- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
Why am I so fascinated by the sex lives of politicians? Because they offer windows into the soul of American sexuality, in terms both of its reality and its ideals. Read More
Reply
What was that statement? "Recognizing that chastity is impossible, stalwart Americans have regrouped to the position that kids can go at it as long as sex for fun is quickly abandoned." Gimme a break.
So, people used to be able to be much more in control of themselves about not sleeping together before getting married (or at least minimizing it) before the last few decades, and now they can't? That it's "impossible"? Gimme a break.
That line is truly a sign of the times, so to speak. Were you, Mr. Peele, being sarcastic or saying what you thought was a true, honest statement? Were you really talking about "attitudes or Americans today", or your own "enlightened", "progressive" opinion? And if Americans, which Americans? Not me.
If you were being truthful, how do you explain those of us who did wait to get married--even though we had the opportunities to have sex and didn't take them? Are we "freaks of nature" or something? Your article almost implies that. We must have literally "done the impossible".
Randy, you asked "how do you
Randy, you asked "how do you explain those of us who did wait to get married--even though we had the opportunities to have sex and didn't take them".
Is "frigid" enough of an explanation for you?
Shouldn't a person of
Shouldn't a person of consenting age be able to choose with whom and when they want to have sex with? No strings attached so far as their partner is of consenting age and consents? Should they choose not to is their decision and equally respectable. However, one should respect their decision to abstain or engage in sexual activities. One should respect their decision even more if they choose to use contraception when engaging in sex in order to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies, or sexually transmitted diseases. The whole world, I mean the rest of us should respect their decision if they choose to use contraceptive measure solely on the basis that they did not bring another human being into an already overcrowded overpopulated unsustainable world run rampant with disease, poverty, and hunger. Look at Africa. While the rich nations stand idly by and consume.
Should they not? Or should everyone try their damned hardest to wait until marriage? What if young couples do not agree with or do not believe in the idea of marriage or the ideas behind marriage? What if they are free thinkers? What if they are not followers of cults or religions? What if they can't even get married as in the case of homosexuals? Sex is a personal decision. It should not be burdened by some idealistic fantasy grounded in blind archaic beliefs.
Stanton Peele's article and Anonymous
First of all, Mr. Peele and Anonymous, you or nobody else in this progressively immoral society have any right to point fingers or judge anyone's sexual behavior. More often than not, a habitual sexually immoral person is the first one to pick on Christians for just about anything they would say, do, or not say or not do. When did a person become less human just because of their Christian faith? Christians don't dehumanize others for their moral or ethical failures. So why are we dehumanized for our moral or ethical failures? Not even God Himself does that to a human being! No Christian claims to be perfect! As imperfect people ourselves, it is for us to obey God's biblical instructions through the sharing of His good news about how there's hope in Jesus Christ! And so we endure bad mouthing from those who willfully choose not to offer the same tolerance to us that they absolutely refuse not to have for themselves.
Christianity is not a political condition; rather it is a spiritual strength which prompts the individual, for being a true believer in God's word, to make choices accordingly.
This country was built on Christian ethics. Whenever a hand is extended to help those in need, it's usually attached to Christianity, or those who believe they are Christian and are attempting to respond likewise. In these troubled times, we don't need the negative input of those whose thoughts are basically fueled by their sexual urges and their relentless quest to cater to those urges. America needs the wisdom of those who would stay on their knees in prayer to our Creator for the empowerment of this country to be sustained and then overcome its troubles.
Leave Sarah Palin's children alone!!! They are no different than any other children; completely without choice for their parents' interests. Girls and boys have been strategically finding ways to go against their Moms'and Dads' caring instructions and guidance since the beginning of time and they will continue to do so; from the ghetto to the bureaucracy and then some.
Let's keep the candidates' kids out of the public forum.
Let's keep the candidates' kids out of the public forum.
Why?
Why shouldn't we be allowed to discuss the candidate's children? Not only do I think they are very important especially in efficient workplace performance, but also from a freedom of speech point of view I think that they are fair game. Also, politics isn't some type of "no personal" space in which one can wake up become a politician and then come home and BAM it's back to being just another average citizen until it's time to go back to "work". One of the best ways leaders lead is through example. Through being in the public eye and through engaging in free discourse with other citizens so that they too can come up to their own opinions of their own free will. Also, there is no distinction between private and public life. As Socrates or Plato would have said we are only truly free in the public sphere. Our "private" lives only isolate us from each other. What we really need to do is enlarge our public lives such that we are truly a community--and not just self interested "private" individuals. We are after all social creatures. Once we realize this we will be able to really work together we will be able to submit ourselves to the general will of the community as Rousseau so passionately believed we could--from which will come the freedom we all so desperately want.
Furthermore that's how it should be too because sure one can have these "well reasoned" out positions and beliefs in one's "private life" that they will take to the grave about abortion, racism, or what else will spark an emotional stir, but the moment of truth is when one is confronted through personal experience with these situations out in the wide open "public life" and how they react. Not only that but shouldn't background information i.e. family stability, personal physical and mental health be relevant as to whether or not a worker in a professional field let alone a candidate holding office will be able to "faithfully" execute their entrusted responsibilities? I mean let's look at an example. A doctor with let's say ten children all ranging in age. There is no way this poor creature can make all ends meet. Either the family will take the hit or the job will. Something will go. Sure this is a little extreme. But then again a pregnant teenage daughter and a newly born baby with down's syndrome aren't really miracle kids either.
Ethical standards pertain.
Hmm, this is odd. I'm reading a long, unstructured entry that says there's no distinction between public and private life -- from an anonymous poster. Go figure.
The APA ethics manual might be helpful to consult here; however, that would only apply for those of us who present ourselves as psychologists.
Finally, to answer your question: It's inappropriate to discuss children of candidates because, hello, they're children. Psychologists are supposed to adhere to ethical standards in how they treat people. Talking about the "last pleasurable sex act" of someone who never chose to put herself in the limelight is intrusive and it's no way to treat a teenager -- pregnant teenagers included.
Talk about the family obligations of the candidates -- that's fine, you're talking about the candidates. Their children's private lives are inappropriate content for a public forum.
No offense meant, but I won't be explicating this further.
Don't cry for Bristol
The way I look at it is that Dr. Peele is just doing what psychologists do: making a well reasoned analysis based on an apparent psycho-social trend of which the "child"'s situation is just a prime example. Frankly I'm glad that someone is finally using this sitaution to make an educated statement about our society instead of using it as political bait like the GOP and media already have. Sarah Palin knew she was putting her family's privacy at risk when she took on the VP position.
Don't cry for Bristol
To Cindy Taren:
All kinds of public figures have families; this goes without saying. Do such people deserve to have their families and/or private lives disrespected or ridiculed because of their professions?
Post new comment