Sorry, those magazines don't teach anyone about sex. They teach you how to act like a porn star. The magazine is run by whores for whores.

Taking pointers from NY Pussman I see. I always knew you were a closet homosexual anyway, this just proves it now. No moral or decent human being would make a comment like yours. And just for the record, I never stated at what age I would teach my son about the "birds and bees", and since he can't read yet, he won't be getting this information from magazines any time soon. You have got to be the most pathetic member on this board.

:rolleyes:

Holyshit, never thought I would hear stuff like that from offtoseejesus.....you are a sick fuck

You say they are valueless and have no morality, yet you are the one volunteering to bend children and other people's wives over a car and sodomizing them while they watch and possibly pay for it.

You certainly do preach hate on this subject.

I suprised at you Off2cjb.

As am I. That was a bit out there off2c.

I knew you were a little nutty off2cjb, but that post takes the cake. That is one of the most offensive things I have ever read. I think you need to do some thinking about that.

As far as your response to my post goes, you are not seeing the bigger picture. I wasn't saying to give your kids copies of Cosmo, to teach them about sex. I was pointing out the benefits of giving them knowledge without making sex evil.

I am shocked at anyone who is shocked by what off2cjb said . . .

Looked about right for him . . .

Interesting progression . . .

First, Ian and Sean say (to paraphrase):
"I want to teach my children about sex. I want to make sure they are not taught lies, or fear, or guilt. I want them to know the benefits and the consequences of the most natural act in the animal kingdom . . . "

To which, off2blowJC replies:
"If you're that free about your sexual thinking and raising your children that way, then bring them to the next X function so we can bend them all over the hood of your truck. Maybe even you can charge a few dollars to watch us. You too Ian, bring your wife along and pass her down the line."

Yeah, sounds 'bout right . . .

By far the most fucked up thing I have ever seen anyone post.

My daughter just turned 3 in April, she knows that Mommy is built like her, and Daddy has a penis (or as she calls it a "peanut"), and that her and mommy sit to go potty and daddy stands up.

Does this make my wife and I deviants?

It is obvious to me that you don't have children Madman, if you do, than you had no input on potty training them. When children are being potty trained, they are very interested in watching mommy and daddy "go" and the various body parts that are used in the process. This is part of the learning process, there is nothing deviant about it.

Until you have children, you need to keep your pie hole closed and stop handing child raising advice.

If this is the way you think Off2cjb, then I don't only pity your children, I am frightened for their safety.

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of the content of some of your posts because you feel strongly strongly about your religion and I respect that.

With that being said, that was the most idiotic and repulsive post I have ever read. You really stepped over the line.

It is time for Ian to ban you from ever posting here again.

I find it hard to post this and quite honestly, beyond comprehension that I would defend him, BUT...

I do believe Off2 was trying to make a point (however extreme it may be, and odd to some of us). I seriously doubt you'd see him do anything of the sort, or have any ideas of the sort. I do believe if he witnessed even the hint of such an event, you'd see an Off2 nobody's ever seen.

Perhaps it might have been easier to understand if he said "others" instead of "we."

Just my opinion. (Seems like a lot of people take things too literally...on both sides)

Strange world we live in if I'm giving Off2 some defense.

I really don't care what point he was trying to make, you don't talk about raping a person(s) wife and or kids. Off2cjb seemed like an intelligent person, he could have worded it better. I don't care if this is the ALR, those kind of comments have no place here. You can make a point without personally attacking another person or their family (a concept NY Madman has had a hard time grasping).

When you resort to these kind of tactics, you are just proving you don't have anything to back up your argument.

How would Off2cjb like it if Sean had made those comments about his family?

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say off2blowJC was trying to make a sarcastic argument, attempting to use, I don't know, humor (??) to make his point . . .

His idea was still that if Sean and Ian and other parents wanted to teach their kids about sex, and let them learn about sex, and even *gasp* read magazines that mention the word sex, that they are deviant, and immoral, and metaphorically raping their kids . . .

Am I that far off? Was that your intention, to accuse Sean and Ian and other parents and parents-to-be that their views about healthy education and information for their kids was detrimental to their well-being? That they were, metaphorically, raping their kids or setting them up for physical harm?

It's still a backwards, ignorant, guilt-driven, fear-based suggestion . . .

Personally, I don't think this nimrod would ever really do the things he was suggesting. The fact that he made the remarks at all, however, is very enlightening . . . you have some fucked-up fantasies, dude . . .

That's true. Bringing family into it is uncalled for.

I do not really give a fuck if he was trying to make a point or not. I think an apolopy is needed, or I sincerely hope Ian cans his ass. This is a public board, in my mind making a statement about raping kids and other members wifes is way out of line in ANY content.

I find it very interesting that Off2cjb has not posted anything to defend what he said.

Well, here's my view of how this has digressed...

