Friends with benefits is beneficial

January 1st, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Sydney Morning Herald (h/t Lindsay Mitchell) reports:

As we all know, hooking up for casual is bad for young people because it causes emotional or psychological damage.

Right?

Well, actually, no. At least not for young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, according to a new study by University of Minnesota researchers.

Even they found the results startling.

They asked more than 1300 young Minnesota adults about their most recent sexual encounters, their self-esteem and their emotional wellbeing. Interestingly, only about one-fifth of the subjects said their last encounter was casual. But their overall emotional status was no different than the four-fifths who said they were in committed relationships with their most recent sexual partner.

“We were so surprised,” said Marla Eisenberg, an assistant professor at the university’s School of Public Health who studies adolescent and young adult health.

“The conventional wisdom is that casual sex, ‘friends with benefits’, is hurtful. That’s what we’ve been teaching kids for decades,”, she said.

So friends with benefits is now officially deemed beneficial!

Tags:

49 Responses to “Friends with benefits is beneficial”

  1. radvad (749 comments) says:

    So why not put fornicatoreums in school playgrounds on the basis of this ground breaking research?

    But wait. Other surveys repeatedly show youth to be under more stress than ever. Any chance there is a connection?

    Somehow, somewhere, someone will use this and any other study to call for the modern day “solution” to everything;
    MORE FUNDING.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Countess (150 comments) says:

    Junk Science. Its the same rubbish we have had for years about food, ie eating raspberries makes you fat or not . Usually self reporting with vague measures such as self esteem. Not surprised it comes from a school of ‘public heath’. Which then gets a newspaper makeover which turns it into a ‘discovery’- which its most certainly is not

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (3,282 comments) says:

    So friends with benefits is now officially deemed beneficial!

    No. It’s just no more harmful than sex in a committed relationship. Maybe they’re both beneficial, maybe they’re not. The report on this report doesn’t elucidate.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Bok2 (90 comments) says:

    The name says it all.
    “Friends with benefits” as apposed to “friends with bad side effects”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    If you think casual sex is beneficial then do you also think the declining marriage rate, increasing divorce rate, declining birth rate (in developed countries) and increasing abortion rate are also beneficial?

    There are other stats as well like the increasing promiscuity amongst young people whereby e.g. even intermediate children are beginning to have sex and young ladies are behaving like promiscuous males. Not to mention the growth of pornography.

    Sex, love and mutual commitment used to be inseparable. Don’t know about you, but to me these trends reveal a series of increasingly sick societies, not healthy ones.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Fletch (6,258 comments) says:

    I agree with reid et al.
    The research sounds like a load of bollocks to me.
    When did they ask them how they felt? A few days after? A month?

    Meanwhile, over in Britain they’re getting 10 year old boys raping an 8 year old girl. I suppose they’ll just say they need more sex education, then that’s probably the cause of it in the 1st place.

    Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6828579/10-year-old-boys-charged-with-raping-girl-8.html

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fletch (6,258 comments) says:

    Better link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/17/boys-aged-ten-charged-rape

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “but to me these trends reveal a series of increasingly sick societies, not healthy ones.”

    Quite right reid. And it’s not that we have a shortage of such indicators.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10618092

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    I notice someone disagrees with my 10:19. Would they care to explain why?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    I haven’t agreed or disagreed with 10:19 yet. I’m not sure.

    I share concerns with recent trends. I personally am happy with marriage and am staunchly for monogamy and fidelity. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it is best for everyone. It may be unnatural, as suggested by something RB linked to: under The Primal Nature of Men and Women

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

    Is it better for those who want to be to be openly promiscuous, rather than under the cloak of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Viking2 (11,371 comments) says:

    You guys should go read a lot more about history. There is not much that is new in any of this. Just many more people doing it and much more opportunities for comment.
    I read that survey a few days ago and considered it about reflects reality.
    Been reading the book WAR about nzer’s at war. Apart from war itself the casual sex went on even way back in the Boer war.
    Go to Capn Cooks Journals and he tells about when they went into the sounds. The Maori fellow in there sold his wife and girls to the sailors 1760 or thereabouts.
    Read about ?England in the 1600’s, 1700’s, during the wars. Its all in there.

