NationStates Jolt Archive

Are there any Republicans, particularly Republican women, who can stay true to a full conservative ideology and yet still partake in and enjoy sex with someone to whom they are not married without seeming hypocritical?

Even if you're not actually one of these people, feel free to provide logical justification for that point of view if you can see it.

EDIT: I don't think this will delve into actual discussion of sex, so I've left off the PG-13 warning. Don't anyone make me regret that

Your post is clearly intended to incite a flame-war.

Somewhere on this board, with all its diverse opinion, must be a Republican who likes sex.

Oh this isn't going to be pretty...

:headbang:

I do. But I'm not a woman. So I can't speak to your question.

And this is still an incite to flame.

Somewhere on this board, with all its diverse opinion, must be a Republican who likes sex.
Dude be fair, the only thing you know about sex is you really , really want to have it someday ;)

I do. But I'm not a woman. So I can't speak to your question.

And this is still an incite to flame.

That's for me to judge.

That's for me to judge.

Well I didn't report it did I?

It's just my opinion.

But when this decsends into a flame war, don't tell me I didn't predict it.

incited flaming? that's something new

I'd say the title would probably piss a bunch of people off, since just about everyone likes sex, but the question asked "Do you think that as a conservative, is it possible to continue to be a full conservative and have sex with someone you are not married to?" doesn't seem to me like it would anger many people, since quite a few conservatives are strong Christians, while others aren't, which would probably make a healthy debate. The possibility of a flame war is still easily possible. Thats my 2 cents.

incited flaming? that's something new

I don't understand this.

I don't understand this.
what?

I don't understand this.
NationStates has more flames than Hell.

what?

your post, that's what.

your post, that's what.
huh?

exactly.

now explain.

which one of the five words don't you understand?

exactly.

now explain.
"Inciting Flaming" is like what chess squares did when he posted he couldnt be arsed voting but then continued to whine about republicans- he incited people to playfully flame him since it became impossible to take his opinion seriously.
However in the case of this thread you cant really say a virgin making a thread with a theme of sex is "inciting flaming" surely it is just "inciting laughter?"

I bet you there has to be at least on person who does.

After all, there are such things as "liberal Republicans" (i know it sounds contradicting but trust me) and Republitarians (Libertarian in the Republican party - my friend is one)

which one of the five words don't you understand?

I understand every word individually. I just don't understand what you ar getting at with them. Please elaborate.

I understand every word individually. I just don't understand what you ar getting at with them. Please elaborate.
It's like you're blaming the gun salesman for a firearm murder

And this stupid bickering once again gets my insightful (NOT inciteful) post overlooked :sigh:

And this stupid bickering once again gets my insightful (NOT inciteful) post overlooked :sigh:
Your post was so insightful we are speechless, take a bow buddy!

It's like you're blaming the gun salesman for a firearm murder

No I blame Janine Garofalo for the firearm murders. Are you French or something.

No I blame Janine Garofalo for the firearm murders. Are you French or something.
Don't insult me

Are there any Republicans, particularly Republican women, who can stay true to a full conservative ideology and yet still partake in and enjoy sex with someone to whom they are not married without seeming hypocritical?

While I may not be Republican or Conservative for that matter... I do not see how this is simply a right-wing way of looking at things. There are plenty of liberals who also partake in a moralistic view of sex, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't insult me

I apologize. I misspoke. I regret my words.

I'm a Republican. I'm not religious, I like sex. I know many women who are Republicans who like sex and are not religious.

Don't try to stereotype millions of people in a particular party.

I'm not a redneck, I have a college degree, I have diverse friends of all faiths and colors. I don't own a gun and I don't thump Bibles.

I'm a Republican. I'm not religious, I like sex. I know many women who are Republicans who like sex and are not religious.

Don't try to stereotype millions of people in a particular party.

I'm not a redneck, I have a college degree, I have diverse friends of all faiths and colors. I don't own a gun and I don't thump Bibles.

