culture all their own. That culture revolves largely around spoiled and self-entitled Middle Class white kids rebelling against mommy and daddy by getting into every kind of trouble they can possibly imagine within a four year span of time.

In that vein, "hook-ups" at bars and clubs are basically ubiquitous. They are actually more common than dating in the current day and age.

Most of the time, those liaisons take place under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both.

Again, take my word for it, modern college students do not need any more encouragement from "enlightened" Liberal professors in order to "experiment" or behave like irresponsible imbeciles. They manage just fine on their own. :roll:

Are you trying to say that sailors would never hook up at bars with people? Never try to rebel or do stuff like that? Much of the time liaisons between sailors and anyone involves alcohol (some of the time drugs, but not often due to more stringent rules for us). None of this means that these particular seminars are trying to teach them to pick up drunken strangers at bars or clubs to go home and sleep with. What is more likely is that they are going to discuss/teach about who should be "targeted" (perhaps sober women/men) and getting to know the person over more than a single night even to "hook up" with them. You simply don't know but only speculating based on your heavily biased viewpoint on this subject.
 
Are you trying to say that sailors would never hook up at bars with people? Never try to rebel or do stuff like that? Much of the time liaisons between sailors and anyone involves alcohol (some of the time drugs, but not often due to more stringent rules for us). None of this means that these particular seminars are trying to teach them to pick up drunken strangers at bars or clubs to go home and sleep with.

The military has certain rules and structures built into it on an intrinsic level. While that doesn't prevent many military persons from being promiscuous - to the contrary, they can be quite promiscuous - it does limit the amount of trouble a person can get into without finding themselves facing serious consequences.

None of that exists on a civilian campus. It is basically a free-for-all.

You can drink all night, smoke pot all day, and skip classes to your heart's content... Just so long as you manage to squeak by with a 2.0 GPA.

What is more likely is that they are going to discuss/teach about who should be "targeted" (perhaps sober women/men) and getting to know the person over more than a single night even to "hook up" with them. You simply don't know but only speculating based on your heavily biased viewpoint on this subject.

Which is, again, at best a waste of time, and, at worst, counter-productive.

You do not negate the ill-effects of promiscuity by helping people to be more successful at it, nor do you build "healthy relationships" that way, as promiscuity isn't "healthy" in the first place. This is roughly the equivalent of telling underage students all the best spots in town get alcohol, but thinking that's "A-okay" because you told them to "drink in moderation" and gave them a number for AA.

What's going to happen is that they'll take the "fun" part of your advice, and forget all about the rest just as soon as it stops being convenient.
 
The military has certain rules and structures built into it on an intrinsic level. While that doesn't prevent many military persons from being promiscuous - to the contrary, they can be quite promiscuous - it does limit the amount of trouble a person can get into without finding themselves facing serious consequences.

None of that exists on a civilian campus. It is basically a free-for-all.

You can drink all night, smoke pot all day, and skip classes to your heart's content... Just so long as you manage to squeak by with a 2.0 GPA.

Which is, again, at best a waste of time, and, at worst, counter-productive.

You do not negate the ill-effects of promiscuity by helping people to be more successful at it, nor do you build "healthy relationships" that way, as promiscuity isn't "healthy" in the first place. This is roughly the equivalent of telling underage students all the best spots in town get alcohol, but thinking that's "A-okay" because you told them to "drink in moderation" and gave them a number for AA.

What's going to happen is that they'll take the "fun" part of your advice, and forget all about the rest just as soon as it stops being convenient.

We are talking about having sex, not doing other things, such as drinking or using drugs. Military members could still pick up those college girls and guys who have been drinking and/or using drugs.

No, it is not a waste of time at all, nor counterproductive, if the goal is to teach students how to build healthier relationships that still involve sexual activity.

The ill-effects of promiscuity are mainly due to unwanted pregnancy (teaching about safe sex to avoid this), STDs (again, safe sex to avoid this, building a relationship with your partner so that you know them and their history/plans before you have sex with them), and unhealthy relationships that are abusive or simply non-fulfilling. Promiscuity is not unhealthy in itself. Being irresponsible in your sex life is unhealthy.