    Why do you think the worlds population continues to grow even though we have all these wars and plagues etc etc.
    It just sex. Most like it so it happens.
    by the way I see a survey the other day which showed 52% of married kiwi women have affairs and only 48% of men. So there’s your answer.
    Women want sex and will get it, not always from the one fellow.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Of course the weird thing about this is that the ideas expressed in the article are appparently endorsed by someone who strives to reform welfarism.

    Another example of how Libertarians are, in the fight against suffocating collectivism and for individual liberty, such a crosswired useless bunch.

    A platoon of doctrinal morons who often fire into their own ranks.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    “I haven’t agreed or disagreed with 10:19 yet. I’m not sure.”

    The way I see it Pete, it’s a question of what is constructive or destructive for society in general.

    The individual person is a part of that but they also have wider responsibilities since as Doone says: No man is an Island: i.e. we are all connected and what a person does as an individual matters greatly to society and vice versa.

    There are many trends not least this one but also including feminism and consumerism which are in the final equation, socially destructive. They are marketed under the guise of promoting individual rights and this sucks in many useful idiots who then turn around and claim that, for example gay marriage, is a human rights issue instead of what it really is, which is a social engineering ploy designed to degrade the unique value of the marital contract in people’s minds. Unfortunately there are many useful idiots and the definition of one is that they don’t even know that they are being used as such.

    For example if I was to say what I just said on that bastion of free speech, a University Campus, hundreds if not thousands of useful idiots would hysterically claim that my position is anti-women or anti-gay and that I was the worst kind of homophobic misogynist and would no doubt shout me down for my temerity, the irony of them doing so in such a bastion of course escaping them. Such mass hysteria is increasingly common and meanwhile those trends I mentioned above keep getting worse and worse with each passing generation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    “You are talking nonsense. Child pornography has nothing to do with promiscuity.”

    I didn’t say it did, Bok2. Try to read what I actually said instead of what you hallucinate. I was referring to pornography in general, as my comment clearly reads.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    “You guys should go read a lot more about history. There is not much that is new in any of this.”

    Viking2, you’re talking about historical instances of the sex act itself arising outside of marriage, I’m talking about the social attitudes toward it and the social consequences arising therefrom. Entirely separate topics, so not sure why you’re disagreeing with me because your point doesn’t relate in any way to mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David in Chch (512 comments) says:

    Actually, reid, I think viking2’s point does relate. There HAVE been different attitudes towards multiple partners, sex outside marriage, etc., between cultures, between times within cultures. etc. If you look back through history, then attitudes towards sex were quite different in Elizabethan and Jacobean England when compared to Victorian times. That is NOT to say the behaviour was any different, but attitudes were different.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Bok2 (90 comments) says:

    So reid you pedantically attack one thing. Sorry I inferred wrongly that you meant child pornography. However the rest remain true to what you implied.

    Viking is correct.

    And pornography is as old as the world itself. The only difference was that it was the domain of “pleasure ” for the men who held the power, politically or morally or financially. They felt that they could indulge but it was their job to “protect” the general populist from the “bad effects” A sort of Helen like “I will decide for you” type of thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    Yeah David but it wasn’t until the pill came along that the connection between sex and children became disconnected.

    When consumerism started (by Freud’s nephew) in the 1910’s, it began the trend we now see where two incomes are necessary to support a middle-class lifestyle.

    When feminism came to the West in the sixties (it was started by the commies in the 20’s), Western women were introduced to the concept that marriage was a patriarchal repressive institution designed specially to oppress their human rights.

    Those dynamics did not exist until then and that’s why I don’t believe that historical comparisons (from a social engineering perspective) are germane to what I said above.

    Bok2, pornography is a side-issue to the points I was making. If you want to get distracted about, then I’d merely say that it’s a vehicle enabled by mass-media particularly these days by the web to corrupt people and erode their value systems by making them think that perversions are normal and that young people are particularly susceptible. The lack of availability in the past simply means it didn’t reach as many.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Reid, normally I’d help you out against these shallow thinking social liberals who cannot see how self defeating (in terms of individual liberty) their ideas are, but I don’t have the time and I’d have to struggle to develop the motivation.

    I suggest you don’t worry too much about them. They are followers of a trend that long ago reached its use by date. Their ideas are an anachronistic throwback that will soon be just another casualty of common sense and history, as most similar Progressive ideas will be too one day.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David in Chch (512 comments) says:

    Plus ça change, plus ca même. There are few real social “trends”, merely cycles. There are very few genuinely new ideas, merely old ones recycled, variations on a theme. That’s why some of us step back and try to look at a bigger picture, not so much shallower as broader.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    Unfortunately RB I don’t believe this is going away because I don’t think the useful idiots are ever going to have an epiphany. When even smart people like DPF get sucked into the propaganda around concepts like gay marriage, quite frankly I despair.