I believe in you, now, don´t let other republicans knows this or they will kick you out of the party.

And this stupid bickering once again gets my insightful (NOT inciteful) post overlooked :sigh:

No, it's a flamy and silly topic,

Are there any Republicans, particularly Republican women, who can stay true to a full conservative ideology and yet still partake in and enjoy sex with someone to whom they are not married without seeming hypocritical?

Even if you're not actually one of these people, feel free to provide logical justification for that point of view if you can see it.

EDIT: I don't think this will delve into actual discussion of sex, so I've left off the PG-13 warning. Don't anyone make me regret that

As I recall, libertarians form part of the American GOP. While I don't know how a libertarian can share the same platform as someone from the religious right, I would guess that libertarianism in itself has nothing against sex outside marriage.

Your post is clearly intended to incite a flame-war.
Erm, its really not.

I'd say the title would probably piss a bunch of people off, since just about everyone likes sex, but the question asked "Do you think that as a conservative, is it possible to continue to be a full conservative and have sex with someone you are not married to?" doesn't seem to me like it would anger many people, since quite a few conservatives are strong Christians, while others aren't, which would probably make a healthy debate. The possibility of a flame war is still easily possible. Thats my 2 cents.
The possibility of a flame war exists in anything. I'm just wondering if you can have a conservative moral position and not break that but still enjoy... well, anything really, but in particular sex.

Erm, its really not.

Well then, why didn't you post something like "evangelical christians how can you enjoy pre-marital sex."

FYI, republican !=christian.

But then again, you are the person that thinks the new york post is "rabidly conservative", so I suppose from your standpoint it looks reasonable.

As I recall, libertarians form part of the American GOP. While I don't know how a libertarian can share the same platform as someone from the religious right, I would guess that libertarianism in itself has nothing against sex outside marriage.
Y-es... It's not really the staunchly conservative viewpoint though, which is what I'm looking for.

I'm a Republican. I'm not religious, I like sex. I know many women who are Republicans who like sex and are not religious.

Don't try to stereotype millions of people in a particular party.

I'm not a redneck, I have a college degree, I have diverse friends of all faiths and colors. I don't own a gun and I don't thump Bibles.

While I may not be Republican or Conservative for that matter... I do not see how this is simply a right-wing way of looking at things. There are plenty of liberals who also partake in a moralistic view of sex, if I'm not mistaken.I'm not saying that this would only apply to Conservatives or Republicans, however I am looking specifically for an opinion from that end of the spectrum.

No, it's a flamy and silly topic,
And yet, you're posting because...?

And yet, you're posting because...?

I enjoy flamy and silly topics.

Well then, why didn't you post something like "evangelical christians how can you enjoy pre-marital sex."
Cos that wasn't the question I wanted the answer to, primarily because a hardcore evangelical christian would not HAVE pre-marital sex, or if they did it would directly conflict with their politics/religion rendering it hipocritical. What I am looking for (for the purposes of a brief fictional dialogue) is a coherant arguement of how you could hold these views and not be in a position of failing to practice what you preach

FYI, republican !=christian.
Again, I didn't want an answer specifically limited to christians, so I didn't put it in the title.

But then again, you are the person that thinks the new york post is "rabidly conservative", so I suppose from your standpoint it looks reasonable.Waste of my time, waste of yours

Hmmmm... I officialy (In my own head I am the lord of everything) declare this:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate Sandwich- Meant to be a good converstation, turned into spam ! Not blaming the host of the thread... or am I? This is an invitation for flame-war... but NS forums are political flamewars... so... go play Dragon Court (wild.fiends.com/DCourt/Game.stm) or something. We are funny there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Religious Right does seem to have taken over the GOP. It's a valid topic.

Your post is clearly intended to incite a flame-war.

Perhaps, but we have to agree that with Ws faith and the fact that has just as Hitles only one ball, he does not like a happy people having sex as pleasure.