And if we taught students/teens how to drink in moderation and why they should, rather than either a) avoiding talking about alcohol at all, b) acting like it is completely wrong always, thus making it a temptation for them, or c) sending them mixed messages about alcohol, then we really wouldn't have so many alcohol issues either.

They are already likely doing the fun part. If only a few of them listen to the parts that are going to help them have healthier relationships, that still makes it a net benefit.
 
We are talking about having sex, not doing other things, such as drinking or using drugs. Military members could still pick up those college girls and guys who have been drinking and/or using drugs.

No, it is not a waste of time at all, nor counterproductive, if the goal is to teach students how to build healthier relationships that still involve sexual activity.

The ill-effects of promiscuity are mainly due to unwanted pregnancy (teaching about safe sex to avoid this), STDs (again, safe sex to avoid this, building a relationship with your partner so that you know them and their history/plans before you have sex with them), and unhealthy relationships that are abusive or simply non-fulfilling. Promiscuity is not unhealthy in itself. Being irresponsible in your sex life is unhealthy.

And if we taught students/teens how to drink in moderation and why they should, rather than either a) avoiding talking about alcohol at all, b) acting like it is completely wrong always, thus making it a temptation for them, or c) sending them mixed messages about alcohol, then we really wouldn't have so many alcohol issues either.

They are already likely doing the fun part. If only a few of them listen to the parts that are going to help them have healthier relationships, that still makes it a net benefit.

This is simply you projecting your nonsensical (and oddly naive) "sex positive" ideology onto the issue again. :roll:

There are a great many "ill-effects" of promiscuity, a lot of them subtle and psychological, rather than overt and psychical. "Hook-up regret" and loss of self-esteem tied to bad sexual experiences, for instance, are quite common, and there is also evidence to suggest that persons with large numbers of sexual partners in their formative years are less capable of maintaining long term relationships and marriages than their more sexually restrained compatriots further into adulthood.

If you're trying to say that any of these negative impacts can be "taught" out of the experience, I'd, quite frankly, say that you're completely missing the point of these behaviors in the first place.

They are not meant to create "healthy relationships." They never were. In point of fact, "relationships" have little or nothing to do with it. They are meant to satisfy selfish, ego-boosting, animal lust while thumbing one's nose at traditional social mores in the process.

For that exact reason, when they do, occasionally, spawn relationships, they tend to be unstable, fundamentally unhealthy, and short-lived. They are simply built off of all the wrong things.

This brings us right back to my major problem with this whole thing in the first place. First off, it is a waste of time and money.

(If it even is the instructors' misguided intent to push for such a thing in the first place) College students are no more going to accept a "kinder, gentler" version of promiscuity than they are going to start only having two drinks at Fraternity keggers. That's simply not the way vice works, especially not in an environment which actively promotes excess.

Secondly, the way this entire farce has been framed and marketed does actively serve to promote exactly the kind of "excess" which makes these behaviors so common in the first place.

At the end of the day, this will accomplish absolutely nothing other than to push the Left's "sexual liberation" agenda, while very likely making the original problem worse. It is basically just a glorified progressive propaganda piece.
 
Last edited:
It simply goes to show how fundamentally screwed up the priorities of modern education happen to be.

These people are going into six figures worth of debt for degrees that largely don't even ensure employment after graduation anymore.

How do schools react to this? By perpetuating the "school is about partying and putting adulthood on hold" stereotype, and basically hosting a "how to be good at being a slut week," simply because it's something the overwhelmingly Liberal staff happen to support.

It is "disgusting"... On many different levels.



The fact of the matter is that college campuses have a culture all their own. That culture revolves largely around spoiled and self-entitled Middle Class white kids rebelling against mommy and daddy by getting into every kind of trouble they can possibly imagine within a four year span of time.

In that vein, "hook-ups" at bars and clubs are basically ubiquitous. They are actually more common than dating in the current day and age.

Most of the time, those liaisons take place under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both.

Again, take my word for it, modern college students do not need any more encouragement from "enlightened" Liberal professors in order to "experiment" or behave like irresponsible imbeciles. They manage just fine on their own. :roll:
[emphasis added by bubba]


all is see here and in previous posts is an unhealthy view of sexuality
i will say no more to avoid infraction
 
So if the University sponsored a Holocaust Museum that showed life in a camp, or the collaborators in other European nations, the role the Catholic Church had in it... would you claim the University is endorsing mass murder on an industrial scale????

