Opinion

Exploring the Issues: Sexuality - Your responses

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• Tackling Taboos (December 3, 2007)
• Engaging deeper dialogue (November 12, 2007)
• Open dialogue necessary (April 17, 2006)
• Takei correct on equality (April 24, 2006)
• A delicate topic (November 26, 2007)

Also by Online Comments:

• Reason, reason, reason, insanity (November 14, 2008)
• Three readers who hate change (November 7, 2008)
• Readers pick yelling, not country, first (October 31, 2008)
• Readers pwn n00bs (October 24, 2008)
• Readers disrespectfully disagree (October 17, 2008)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

In response to "Do women silence their own opinions?" by Kate Maternowski:

Just wait until the Moslems take over — you’ll be in a burka and not even able to drive, much less vote or express an opinion. It’ll be more a dog collar or the lash than a glass ceiling you’ll have to worry about.

In response to "Legal prostitution: Logically sound, ultimately amoral" by Andy Granias:

One argument put forth by proponents of legalizing prostitution is that, once it is legalized, it can also be regulated. So you can require licenses for pimps and prostitutes, provide regular medical checkups for prostitutes, and put in place other regulations to protect the women.
I personally don’t think this makes it morally right, but it probably makes it easier to stomach for some, and is certainly interesting to think about.

In response to "Despite ban, Fair Wisconsin within reach" by Eli Judge:

How about this for an idea?
Marriage, being originally religious in nature, should not be recognized AT ALL by the state.
Civil union should be the only couple arrangement the state provides, encompassing current legal benefits of marriage like taxation. No limits can be imposed on a civil union — sex, age, heck, even number of people involved (although putting an upper limit on that might be a good idea).
If you want to get married, you can do so under the auspice of the religion or church you choose, but it has no legal bearing.

In response to "Getting off or going down: Is porn destructive?" by Jason Smathers:

Which is worse: surfing for big boobs and bare bottoms in the Net in the privacy of one’s own home or hiding in the bushes at 3am waiting for the next hapless victim to walk by? there are worse things a person can do.

In response to "Greek sexuality myths unfair" by the Panhellenic Association:

Maybe if all Greeks didn’t associate themselves and parallel their lives with all other Greeks they wouldn’t be stereotyped less.
You don’t see non-Greeks acting like this.
Once people in the Greek system start acting like individuals, they will be treated like such.