Hmm, pleasure, those CRWN are against it, just like one ball Adolf was.

Strange, W and Adolf share the same vallues but still, Adolf was not against sex as W is.

The Religious Right does seem to have taken over the GOP. It's a valid topic.
Its nothing to do with that.

Hahaha. You got that right Cho-Do-Lo AZ is hot as hell... or hotter.

FYI, Republican !=Christian

Erm... your 100% wrong there... I am repub, not christian.

Erm... your 100% wrong there... I am repub, not christian.
!=
means "does not equal"

Again, I didn't want an answer specifically limited to christians, so I didn't put it in the title.

Alright, FYI, conservative != christian.

You are engaging in the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Evangelical christians tend to vote conservative, but conservative ideology in the US is not dictated by Christians. Therefore your question is imprecise. Also you used "Republican" in the titel.


Waste of my time, waste of yours

No, you specifically identified republicans. Therefore your post was aimed at US residents. I was just pointing out how absolutely uninformed you were about the US cultural milieu.

Hahaha. You got that right Cho-Do-Lo AZ is hot as hell... or hotter.
It's cooling down though, might have to change that soon. :p

Are there any Republicans, particularly Republican women, who can stay true to a full conservative ideology and yet still partake in and enjoy sex with someone to whom they are not married without seeming hypocritical?

Even if you're not actually one of these people, feel free to provide logical justification for that point of view if you can see it.

EDIT: I don't think this will delve into actual discussion of sex, so I've left off the PG-13 warning. Don't anyone make me regret that
First, Republican does not equal Conservative and Conservative does not equal Republican.
Second, I am unaware of any official political stance on the subject of fornication between a man and women in either the Republican or Conservative Ideologies.
Perhaps you are refering to the Evangelical Religious conservative fundmentalists who have been in the forefront of so much media attention.
It is the common Lefty(I would not soil the term Liberal) habit of generalizing the Entire Republican/Conservative philosophy/ideology (respectivly).
It also leads to the Generalizing of Christian America, and Christians as a whole.
This isnt a question, it is flamebait.

Alright, FYI, conservative != christian.

You are engaging in the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Evangelical christians tend to vote conservative, but conservative ideology in the US is not dictated by Christians. Therefore your question is imprecise. Also you used "Republican" in the titel.
My question is only imprecise if you assume that simply because I'm talking about the right and repressed attitudes towards sex that I MUST be secretly asking about christians.


No, you specifically identified republicans. Therefore your post was aimed at US residents. I was just pointing out how absolutely uninformed you were about the US cultural milieu.
Hey, you know what'd be a really good way to persuade me to answer you seriously instead of blowing you off with a punchline? Telling me that that I'm absolutely uninformed about the US cultural milieu. That's really gonna make me give a damn about what you're saying.

I'm not saying that this would only apply to Conservatives or Republicans, however I am looking specifically for an opinion from that end of the spectrum.

Ah, okay. Carry on. :p

First, Republican does not equal Conservative and Conservative does not equal Republican..

But that is the problem. Most free people see it as a mixture of RWCN, extreme conservatisme, and some fascist influence.

Where are the real Republicans that care about the budget, employment aso. :rolleyes: Is Powell, the only one that stands against a offensive of Pearl, Condo, O Reilly, Wolfowitz and other extreme Rumsfelds that are way far to the right then Nixon, Reagan and all other really great "moderate" people.

The CRWN took power in the party, can't hide that. Glad my later granddad died before seeing the Republican party in the hands of people that don't care about the budget and hear little voices in their head that tell them what to do ("God" or like they say in the Middle East "Allah Akhbar", "God is the greatest")

The stubard Republican would turn Dem, hell.