    Nevertheless, because these particular issues are so massively socially destructive and insidious I personally think it’s what Thoreau was referring to when he said: “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

    Anyway, thanks anyway. I know that you never needed convincing, you already discovered the truth for yourself a long time ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Angus (536 comments) says:

    reid. You may want to read this piece. Whilst I don’t share the authors optimism in his opening statement, it is very relevant to this thread.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMcBride/2009/12/30/naked_liberalism

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Viking2 (11,371 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, what are you on about? Usually I can follow your argument and agree/ disagree but you’ve lost me.

    Sex has always been sex and its always been about procreation. That man on one of his cleverer mornings managed to frustrate the ultimate purpose and make the use of the act more about pleasure and or intimacy is just as well because otherwise the doom sayers (who incidentally like to feast greedily on the act.), would be telling us the world is doomed because there is too many of us. (sound familiar?) We would be making to much carbon and warming the world too much.etc etc.

    Actually you can go back to the Roman/ Catholic Empire and the literature, paintings and sculptures are full of the debauchery carried out by those bastions of morality and (according to Don the Kiwi) longtime environmentalists.

    One is left wondering how it was that the queer fellows and deviants got control after Ceasar.
    Now there’s a fun debate.We have the Catholics and their Anglican brothers who like to suppress their women folk, Muslims that treat their women even worse, both from the same stable and of course all their breakaway variants and then we have the Vikings who treated all men and women as equals.
    Its interesting to see which particular lot causes most of the trouble on earth. A’int the Vikings.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    So once again we have sad little nonentity academics at sad little nonentity institutes of no academic qualities whatsoever telling us that its OK to fuck who you like and damn the consequences.

    Reminds me a lot of those dreadful American documentaries on the NatGeo or Discovery channel where a supposedly sensible documentary about whatever is constantly interrupted by a nonentity professor from some obscure Yankee outfit of higher learning talking shit.

    Pap for the masses. Bit like watching TV1 or TV3 really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    It ALL Sounds Like Casual Sex To Me

    As we all know, hooking up for casual sex is bad for young people because it causes emotional or psychological damage.
    Right?

    Well, actually, no. At least not for young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, according to a new study by University of Minnesota researchers.

    Even they found the results startling.

    They asked more than 1300 young Minnesota adults about their most recent sexual encounters, their self-esteem and their emotional wellbeing. Interestingly, only about one-fifth of the subjects said their last encounter was casual. But their overall emotional status was no different than the four-fifths who said they were in committed relationships with their most recent sexual partner.

    Now let me get this straight:
    The survey group consisted of “1300 young Minnesota adults” aged between 18 and 24. The comparison is between those in “committed relationships” (whatever that is) and those whose “last encounter was casual”. 20% said their last encounter was casual.

    The thing that hits me is that there is no mention of marriage being equated with a committed relationship. Or even whether any of the 18 – 24 year olds were married – one assumes they were not. Or for that matter, the specifying of exactly what a committed relationship is. Is it a couple being together for a year? six months? three months? one week?

    And assuming it’s expected that many youngsters will have many sexual partners anyway, and so therefore the term “committed relationship” is likely to be quite short – say three months – then why would we expect any difference in terms of “emotional or psychological damage” of those surveyed when, in real terms, ALL these relationships are what we would describe as casual and short term relationships, and certainly NOT marriage relationships?

    If you could compared those 1300 surveyed with say a large number of 24 year olds who are in a committed marriage relationship, and THEN consider the “emotional or psychological damage”, then this survey might actually have some meaning. I think in THAT instance we may observe quite a difference within the survey group regarding mental health, etc.

    This survey, as it stands, does nothing more than give the green light to youth: Have sex with who you like – there are no consequences, “emotionally, psychologically”, or otherwise.
    It also implies that marriage is irrelevant and old fashioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    This survey, as it stands, does nothing more than give the green light to youth: Have sex with who you like – there are no consequences, “emotionally, psychologically”, or otherwise.

    Well exactly Kris, that’s the whole idea of this survey and many others like it.

