Monday, January 11, 2010
More sex is safer sex
Now you cant really find a more unacceptable title then this one. And I totally do not agree with what he is saying. But I don't have to, I just have to find something that is an initially Unacceptable claim and this fits the bill. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/76faa124-f0f0-11db-838b-000b5df10621.html This is a book by steven Landburg that tries to apply the art of economics to Sexual promiscuity. In there he states that if more people were promiscuous then sex would be safer for everyone. Even though this appears ridiculous he makes the argument that if more people where sexually active then there would be not be a small circle of people with STD's, rather a larger circle of generally "clean" people and therefore everyone would be less likely to get an STD. He makes the argument that sexual restraint is a pollution to those more promiscious. if one was to agree with his dogmatic logic they may come around to his way of thinking and find his initially unacceatable claim to be accetable. But I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This simply disgusts me. There is no way that what Landburg is propsing could be a good thing. I am going to stick to the gosple. God knows more than we do and if he says not to do something I am going to trust in him over my own minute knowledge. The end.
ReplyDeleteThis is really misconstruing the facts. Yes, I do agree that those principles work in economics, but there and only there. And if he's actually telling people this, I fear for his children.
ReplyDeleteThis is so ridiculous! It definitely is an unacceptable claim like you said. I think it is stupid how part of his persuasion is blaming people that do restrain...not a good way to win your audience over.
ReplyDeleteSigns of the times! lol but really this is disgusting! His Claim really has no support behind it.... its empty...
ReplyDeleteIf disease were a limited commodity, and if it were easy to tell who is infected and who is not, the "economics" would be sound; i.e. everyone would have a greater pool of non-diseased persons for casual sexual encounters. But since both of those propositions are ludicrous, it's a pretty thin argument.
ReplyDeleteOkay what? I do not understand his claim about STDs. So... the more sex we have going around the less STDs we have going around. Yeah. He's got a lot goin' for him. *cough*sarcasm*cough*
ReplyDeleteAnd the way I see it, the people who are having casual sex are more fitting for the title of "pollution" then those who are being abstinent. They are, after all, the ones that are transmitting the STD's.
ReplyDelete