First, Republican does not equal Conservative and Conservative does not equal Republican.
Second, I am unaware of any official political stance on the subject of fornication between a man and women in either the Republican or Conservative Ideologies.
Perhaps you are refering to the Evangelical Religious conservative fundmentalists who have been in the forefront of so much media attention.
It is the common Lefty(I would not soil the term Liberal) habit of generalizing the Entire Republican/Conservative philosophy/ideology (respectivly).
It also leads to the Generalizing of Christian America, and Christians as a whole.
This isnt a question, it is flamebait.
If its flamebait, then why are you taking it? If there is no Republican/Conservative philosophy/ideology regarding sex, to you take it merely as coincidence all the talk about moral values and whatnot? And finally, how is it generalising an entire anything if I specifically identify the strongest form of the ideology, as I did in my opening post?

Do you think possibly you could be overreacting just a little bit?

My question is only imprecise if you assume that simply because I'm talking about the right and repressed attitudes towards sex that I MUST be secretly asking about christians.

Your question is imprecise because it has no basis.
Political Ideologies that do not have even indirect policies on male/female sex can not be the basis for questioning on such a subject.
Why?
There is nothing to base your question on other then your own uninformed blather.
I guesss you to be about 14 year old sputtering up some garbage some other ignorant teen vomited onto some forum.

If its flamebait, then why are you taking it?
I never attempted to answer your fallacy.
I only pointed out it was a fallacy.

As well pointing out your inability to lodge a logical question, more or less an arguement.

My question is only imprecise if you assume that simply because I'm talking about the right and repressed attitudes towards sex that I MUST be secretly asking about christians.


Well there is no prohibition against pre-marital fornication in the Republican platform. Nor will there ever be. Therefore, yes, obviously republicans can enjoy sex.

So then really your question just comes out of prejudice.

Your question is imprecise because it has no basis.
Political Ideologies that do not have even indirect policies on male/female sex can not be the basis for questioning on such a subject.
Why?
There is nothing to base your question on other then your own uninformed blather.
I guesss you to be about 14 year old sputtering up some garbage some other ignorant teen vomited onto some forum.
I'm fast tiring of your insults so that's getting reported as flame.

I imagine your assertion that all Republicans are sexually frustrated would be taken as insulting and Flaming. I didnt see you reporting that.

My question is only imprecise if you assume that simply because I'm talking about the right and repressed attitudes towards sex that I MUST be secretly asking about christians.


Hey, you know what'd be a really good way to persuade me to answer you seriously instead of blowing you off with a punchline? Telling me that that I'm absolutely uninformed about the US cultural milieu. That's really gonna make me give a damn about what you're saying.

What's more, there is nothing whatsoever in the conservative platform that prohibits pre-marital sex. So by elimination you must be speaking to those Christians that supported the republican party. Stop twisting.

A liberal would not have resorted to such a childish stereotypical insult of their opposition.
So what is it that you are then? If not a child, regurgitating another childs misinformation?

I imagine your assertion that all Republicans are sexually frustrating would be taken as insulting and Flaming. I didnt see you reporting that.

spoffin pretty much reports all posters that disagree with her as flame.

Well there is no prohibition against pre-marital fornication in the Republican platform. Nor will there ever be. Therefore, yes, obviously republicans can enjoy sex.

So then really your question just comes out of prejudice.
I've specified a position (firm rightwing) and I've asked if such a position, with all that it entails either directly or implicitly, precludes an enjoyment of a certain type of activity. Prejudice exists only insofar as that I expect people to understand the views of the group I'm talking about without me directly explaining them.

Spoffin is a female?
Not according to His sig.

I imagine your assertion that all Republicans are sexually frustrated would be taken as insulting and Flaming. I didnt see you reporting that.
Go figure.

spoffin pretty much reports all posters that disagree with her as flame.
Spoffin is a female?
Not according to His sig.
Big green tick for Skibereen
Big red cross for DeaconDave

Spoffin your inability to identify the group you are talking about in the problem.
Firm RightWing what? Conservatives? Republicans?
No policy on fornication between a male and female, therefore either you know this and are baiting or you are ignorant of that fact and refuse to be corrected so you are still baiting, generalizing, and degrading a large cross section of the American population.

