"Faux News uses sex.....

[vraiblonde]

Moral relativism, it's not so much they are there for the kids less and less it is they are more likely to accept poor behavior because relatively speaking it is not as bad as others behavior.

Atta boy!

I told you she was fabulous, didn't I?

 

[Pete]

Atta boy!

I told you she was fabulous, didn't I?

I saw it sitting there and felt guilty that you loaned it to me months ago and I had not even started reading it yet. So I logged off the mindless forums and grabbed it and started reading. At 11:30 I was bleary eyed and had to put it down.

 

[~mellabella~]

Mkay...

I see your point. I know that there is no universal standard for assessing ethical/moral rights vs. wrongs. It just makes me sad that it ends up with kids being short changed over it.

 

[Plan B]

ok. ...no, everything wasn't perfect then, but things were a hell of a lot better than they are now!

Before Brown vs BOE, Joe McCarthy, no seatbelts, Jim Crow, and botched abortions; or after?

 

[godsbutterfly]

I see your point. I know that there is no universal standard for assessing ethical/moral rights vs. wrongs. It just makes me sad that it ends up with kids being short changed over it.[/QUO


I feel that we are in a place where many parents are trying to live out their "youth" while in their forties. Some of my childrens' friends act more responsibly than their parents do. Their parents are more into the drug and alcohol scene than what their kids ever thought about and it's pathetic when the child never knows who is going to come walking out of Mom or Dad's bedroom door. Maybe I am a prude but I think that's the wrong image for a child to have of their parent. Some parents are with kids a lot but don't really spend any quality time with them at all because they are too focused on themselves. You can't be selfish and be a good parent IMO.

 

[vraiblonde]

Before Brown vs BOE, Joe McCarthy, no seatbelts, Jim Crow, and botched abortions; or after?

I'll give you Brown and Jim Crow, but please explain to me what was so bad about the other three?

 

[~mellabella~]

Before Brown vs BOE, Joe McCarthy, no seatbelts, Jim Crow, and botched abortions; or after?

Name one era in our past or present where things were perfect. And look at the rates for violence, murders, rape, ect and you will see precisely what I mean.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Hello?

There wasn't such a high divorce rate, and there were more father's living with their children instead of sending a monthly check or abandoning them outright. There was very little aborticide. Radio people weren't spanking lesbians on the air. We were not aware of any Presidents getting bjs from interns.

The list goes on and on and you can't possibly compare the two eras.

I suspect you are a very young person - no older than 30. Am I right?

38 .....

 

[Novus Collectus]

Name one era in our past or present where things were perfect. And look at the rates for violence, murders, rape, ect and you will see precisely what I mean.

Rapes (especially date rape), child abuse and spousal abuse were under reported for a very long time. You can look at the violent crime rate of the 1950s compared to now and it will give a skewed image.

While I envy the seemingly more prevalent nuclear family of the early 1950s, I definitely do not want to live in a time where wife beating was either tolerated, excepted or allowed on any level. I also don't like the idea they had back then of dismissing date rape as "boys will be boys" and the idea that any boy or girl who accused their minister, pastor or priest was making it up and should keep their mouth shut because it might disrupt the community.

No, there is some progresses our society has made which I will never want to see reveresed and I would never want to live in the 1950s, 1960s or relive the 1970s.

 

[~mellabella~]

Rapes (especially date rape), child abuse and spousal abuse were under reported for a very long time. You can look at the violent crime rate of the 1950s compared to now and it will give a skewed image.

While I envy the seemingly more prevalent nuclear family of the early 1950s, I definitely do not want to live in a time where wife beating was either tolerated, excepted or allowed on any level. I also don't like the idea they had back then of dismissing date rape as "boys will be boys" and the idea that any boy or girl who accused their minister, pastor or priest was making it up and should keep their mouth shut because it might disrupt the community.

No, there is some progresses our society has made which I will never want to see reveresed and I would never want to live in the 1950s, 1960s or relive the 1970s.

When it comes to abuse-are you referring to spankings? Or actual abuse? Cuz I think the lack of spankings these days is exactly why kids are so out of control. But I don't believe in child abuse or spousal abuse. And I agree with you on the rape thing. Now our problem is people reporting rapes and abuse that never happened.

 

[vraiblonde]

38 .....

You have a very youthful outlook for someone your age.

 

[Novus Collectus]

When it comes to abuse-are you referring to spankings? Or actual abuse? Cuz I think the lack of spankings these days is exactly why kids are so out of control. But I don't believe in child abuse or spousal abuse. And I agree with you on the rape thing. Now our problem is people reporting rapes and abuse that never happened.

I meant sexual abuse, not spankings.
I am against most corporal punishment of kids, but that is based on personal feelings which might (or might not) apply to me and kids I may have someday, and as far as I know it is ok. I do not take a position on other people's spanking of their kids.
(Of course beating kids is criminal at a certain point of severity I think we all could agree upon)

As far as spousal abuse goes, to add to the discussion, did you know there was no law preventing forced sex ("rape") of a spouse in MD until a decade or two ago? Making rape of a spouse illegal is another aspect of our society's progress I am glad of.
Our violent crime rate is partly higher nowadays compared to years of yore because more despicable acts are now illegal, or the enforcement of some of the existing laws is finally occuring.