    How do you think feminism got such a foothold if not by being promoted as pseudo-science by the intellectual elite whose job it is to shape impressionable young minds before they sally forth into the new world and eventually pass on the same poisoned thoughts and values to their own children?

    The wonder of it is, few of the students ever seem to realise how profoundly they’ve been manipulated. And neither do most of the academics many of whom are merely passing on the poison in all good faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    It looks like half the commenters above think that sex is dirty, but for people in the age group mentioned it’s part of learning to be an adult, and learning about forming and developing relationships with the type of people from whom they’ll be looking to select a life partner.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    “It looks like half the commenters above think that sex is dirty”

    From where do you draw that conclusion Andrew?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Andrew W 4:24 pm,

    It looks like half the commenters above think that sex is dirty, but for people in the age group mentioned it’s part of learning to be an adult, and learning about forming and developing relationships with the type of people from whom they’ll be looking to select a life partner.

    Since when is ‘having (casual) sex’ part of “learning to be an adult” ?
    All the above survey, and the liberal elite, encourages young people to do is have ‘no consequence’ sex. Of course, there are consequences, but such surveys hide it, and pretends to give balance to the debate.

    And as Reid (4:17 pm) mentioned, the youth are being “profoundly manipulated”, and even if they do work it out for themselves, ‘sex is fun’, and it suits me to ignore the consequences so I can keep on ‘having fun’.

    It’s only years later when they will actually realise that they were spun a lie, and that there are in fact consequences to their actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “It looks like half the commenters above think that sex is dirty,”

    You poor simple brained fuckwit. How unsurprising that such a superficial and completely devoid of wisdom comment would come from you.

    ” From where do you draw that conclusion Andrew? ”

    From deep down in the depths of his 75 IQ.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    The wonder of it is, few of the students ever seem to realise how profoundly they’ve been manipulated.

    ?? Who is manipulating them? How are they being manipulated? Aren’t they doing as they please? Acting on basic sexual urges and freedom of choice?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    How are those flying lessons going then Peety Poos?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    I’ve never flown a plane, only hang glider and glider. I wouldn’t talk on a cellphone while doing either, and I hope no one piloting any plane I’m in will try and use a cellphone while landing. That was the original point someone made. I doubt you would ever have considered talking on a cellphone while shooting a deer. Or bonking, even if only casually.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    reid, the balance of my comment illustrates what I mean by “dirty”, perhaps I should have said “…think casual sex…”

    Kris, sometimes casual sex can be a mistake, sometimes not, depends on the circumstances, I’m not one of those “know what’s best for everyone else” socialist people.

    Fuckwit, you’re just a fucked-up anti-social autocratic retard, with no life of his own who has to go around telling other people how to live their lives just so you can feel there’s some point to your own sad life. When I fire on you you moron, I’m not firing on my own ranks. Given the chance of having real power over others, I’ve no doubt you’d be just another fuck-up like Mugabe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Who is manipulating them? ”

    Commies like you.

    “How are they being manipulated?”

    By Gramascian means.

    As you well know you duplicitous poseur.

    (When are you going to quit the innocent act?? It don’t wash loser.)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 5:47 pm,

    Who is manipulating them? How are they being manipulated? Aren’t they doing as they please? Acting on basic sexual urges and freedom of choice?

    We all know you’re not that naive, Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    You tell me Kris. You can’t believe commies are manipulating young people into having sex. The churches try and manipulate them into not having sex, but the fear of fire and brimstone is gone for most, so now they bonk. And bonk. So self manipulation isn’t as necessary as it was.

    It’s a basic urge, and it’s fun. You don’t need to be told that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 6:16 pm,

    Society has removed any restraint that may have existed in the past, Pete, and we wonder why STIs, Aids, youth suicide, youth violence, youth crime, etc. are through the roof. Without the teaching of biblical values, and/or good morals holding individuals in check, and then studies like these, and those that write them encouraging (especially) kids to ‘if it feels good, do it’, then why are we surprised when that is exactly what they do?

    Self control is TAUGHT, Pete, and if we don’t teach it then we end up with anarchy. This is what we observe in the sexual attitudes and practices of those that took part in this survey. And there will be mental health issues for them as a consequence.
    Is this the sort of society you want to live in?
    It’s not my idea of ‘happy camping’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    Without the teaching of biblical values, and/or good morals holding individuals in check…..

    Self control is TAUGHT

    That sounds like manipulation.