I would be happy to attempt to answer your question if you worded it in a way that made sense.

What's more, there is nothing whatsoever in the conservative platform that prohibits pre-marital sex. So by elimination you must be speaking to those Christians that supported the republican party. Stop twisting.
Ah, ok, now here's a sensible point on which we can disagree. I'm of the belief that a strong emphasis on traditional moral values is part of a conservative social position. Do you disagree?

No policy on fornication between a male and female
No policy? Do you really think so?

I'm of the belief .....
Your first problem.

No policy? Do you really think so?
It doesnt matter what I think, it matters what is fact.
The Fact is that the Conservative Ideology, and the Republican Political Philosophy do not contain specific/ or general policy on male/female sex.

Ah, ok, now here's a sensible point on which we can disagree. I'm of the belief that a strong emphasis on traditional moral values is part of a conservative social position. Do you disagree?

Again the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Also...well the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

On both points.

You are free to vote conservative for reasons outside of your opinion of pre-marital sex.

Consevatives have no platform position on pre-marital sex.

Does that help.

Your first problem.


It doesnt matter what I think, it matters what is fact.
The Fact is that the Conservative Ideology, and the Republican Political Philosophy do not contain specific/ or general policy on male/female sex.
Again, you can't coach your answers in any non-offensive way. Never mind.

So far as I know, there is no complete Republican handbook identifying all portions of the ideology. I take into account therefore the general position of individual members, and say that if it is not part of the ideology, then it would certainly be a remarkable coincidence.

Your question is imprecise because it has no basis.
Political Ideologies that do not have even indirect policies on male/female sex can not be the basis for questioning on such a subject.
Why?
There is nothing to base your question on other then your own uninformed blather.
I guesss you to be about 14 year old sputtering up some garbage some other ignorant teen vomited onto some forum.

And I guess you want an official warning.
Consider this it.

You are free to vote conservative for reasons outside of your opinion of pre-marital sex.
Yes, of course, but that's true of quite literally any issue.


Consevatives have no platform position on pre-marital sex. Conservative positions are not uncommonly defined as containing conservative moral values.

Classical conservatism or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes means (slow change) over ends (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation.
No policy there.

Ideological conservatism or right conservatism - In contrast to the anti-ideological classical conservatism, right conservatism is, as its name implies, ideological. It is typified by three distinct subideologies: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and economic conservatism. Together, these subideologies comprise the conservative ideology in most English-speaking countries: separately, these subideologies are incorporated into other political positions.

Social conservatism is generally dominated by defense of existing social norms and values, of local customs and of societal evolution, rather than social upheavel, though the distinction is not absolute. Applied to foreign policy, a mild social conservatism manifests itself in Rudyard Kipling's defense of the Indian natives against British imperialism and in American opposition to the "forced democratization" of post-war Iraq, but conversely, betraying the complexity of ideology, the vast majority of American conservatives in keeping with their accepted values fully support the current effort at democratization or, rather, liberation (in the sense that liberty increases dramatically). In its more extreme foreign-policy manifestations, social conservatism breeds nationalism, tending towards isolationism, on the order of Pat Buchanan's anti-immigration, anti-internationalist stance.
I did not post fiscal conservatism as it does not apply.
Again no direct policy.

Neoconservatism -- strictly a U.S. term -- refers to the views of a subclass of conservatives who support a more assertive foreign policy coupled with one or more other facets of ideological conservatism. Historically, conservatives tend to be mildly isolationist, but with the rising internationalism represented by such groups as NATO or the UN, neoconservatism is on the rise. The "unipolar" assertions of columnist Charles Krauthammer are an example of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism underlies the policy of the George W. Bush administration in the Middle East, including (but not limited to) the 2003 Iraq War and its aftermath.