 

[~mellabella~]

I meant sexual abuse, not spankings.
I am against most corporal punishment of kids, but that is based on personal feelings which might (or might not) apply to me and kids I may have someday, and as far as I know it is ok. I do not take a position on other people's spanking of their kids.
(Of course beating kids is criminal at a certain point of severity I think we all could agree upon)

As far as spousal abuse goes, to add to the discussion, did you know there was no law preventing forced sex ("rape") of a spouse in MD until a decade or two ago? Making rape of a spouse illegal is another aspect of our society's progress I am glad of.
Our violent crime rate is partly higher nowadays compared to years of yore because more despicable acts are now illegal, or the enforcement of some of the existing laws is finally occuring.

There is a difference between beating and spanking. You can take it too far. But thats for another thread.

As far as your comments on spousal rape...I think that goes back to moral relativity. Its all in what people saw as wrong at the time. As well as ignorance is bliss. Can't prevent or punish for things that at the time ppl didn't know were going on. But it begs the question, is the world getting worse? Or are things that have been going on for years just coming to light?

 

[Novus Collectus]

You have a very youthful outlook for someone your age.

Pragmatic actually.
I can sometimes be an idealist or a dreamer, but my positions always comes back to and are practically applied according to the adherence to pragmatism.

 

[Novus Collectus]

There is a difference between beating and spanking. You can take it too far. But thats for another thread.

Yes.

As far as your comments on spousal rape...I think that goes back to moral relativity. Its all in what people saw as wrong at the time. As well as ignorance is bliss. Can't prevent or punish for things that at the time ppl didn't know were going on.

It was legal for a husband to rape his wife in MD until around about 1989.

But it begs the question, is the world getting worse? Or are things that have been going on for years just coming to light?

I think the country and maybe even the world is getting better because the things coming to light are finally being addressed even though it may seem like society is getting worse because things are getting the atttention they never did before despite existing for generations.

 

[Kyle]

... I suspect you are a very young person - no older than 20. Am I right?

:fixed:

 

[This_person]

(I)t is desperate to try and dismiss the incredibly higher number of teen pregnancies as being planned marriages. I mean get real, the numbers are so high that at the very least if one were to remove planned marriages one would still have to admit unplanned teen pregnancy was as high if not higher then.

the percent of teen births which occurred outside of marriage increased from 15% in 1960 to 75% in 1995.

...it is preposterous to claim or think they were all planned or happenned after the marriage.

I'm trying to get your point here.... About 30 per 1000 unwed mothers now, about 15 per 1000 unwed mothers then, and now is better?

Please explain.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I'm trying to get your point here.... About 30 per 1000 unwed mothers now, about 15 per 1000 unwed mothers then, and now is better?

Please explain.

That is assuming all of the wed mothers got pregnant as planned after marriage. No let's assume most of the pregnant teens got pregnant as planned, that still means some didn't and when you add that to the 15% that never got married at all that would make unplanned teen pregnancy the same as it is now or worse.

Are you trying to claim that all of the married teen's pregnancies were planned and the marriages were not because "they had to" get married?

The teens were screwing out of wedlock and getting pregnant just as much back in the 1950s. That is the point. Just because many were married it does not mean they were good marriages or they were marriages of love and I am willing to bet many fifties teen marriages were marriages out of necessity. That is only a slight improvement and not much better.

 

[Larry Gude]

Perhaps...

...a call to the DHS is in order; this tread has been hijacked.

Sex as diversion from war, people. Remember?

My take on this is that people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh must be discredited somehow as they have large audiences and that leaves those who disagree with them two choices; accept that they draw a large audience because people like them OR the large audience MUST be being deceived and if they only knew the truth they wouldn't like them.

O'Reilly and Limbaugh do the one thing the left and the MSM never do; discuss opposing views. They may tear it to shreds, they may make fun of it and they are certainly biased, which is one of those side effects of actually having an opinion. But they do discuss it and THAT is the core threat they represent to the left, actually discussing issues.

The left says 'illegal war', 'bring the troops home' etc and NEVER discuss 'what then?'. The left and the MSM operate from the 'everyone KNOWS' style of debate which is the absolutely most dishonest style of debate or informing because it completely removes you from justifying your position, at all, and immediately makes the issue 'What is the opponent up to by ignoring the TRUTH?'

Besides that, if anyone remember the 'good old days' at all, two things father NEVER did was accept being challenged or questioned, which Bill does all the time, and discuss sexuality, at all.

 

[SamSpade]

Just because many were married it does not mean they were good marriages or they were marriages of love and I am willing to bet many fifties teen marriages were marriages out of necessity. That is only a slight improvement and not much better.

Oh for crap's sake, give it up already. You didn't read the fine print, and now you're splitting hairs over whether marriages in the 50's were - oh who gives a crap? You were just friggin' wrong about it. Teen pregnancies for out of wedlock births were lower then. The rest of your argument is just talking out your butt.