    The survey proposed that there weren’t mental health issues. But their overall emotional status was no different than the four-fifths who said they were in committed relationships with their most recent sexual partner.

    I think things have swung too far to freedom to do as you please without considering consequences. But how I feel about it is irrelevant, it is possible that different social practices are no worse than those I am familiar with, and the survey suggests that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Viking2 (11,371 comments) says:

    What comes from this conversation is the appalling ignorance of a lot of you guys with regard to the past. Spewing forth with religious convictions that ignore the past doesn’t do you any credit.
    One of the big churches makes most of its money from allowing weekly forgiveness of sins and from the trade of prostitution.
    Teenagers have been having sex for several thousand uears its just that today they are more mobile and therefore have a greater selection and more opportunity.
    Think about it. When you lived miles from your neighbor and its was a day or so’s journey to meet the next person how could you be at it like rabbits. When they got together in bigger groups it all happened.
    Great grandmother 1870’s age 17 pregnant and married. Married a fellow twice her age. Went on to have another 11 and died of old age. Ditched the first fellow after no.2 and lived in sin with Ggrand father till the first fellow died. About no.6 child I think they were able to get married.
    So nothing new under the sun. It all happened in NZ by the way. She arrived here 1858.

    All good Catholics they were. Ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Viking2 (11,371 comments) says:

    Oh and I think if you read about that survey it is on a group of people thay have been monitoring for a lot of years .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 6:56 pm,

    Read (re-read) my 4:04 pm comment and then get back to me.
    It addresses that fact that the entire 1300 that took part in the survey were likely ALL in casual sexual relationships, while NONE were likely in committed marriage relationships. This is a NON survey dressed up to tackle the issues – which it doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Viking2 you have contributed nothing to this thread but baseless off topic one dimensional drivel. Go away, the meat of this subject is obviously as difficult for you to comprehend as it is for Andy Pandy.

    Here’s the bottom line. For Marxism to achieve the political supremacy its followers wish it to, there are three cornerstones of traditional society that have to be destroyed. One is the church, two is the patriarchal family unit and three is the traditional morals and values advocated by those two former entities.

    Pete George, (Mr Feelings) as a committed Marxist knows that well. If I was David Farrar I would give him 100 demerits for trolling and lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    25 per cent said it was with a committed partner
    55 per cent said it was an exclusive dating partner
    12 per cent said it was with a close, but not sexually exclusive, partner
    8 per cent said it was a casual acquaintance.

    It doesn’t say if any of the 25% were married or not. You are only guessing by saying none were, but that may not matter much anyway.

    Interesting that 80% were in exclusive partner relationships, only 20% shagging around.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    fuckwit: “Andy pandy” Oh, I feel so slain.

    “If I was David Farrar I would give him 100 demerits for trolling and lying.”

    If you were Mr Farrar this place would be deserted.

    kris, I don’t think that there’s any evidence supporting your suggestion that people who are into casual sex at 18-24 are more likely to suicide, or be criminals etc. What you see as one form of bad morals (in this case sex between consenting adults) doesn’t necessarily predispose these people to other amoral acts or crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Viking2 (11,371 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, I feel so insignificant. you with your superior intelligence who doesn’t even understand basic human instinct and behavoir. You try to wrap it up in dogma that’s as bad as anyones here.
    The Church, if there is such a thing, is inanimate and doesn’t have morals. Its the despots that populate that institution that pontificate about and continually confuse and ignore those supposed morals to suit.
    The patriarchal family unit is and was but a small part of life’s mixtures of people and if you want to look at families closely from past times many of them were mixtures and blends bought about by acts of religion, war, famine,accident, sickness and life generally with men and women dying along the way and the survivors matching up again. It was often a matter of the only way to survive.
    For a family to survive intact in the 15th,16th 17th and 18th centuries was more by luck than anything. Life was cruel back then so your traditional beliefs are founded on an untruth and a distorted view of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    “The Church, if there is such a thing, is inanimate and doesn’t have morals.”

    “The Church” is nothing more than a vehicle through which the living body of Christ occasionally expresses Himself amongst us, Viking2.

    If you don’t feel Him close to you all the time, join the club. However, I have found over the years the more often you go, the closer you feel.

    It’s not rocket science.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Viking2 (11,371 comments) says:

    No its not. Its brain washing mind control. Fairy tale stuff of legends.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.