4. "Compassionate conservatism" a term popularized by George W. Bush, is held by many conservatives to be redundant, and a public-relations buzzword. Insofar as the presidency of George W. Bush has increased welfare substantially in the form of what is historically the greatest expansion of Medicare ever and in the form of the No Child Left Behind act, it may be that compassionate conservativism is simply the synthesis of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism.
And Again no policy there, yes Spoffin It is safe to say conservatives do not hae a policy on sex beyond maintaining the satus quo and keeping of local customs.
Please forgive the red I wanted the text from Wikipedia to be obviously different. Here is the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

Do I really have to do republican before you concede you are not asking the right question.

Conservative positions are not uncommonly defined as containing conservative moral values.

now you haved moved from the fallacy of the undistributed middle to the fallacy of false analogy.

your definition of conservative moral values != conservative party definition of conservative moral values.

Therefore you answer to your original question is yes.

And I guess you want an official warning.
Consider this it.
Warned for what?
Guessing his age or where he got his lack of facts?
I will not consider it at all.

Ideological conservatism or right conservatism - In contrast to the anti-ideological classical conservatism, right conservatism is, as its name implies, ideological. It is typified by three distinct subideologies: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and economic conservatism. Together, these subideologies comprise the conservative ideology in most English-speaking countries: separately, these subideologies are incorporated into other political positions.
Social conservatism is generally dominated by defense of existing social norms and values, of local customs and of societal evolution, rather than social upheavel, though the distinction is not absolute.
Preserving the status quo with regards to norms and values would imply a position on sex and sexuality in society to me, although obviously there are other areas it would cover as well.

Spoffin you are basing your arguement on your ignorane of the subject(your opinion of the definitions of things already defined in a different manner).
That is the first fallacy, the true one.
Rephrase the question and you will get a answer to what you are looking.

Preserving the status quo with regards to norms and values would imply a position on sex and sexuality in society to me, although obviously there are other areas it would cover as well.
I agree sex would fall into the keeping of social customs--therefore only in societies where Sexual repression already existed would it be kept as the status quo, in a a society where sexual freedom is the status quo(Iceland is a good example) a classical conservative would resist the sexual repressive therefore it is a fallacy to suppose that Conservatives are sexually repressed.

now you haved moved from the fallacy of the undistributed middle to the fallacy of false analogy.

your definition of conservative moral values != conservative party definition of conservative moral values.
No, of course not, cos what one person would call conservative is not necessarily what another person would call conservative. What I would say is that my definition of conservative moral values is trying to fit to a typical conservative's definition of their moral values.

For the record, I want to apologize to spoffin for mistaking his sex.

I thought spoffin was female, yet in retrospect I do not know why. It was no more that a stupid assumption and something that I almost never do. Please accept this apology in the spirit with which it is intended spoff. And I hope you didn't get upset or anything.

I doubt you offended him.
It is a forum-his name is gender neutral.

I agree sex would fall into the keeping of social customs--therefore only in societies where Sexual repression already existed would it be kept as the status quo, in a a society where sexual freedom is the status quo(Iceland is a good example) a classical conservative would resist the sexual repressive therefore it is a fallacy to suppose that Conservatives are sexually repressed.
Well, as you pointed out before, the use of Republican suggested America, where sexual repression has already existed, or at least, that sexual politics of the past were less progressive than those of the present (I'm sure we can agree of that one at least)

For the record, I want to apologize to spoffin for mistaking his sex.

I thought spoffin was female, yet in retrospect I do not know why. It was no more that a stupid assumption and something that I almost never do. Please accept this apology in the spirit with which it is intended spoff. And I hope you didn't get upset or anything.
No, no offence, just mild amusement. It's not the first time its happened, although I can't recall an incident post-signature.

Making wife a sandwhich one minute.