You seem to suggest much without any real proof, just a partisan line of sight...

I was in college for the five-year plan and saw plenty. Also had enough sense to avoid most of that noise.

Most of those folks are not in great shape these days. Life has kicked their ass.
 
The military has certain rules and structures built into it on an intrinsic level. While that doesn't prevent many military persons from being promiscuous - to the contrary, they can be quite promiscuous - it does limit the amount of trouble a person can get into without finding themselves facing serious consequences.

Umm, trouble is defined by the existence of consequences. There isn't any type of trouble that a service member can't get into.

One of us certainly has an "unhealthy" view of sexuality.

It isn't me, however. :lol:

Your views on sexuality are very unhealthy
 
Umm, trouble is defined by the existence of consequences. There isn't any type of trouble that a service member can't get into.

The military's stance is largely preemptive and preventative. They keep service members out of greater kinds of trouble by punishing them more harshly for lesser kinds of trouble, and often making brutal examples of those who still manage to get in greater kinds of trouble anyway.

A civilian college student, by way of contrast, is afforded more than enough rope to promptly hang themselves with.

Beyond even that, they are often blatantly encouraged to do so by popular culture and misguided Liberal twits in older generations pushing counter-productive social and ideological agendas.

Your views on sexuality are very unhealthy

My views built Western civilization.

Your's have resulted in AIDs, an STD epidemic which afflicts more than a third of our nation's population, and a society so fundamentally broken that more children are born to struggling single parents in my age group than to either married couples or couples in steady relationships.

As far as results and objective reality are concerned, I think it's rather clear who's vision of sexuality and its role in life is more "healthy" and productive.
 
Last edited:
The military's stance is largely preemptive and preventative. They keep service members out of greater kinds of trouble by punishing them more harshly for lesser kinds of trouble, and often making brutal examples of those who still manage to get in greater kinds of trouble anyway.

Service members have gotten into all kinds of trouble. They do not keep them out of trouble

My views built Western civilization.

Your's have resulted in AIDs, an STD epidemic which afflicts more than a third of our nation's population, and a society so fundamentally broken that more children are born to struggling single parents in my age group than to either married couples or couples in steady relationships.

As far as objectives results are concerned, I think it's rather clear who's vision of sexuality and its role in life is more "healthy" and productive.

No, it's repressive views like yours that have caused all those problems
 
Service members have gotten into all kinds of trouble. They do not keep them out of trouble

Look it up. Rates for just about every major crime out there are lower in the military than outside of it.

Drug usage and sexual assault are lower as well.

Suicide is about even, and alcohol and tobacco usage are greater. However, a certain degree of that is to be expected given the age range involved, and the effects of PTSD in soldiers returning home from war plays a large role as well.

No, it's repressive views like yours that have caused all those problems

:lamo

Needless to say, the historical record says otherwise.

It took just fifty years of "sexual liberation" for STDs to go from being a minor annoyance relegated to the dregs of our society, to a deadly fact of life for all segments of the American population. In the same span of time, single parenthood went from being rare, to being almost as common as married life (and actually more common, in demographics at or under thirty years of age).

Please, do tell, how any of that has anything whatsoever to do with "repression." :roll:

Frankly, I wish people were more "repressed." If that were the case, we might actually get somewhere in combating all these problems! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Look it up. Rates for just about every major crime out there are lower in the military than outside of it.

Drug usage and sexual assault are lower as well.

Suicide is about even, and alcohol and tobacco usage are greater. However, a certain degree of that is to be expected given the age range involved, and the effects of PTSD in soldiers returning home from war plays a large role as well.



:lamo

Needless to say, the historical record says otherwise.

It took just fifty years of "sexual liberation" for STDs to go from being a minor annoyance relegated to the dregs of our society, to a deadly fact of life for all segments of the American population. In the same span of time, single parenthood went from being rare, to being almost as common as married life (and actually more common, in demographics at or under thirty years of age).

Please, do tell, how any of that has anything whatsoever to do with "repression." :roll:

Frankly, I wish people were more "repressed." If that were the case, we might actually get somewhere in combating all these problems! :lol:

Abstinence-only education programs increase the rates of teen pregnancy and disease.
 
