8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: − + + +
Talk:Human reproduction (view source)
Revision as of 01:15, August 31, 2008
, 01:15, August 31, 2008no edit summary
::If it's just a 'completly ordinary part of the human body,' why is it forbidden by both social taboo and criminal law to display it in public? We call them the 'dirty parts' for a reason - they are kept out of sight because this allows them to be kept out of mind, not filling people's thoughts with lust and sin or damaging children. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
::If it's just a 'completly ordinary part of the human body,' why is it forbidden by both social taboo and criminal law to display it in public? We call them the 'dirty parts' for a reason - they are kept out of sight because this allows them to be kept out of mind, not filling people's thoughts with lust and sin or damaging children. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
Penis is not a dirty word in and of itself. It has dirty connotations, sure, but it is a scientific term. In some situations the context can lend a rude meaning but there is no other way to describe intercourse. Are we going to beat around the bush like 5th graders by saying some ridiculous euphemism? - [[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] - 27 Feb. 2008
::The fact that certain body parts might have certain doubtful connotations, should really not obscure the fact that we're talking about an act fundamental to the human race. And I clearly suppose you would prefer them to learn from a (relatively) serious encyclopedia, than certain unmentionable web-sites. Calling them "dirty parts" and keeping them out of sight and mind, might help certain religious fundamentalists, but it definitely won't do their children any good. The only thing you achieve, is that they search for information other places. Besides; if you do want grand-children, they have to learn it somehow... :p. Why you come to speak of "damaging children", is beyond my wildest dreams. Fact is, kids are getting sexually active sooner and sooner, and for the vast majority, this is merely healthy and trusting proofs of working relationships. This is a fact. Trust me. Obviously; there are those awry cases. These prove the need for sexual education - learning how to put on a condom, etc. Abstinence only-programs should be banned. If nothing else, they contribute to teenage pregnancies - proven by statistics. Yes, I know this is supposed to be a Christian web-site - but the Bible says nothing against sex - the Song of Songs in the Old Testament is for the most part a salute to human reproduction and its glories.. The words against sex outside of wedlock should be reinterpreted as a warning against sex in a current relationship. A wedding is a nice and cosy ceremony, but it's entirely possible to be trusting lovers without it. What matters, is that you trust each other, respect each others feelings and take precautions against the consequenses. If these things aren't reasons enough, science shows that the more youth know about sex, the less dangerous are the consequences. Sir/miss/madam "Newcrusader" - if you have children, I would be sincerely worried about them - parents like you are the reason youth psychologists thrive. Regards; - [[User:Tangentus|Tangentus]]
::Penis is not a dirty word in and of itself. It has dirty connotations, sure, but it is a scientific term. In some situations the context can lend a rude meaning but there is no other way to describe intercourse. Are we going to beat around the bush like 5th graders by saying some ridiculous euphemism? - [[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] - 27 Feb. 2008
::No. I suggest we simply walk past the bush and don't acknowledge it's presence. - NewCrusader
::No. I suggest we simply walk past the bush and don't acknowledge it's presence. - NewCrusader