No, of course not, cos what one person would call conservative is not necessarily what another person would call conservative. What I would say is that my definition of conservative moral values is trying to fit to a typical conservative's definition of their moral values.

Well spoff what you are essentially saying is:"Why would a conservative engage in premarital sex and enjoy it, when by my definition of their moral values, not theirs, prohibits it?"

Thus you are assuming the conclusion. Another logical fallacy and should not even bother asking the question owing to "knowing" the answer already.

Well, as you pointed out before, the use of Republican suggested America, where sexual repression has already existed, or at least, that sexual politics of the past were less progressive than those of the present (I'm sure we can agree of that one at least)
No, spoffin sorry cant agree on that either.
I now need you to define repression.
SInce I assume we are still talking male/female sex.
If you are leaaving out the entire homosexual issue, no I dont see a pattern of Sexual repression in the policies of the republican party- or the American people. Just being honest.

No, no offence, just mild amusement. It's not the first time its happened, although I can't recall an incident post-signature.

Ahh. I'm sorry spoff. I never look at profiles.

Mea culpa.

I am going to have to agree to disagree(with your terminology).
As I ...well I am a geek and want to go RP.

I will just pack up my warning...::snicker:::...and be on my way.
You are under 18 though arent you? ;)
Dave go into your profile and activate your ability to see sigs.

Well spoff what you are essentially saying is:"Why would a conservative engage in premarital sex and enjoy it, when by my definition of their moral values, not theirs, prohibits it?"

Thus you are assuming the conclusion. Another logical fallacy and should not even bother asking the question owing to "knowing" the answer already.
Nono, their definition of their own moral values, but not their definition of conservative values.

No, spoffin sorry cant agree on that either.
I now need you to define repression.
SInce I assume we are still talking male/female sex.
If you are leaaving out the entire homosexual issue, no I dont see a pattern of Sexual repression in the policies of the republican party- or the American people. Just being honest.
I don't think I'd categorise it as policies of sexual repression, more like a strong emphasis on "family values".

You are under 18 though arent you? ;)
I'm 17, 18 in February, but I don't see that that's in any way relevant to the debate unless you are indulging in some stereotyping of your own ;)

Nono, their definition of their own moral values, but not their definition of conservative values.

Well what is "their" definition? As I suggested before either you are assuming what it is or have mislabeled the title of your thread.

Without doubt people who do not believe in marital sex regret "doing" it. That does not mean that conservatives are against sex nor that they cannot enjoy it.

I jknow it´s a bit off-topic, but DeaconDave: Could you please check your nations telegramms? Thank you!

Well what is "their" definition? As I suggested before either you are assuming what it is or have mislabeled the title of your thread.I didn't deny that I was assuming something, I denied your suggestion that I was assuming something useless or baseless.

As for thread titling, I'd suggest always that it be taken with a pinch of salt. I tend towards titles that I think will attract an audience, with complete accuracy coming second.

Oh flaminess, Oh flaminess, how warm and tender though art!
They foolishness and sillyness are really not a staaaart!
Towards unity you cannot move because you are stubborn!
I eat my cheese and sing my song and love O-HI-O!

*set to America the Beautiful*

I didn't deny that I was assuming something, I denied your suggestion that I was assuming something useless or baseless.

As for thread titling, I'd suggest always that it be taken with a pinch of salt. I tend towards titles that I think will attract an audience, with complete accuracy coming second.

So what is your point spoff?

People who do not enjoy pre-marital sex should not enjoy pre-marital sex?

Why ask the question in the first place?

Are there any Republicans, particularly Republican women, who can stay true to a full conservative ideology and yet still partake in and enjoy sex with someone to whom they are not married without seeming hypocritical?

Even if you're not actually one of these people, feel free to provide logical justification for that point of view if you can see it.

EDIT: I don't think this will delve into actual discussion of sex, so I've left off the PG-13 warning. Don't anyone make me regret that

yet another stupid generalization...shut up