Posted on 10/10/2006 9:45:12 AM PDT by white trash redneck
How sad that it is considered provocative or insane to report what was once common sense.
SD
Typo: that's Mark not Mary.
Now, be serious. When my wife gives me "that look" and heads for the bedroom, what I am NOT thinking to myself is "Oh, boy! I get to propogate the species!". As for the title of the thread, I quote Billy Crystal from "City Slickers": "Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place."
Thanks for posting this. I'll hand it to the Wife and see what happens....
Getting a just little too overtightened over this subject wouldn't you say?
Do you consider that to be a "rational response?"
SD
So Foley was doing those pages a favor?
By counting the number of organisms---those who use asexual reproduction vastly outnumber those who rely upon sexual reproduction. And, yes, that would include bacteria and other unicellular organisms.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Odd question for a man of science to ask. Is "looking for hypocrisy" your first reaction to a logical argument being presented?
Can you refute the premise put forth, that by refusing to reproduce one cedes the future to those who do?
SD
I expect leftists to scream at any criticism of sexual narcissism, but alleged conservatives?
I cultivate the theological virtue of hope, but I have to say this kind of debauched thinking indicates a death spiral for my culture.
It's kind of an ambiguous question as framed. The article was more about the individual health benefits of "sexual" activity.
The philosophical explanation for sex in general is gathered from observation:
Only animals that reproduced have ancestors living today. Reproduction in the wild confers no real benefit to the parental individual. So reproduction is one of those accidents that perpetuate themselves. There is no more purpose in reproduction than there is in the sea-cloud-rain cycle. Water isn't seeking a purpose and neither is reproduction. But both have consequences.
You forgot the sarcasm tags. I hope.
OUCH!!! I was NOT expecting that. I may never ever be able to reproduce again. Thanks! ;-)
Blah, blah, blah. By their standards, sluts, whores and pornstars are the most well-adjusted people on earth. We know the exact opposite is true.
Monogamous marital sex may be a different story.
Because it makes me smile (is that a good answer?)
I don't believe in having babies for purposes of outnumbering my enemies. Whether that purpose amounts to providing voters, or military recruits, it's abhorent. If the all so wonderful folks in charge of Western Civ can't protect freedom by establishing that purpose in law, so that freedom itself doesn't depend on the number of detractors, there's little to be admired in that system.
I have to ask: are you Catholic? I'm not trying to be rude, it's just important to know if your position is rooted in religious faith, or in scientific demographics (Steyn), or both.
That way, I'll know how to answer you.
I don't believe in having babies for purposes of outnumbering my enemies.
Plus, it's a very lame pick-up line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.