Madman made his personal attacks, Sean responded. Off2 made the comment about magazines like Cosmo and the like (not American Medical Journal). Off2 viewed it as people allowing kids to read Cosmo. Off2 views those magazines as teaching people how to be whores. (I don't see it...but that's just me). So he figured, since you might allow your kids to read those, you don't care what your kids think about sex, and if they read those magazines, then they are going to be promiscuous, and think nothing of bonking whomever is standing next to you.

So if Off2 thought this, he thought that it nobody would care what their kids were doing, and in Off2's eyes, the kids would be willing participants.

Obviously, that is not what Ian and Sean meant when they said they are OK with their kids knowing about sex and knowing it's not the "dirty little secret" that seems to pervade Christianity (and Islam and plenty of other religions, I'm sure).

So yeah, now that I've thoroughly confused myself trying to type this, what Off2 said is pretty fucked up. I think I understand what he was trying to say, but it was an extreme poor choice of words.

And no, I don't have kids. If I did, I'm guessing I'd have the same reaction as everyone else has.

(Hmm...I think I'm digging myself a hole...)

Time to go to the dentist.

I am far too busy these days to keep up with the lunacy on here. First of all, you all can think what you want. This is the first comment I have directed towards anyone's family, ever. This came about because your fearless hero, Ian made two comments about my son in the last two days. Not one of you Ian clonies mentioned that.
Second, all you Christian haters have no problem calling us names, making fun of, etcc...I have never done any of these towards you haters. I have only defended myself. Thirdly, my comments made towards Ian and Sean were to prove a point which they made for me. They want to teach their children the ins and outs of sex using Cosmo and those other trashy mags which everyone knows is all bullshit. Fine, then from what they said, they wouldn't mind bringing their children into a situation like that. Their open minds, yeah right, deviant minds. Sean, I don't know where your fascination with homos stems from, but quit running back into your closet and calling all those that oppose you gay. No, you never mentioned an exact age to teach your children. Knowing you on this board, you probably already sat them down and watched man/man pornos. And Sean, you made your last comment different from the two prior to that in which you came right out once again and bashed us Christians. Geez, to be so blatantly discrimminatory like you.

To those who attempted to paraphrase, you were all wrong. No, this had nothing to do with raping anyone. You are the sick ones. These two talk so openly about their openness towards sex and their children. Then prove it. That's all. If they are going to use Cosmo to teach their kids sex, then their kids will be completely void of any of feelings and emotions towards and about sex other than lying on their back and having their ass slammed. Sorry Christian haters, sex is between a married couple. There are far more feelings and emotions that go into it other than a few beers. I feel bad for those of you that live in a world where you feel you need to suscribe to Cosmo or Maxim to get your jollies or your sexual education. When you are done living in fantasy land, we will be waiting for you in the real world.

Ian, ban me if you want. There is life without XOC.

You are an idiot. They never said they were going to teach their kids about sex through some magazine. What I find ironic is the fact that you post all this tripe, and have the quote you have in your signature. I guess you only want liberty for people that think exactly like you do, huh?

You call yourself a Christian with comments like these?. Again I do not really care how they are used the mere factor you posted this.

I have read and re-read the last few pages and I think you are not getting the point. Banning Cosmo from Wal-Mart or K-mart shelves because they have the word Orgasm on the front page is worng. look around you you would have to blindfold yourself to avoid any sexual related material, Billboards, TV Commercials, Storefronts. Taking a natural approach to sex only helps children to get the right values and not look at the commercial side of sex and get a skewed view. Yes sex is supposed to be a private matter between 2 people, I agree but the world as we see it today does not limit you from seeing sexual oriented input...wake up.

You sir, are the idiot. They are not banning the magazines like the Nazis or the Catholic Church ban things. They are choosing not to sale it. They did this not because the word orgrasm was on the cover, but rather children ages 4-? do not need to have that type of magazine thrusted into their face every time they walk through the checkout counter. Those magazines are at their eye level, not yours. Grade school children do not need to read about orgasms or how to enlarge your penis in three weeks while they are waiting to buy their first veggie tales lunchbox. Do you get it now? And thank you once again for bringing up the Christian label. Bash, bash, bash away hater. Must be nice to live in a world where discrimmination and predujice are justified.

How could this be anything other than describing a rape? And I didn't paraphrase, that is what you posted.

They said they didn't see what the big deal was with their kids seeing the magazine and learning about sex from the covers. Do you not read all the threads and just jump into it when you feel perky? And my quote has nothing to do with any of this.

Because if you want to take everything I said as pure futuristic fact, then you would have read that since Ian and Sean are so open about teaching their children all aspects of sex, then the events I described would be perfectly ascceptable to them and they wouldn't have a problem with folks teaching their children about sex. I am sure by the posts written by these two, that they would give permission to do the things, therefore it would not be rape. You can't rape the willing. Or in their words, you couldn't rape the willing to learn about sex.

You're right.

I was wrong to paraphrase you . . .

I edited that post, and instead of paraphrasing, I quoted your words.

Much more potent, it turns out . . .