Stone Advocates Oral Sex

[Liberalsaved]

chicago:

If she assulated my daughter thusly, I would defend my child’s dignity as a father should. In defense of such a violent attack, even violence is justified, if necessary. It’s not very Christian to just be a pansy dad and roll over to take such nonsense from an intruder. That is not Christlike leadership, but weakness. So if Ms. Stone did not want to get hurt, it would suit her best to back off then leave when I stepped in between them and loudly/determinedly ordered her to get away from my little girl. Similarly, if someone tried to rape my wife, I don’t think I’d just stand by and politely pray for the perpetrator if I had the opportunity to rip certain parts of his anatomy off at that moment. I think that any real man would respond the same.

How is talking to a girl about safe sex violent?

 

[Liberalsaved]

wabrams:

Yeah, she’s advocating the complete opposite.

She’s advocating free sex with no care for the consequences? Wow, I must have read it wrong.

 

[Jeffrey]

She’s not talking to her daughter… if she did that to my daughter… she’d get an earful.

Liberalsaved:

How is talking to a girl about safe sex violent?

 

[Liberalsaved]

Jeffrey:

She’s not talking to her daughter… if she did that to my daughter… she’d get an earful.

Well, I’d run her off too, but I wouldn’t attack her.

 

[chicago]

Liberalsaved:

How is talking to a girl about safe sex violent?

The context in which she wanted to “talk to a girl about safe sex” was one in which the girl was merely shopping for clothes and where the mother was already having a healthy discussion with the girl about sexual modesty in dress. It would have, therefore, been an intrusion against the parent’s will and into what was essentially a family matter that was none of her business. Further, and more signifigantly, seeing as how what she considers “safe sex” is actually a denigration of a genuine understanding of the human body and sexual relations, it is by nature an act of violence against the truth of the matter and the dignity of the young lady: a veritible attack.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

AMEN!!

chicago:

The context in which she wanted to “talk to a girl about safe sex” was one in which the girl was merely shopping for clothes and where the mother was already having a healthy discussion with the girl about sexual modesty in dress. It would have, therefore, been an intrusion against the parent’s will and into what was essentially a family matter that was none of her business. Further, and more signifigantly, seeing as how what she considers “safe sex” is actually a denigration of a genuine understanding of the human body and sexual relations, it is by nature an act of violence against the truth of the matter and the dignity of the young lady: a veritible attack.

 

[setter]

First of all, it shocks me that she would consider it appropriate to undermine a parent by taking it upon herself to talk about sex with a girl who isn’t her daughter, not to mention a complete stranger. She seems to think this is entirely fine.

Agenda before respect for others rights.

Secondly, when on earth would a girl EVER find herself in a situation that she "couldn’t get out

of having sex"? That’s telling a girl that she might find herself in a situation where she can’t get out of being used so she should just allow herself to be used in a different way.
After a generation of unsurping traditional family values in the name of promoting women’s rights, this is what the secular feminist movement has to offer to women as self-empowerment in their choices? Pathetic and depraved.

 

[BlindSheep]

setter:

Agenda before respect for others rights.

After a generation of unsurping traditional family values in the name of promoting women’s rights, this is what the secular feminist movement has to offer to women as self-empowerment in their choices? Pathetic and depraved.

Good point! :yup:

 

[Fitz]

BlindSheep:

The link didn’t work, but - isn’t a strange adult approching a child to talk about sex considered a type of abuse?

If she did this to my daughter, I would press charges and sue her.

I think you would have a case if your child was under 18.

 

[Eileen_T]

I remember a doctor saying a few years ago that he is seeing more and more cases of teenagers with sexually transmitted diseases in their mouths and throats.

Family Planning types and school sex-ed advocate oral sex as a means of avoiding pregnancy. That’s not ALL they teach kids to do either. I don’t know why they think preaching the condom message to teenagers is going to work, at that age they all believe they are bullet-proof - well, my six and their friends did.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

I’ve heard it put like this:

Giving condomns to teens because “they’re going to do it anyway” is like simply putting a helmet on your toddler because you know he’s going to run in the street anyway.
Eileen T:

I remember a doctor saying a few years ago that he is seeing more and more cases of teenagers with sexually transmitted diseases in their mouths and throats.

Family Planning types and school sex-ed advocate oral sex as a means of avoiding pregnancy. That’s not ALL they teach kids to do either. I don’t know why they think preaching the condom message to teenagers is going to work, at that age they all believe they are bullet-proof - well, my six and their friends did.