Abstinence-only education programs increase the rates of teen pregnancy and disease.

They do not. They are simply ineffective.

Frankly, why wouldn't they be? Literally the entirety of modern youth and popular culture is working against them.

Being lectured for a couple hours a week isn't going to make any kind of appreciable difference in comparison to the constant stream of sexually charged stimuli students are bombarded with day-in and day-out preaching the exact opposite message, especially not given the incredibly more relaxed parenting styles and moral standards common in the current day and age.

However, this ultimately all a moot point. I never said that I supported "abstinence only" education in the first place.

I simply don't support taking exactly the opposite approach, and blatantly encouraging young people to be promiscuous instead.
 
Last edited:
Look it up. Rates for just about every major crime out there are lower in the military than outside of it.

Drug usage and sexual assault are lower as well.

Suicide is about even, and alcohol and tobacco usage are greater. However, a certain degree of that is to be expected given the age range involved, and the effects of PTSD in soldiers returning home from war plays a large role as well.

It happens to service members so that means that the service doesn't keep it from happening

Needless to say, the historical record says otherwise.

It took just fifty years of "sexual liberation" for STDs to go from being a minor annoyance relegated to the dregs of our society, to a deadly fact of life for all segments of the American population. In the same span of time, single parenthood went from being rare, to being almost as common as married life (and actually more common, in demographics at or under thirty years of age).

Please, do tell, how any of that has anything whatsoever to do with "repression." :roll:

Frankly, I wish people were more "repressed." If that were the case, we might actually get somewhere in combating all these problems! :lol:

The historical record shows that STD's have been common throughout history.
Syphilis – Its early history and Treatment until Penicillin and the Debate on its Origins

I simply don't support taking exactly the opposite approach, and blatantly encouraging young people to be promiscuous instead.
There is no evidence that anything at this event encourages promiscuity
 
It happens to service members so that means that the service doesn't keep it from happening

The service's methods of managing its personnel make them happen less often.

The historical record shows that STD's have been common throughout history.
Syphilis – Its early history and Treatment until Penicillin and the Debate on its Origins

Never to the extent seen today.

There is no evidence that anything at this event encourages promiscuity

"Threesomes" and "getting laid" are promiscuous by their very nature.

You're not fooling anyone with this argument. I'd suggest that you just drop it as the troll song and dance routine it truly is.
 
Last edited:
They do not. They are simply ineffective.

Frankly, why wouldn't they be? Literally the entirety of modern youth and popular culture is working against them.

Being lectured for a couple hours a week isn't going to make any kind of appreciable difference in comparison to the constant stream of sexually charged stimuli students are bombarded with day-in and day-out preaching the exact opposite message, especially not given the incredibly more relaxed parenting styles and moral standards common in the current day and age.

However, this ultimately all a moot point. I never said that I supported "abstinence only" education in the first place.

I simply don't support taking exactly the opposite approach, and blatantly encouraging young people to be promiscuous instead.

I don't agree that this encourages that.
 
The service's methods of managing its personnel make them happen less often.



Never to the extent seen today.



"Threesomes" and "getting laid" are promiscuous by their very nature.

You're not fooling anyone with this argument. I'd suggest that you just drop it as the troll song and dance routine it truly is.

No, they are not. Promiscuity involves numerous partners.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree that this encourages that.

No, they are not. Promiscuity involves numerous partners.

No they don't

Wrong again. STD's were worse in the past.

Wrong again.

:lol:

Okay. So we've rather clearly demonstrated at this point that neither of you are aware of the normal definition of the word "promiscuous."

Promiscuous

promiscuous
[pruh-mis-kyoo-uh s] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective


1.
characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

2.
consisting of parts, elements, or individuals of different kinds brought together without order.

3.
indiscriminate; without discrimination.

4.
casual; irregular; haphazard.

i.e. "Casual sex."

i.e. i.e. "Any sex outside of a committed relationship."

And we've also demonstrated that Sangha needs to brush up both on his knowledge of basic history, and his knowledge of simple statistics (and pretty much everything else, while he's at it).

Anything I'm forgetting here? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom