If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Zealand Herald)   "NZ women too promiscuous" - health warning or tourism campaign aimed at Farkers?   (nzherald.co.nz) divider line 179
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

12123 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2011 at 3:54 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-08 07:53:14 PM

jadedlee: which it would have been had a child been tested.


Not unless the medical staff want to have a world of hurt brought down on them for HIPAA violations.
 
2011-07-08 08:24:59 PM
The problem is not promiscuity, and the solution is not stigmatizing it.

The problem is that binge drinking is socially more acceptable than female promiscuity, so women feel they must do the former to have an excuse to do the latter with their honor intact.

If we make it more acceptable for women to choose to have sex while "in their right mind" then women won't feel pressured to chemically suppress their rational thought processes. They'll engage in fewer risky behaviors, have better sex, and wake up next to someone less horrifying.

/ I realize that last part will hinder many Farkers' odds
// Let's stipulate the "women & rational thought" jokes, shall we?
 
2011-07-08 08:33:56 PM

LasssiterBeRight:


Earth girls are easy....

/favorite song on that sound track is 'cause im a blonde'
 
2011-07-08 08:56:25 PM
I met my Kiwi wife on a solo bicycle trip across NZ in 2001. We got married there in 2005 after 4 years of long distance dating.
Im getting a kick out of these replies, etc.
 
2011-07-08 09:04:17 PM

mtylerjr: I met my Kiwi wife on a solo bicycle trip across NZ in 2001. We got married there in 2005 after 4 years of long distance dating.
Im getting a kick out of these replies, etc.


So, she puts out early and often then?
 
2011-07-08 09:12:58 PM
I'm OK with this....as long as they are not from Australia.

/Fist bumps to Bret and Jemaine
 
2011-07-08 09:26:20 PM
Best tourist advertisement for sure. My PO probably wouldn't approve though...
 
2011-07-08 09:27:03 PM
37?

dvdmedia.ign.com
 
2011-07-08 09:27:40 PM
I'm on my way.
 
2011-07-08 09:35:20 PM

jadedlee: dmars: jadedlee:

Syphilis is contagious, and generally disclosed to named sexual partners anonymously. Children's DNA is not contagious and not the business of even just the people who work in a hospital. Or in the transcription office of a contractor. Or in a DNA testing lab offsite. Or anywhere else. It is the business of the parents and if they choose to keep it private or untested then there is no third party who deserves any say in the matter.

And please note again, because I knew I was going to get this, I am not saying anything whatsoever about those people who wish to definitively establish paternity. All of this really misogynist stuff needs to stop if for no other reason than because it's undercutting decent arguments for anyone's parental rights. (And I'm not saying this post is the chief example of such because I'd rather just not respond to those.) I'm not even saying you can't have a child tested that you think is yours because you want to establish parental rights (courts have ordered that), as long as you can establish a basis for it and the only answer you get if you aren't the parent is just that.

It seems we went into attack mode and missed the overall points.

I agree with you, we shouldn't do mandatory testing, I was stating that one point was invalid, not your whole argument.

You were saying people didn't want other people to know it was a donor or about infertility and what not. This is the piece I was pointing to that doesn't really help your argument. Syphilis may have been a bad example, though I must still point out the patient would not have to give any names, nor would anyone other then the doctor actually find out, but lets change it to cancer. The doctor tests you and find out you have cancer, he isn't going to tell anybody, he can't. The same with DNA test.

Again I am not saying they should do mandatory DNA test, I am just saying that a certain small part of your overall argument isn't actually helping because it is a non-issue. I can see how that might be construed as an attack which it wasn't meant to be.

I was using that example to point out a case in which the legal father would not want to establish his lack of biological link to the child, especially because establishing it can mean establishing positive legal rights for someone else. Most of the arguments are made in the negative, as in a man wanting to disprove paternity. If my argument is that the people who are legally considered to be parents should have the right to decide to test or not to test then it's a perfectly valid point. I've yet to see someone deny a DNA test at birth to a party to disestablish paternity. It gets more complicated when a person has considered someone a child for any real length of time and there is an established interest, and no, I don't know how to address that other than to say men really need to stop with the air quotes around "best interest of the child." It sounds like McCain saying "health exception." I will also say I do not think it is in any child's best interest to find out years into life that daddy isn't daddy and daddy thinks mommy is a stupid whore. Clearly it is not in the child's best interest to have false paternity established in any case in which the child isn't wanted by the named party.

And my point that I think you missed about DNA tests is that doctors don't do them, there's a much bigger circle of people who see those results than you seem to account for.


The doctor doesn't do all the leg work for a majority of tests. Most DNA test are sent as a numbered sampled and not with a name attached to them, just test them number against this number with the results sent back to those who know what they mean. I think that you are over complicating the process of a DNA test compared to other tests.

Also, as far as donors are concerned it is just that, they are donated. There is a legal regard to this sort of affair that leaves out responsibility for donators.

They should and do have the right to have or not have a DNA test done, they might not get one because of being afraid of some sort of confidentiality, which is fine. But to argue that they shouldn't because it might "fall into the wrong hands" is just being a little silly. So, I am not saying that people aren't in their right to not have a test done for a million different reason, they can believe that a DNA test will steal their soul for all I care, but that doesn't mean I am going to base my case around the fact people shouldn't because it might steal a soul. It is more about the choice then the reasons sometimes.
 
2011-07-08 10:23:09 PM

mtylerjr: I met my Kiwi wife on a solo bicycle trip across NZ in 2001. We got married there in 2005 after 4 years of long distance dating.
Im getting a kick out of these replies, etc.


You going on any solo bike trips again soon?
/whats your address again?
 
2011-07-08 10:31:01 PM

MikeMc: mtylerjr: I met my Kiwi wife on a solo bicycle trip across NZ in 2001. We got married there in 2005 after 4 years of long distance dating.
Im getting a kick out of these replies, etc.

So, she puts out early and often then?


Yes. Yes she does.

/sorry mtylerjr, had to
//is sure that all the Kiwi Farkettes are really getting a dick out of these replies
 
2011-07-08 11:24:30 PM
Its not promiscuity, its irresponsibility. Be as slutty as you damn well please, just use a condom.
 
2011-07-08 11:26:11 PM
LindenFark
The problem is not promiscuity, and the solution is not stigmatizing it.

The problem is that binge drinking is socially more acceptable than female promiscuity, so women feel they must do the former to have an excuse to do the latter with their honor intact.

If we make it more acceptable for women to choose to have sex while "in their right mind" then women won't feel pressured to chemically suppress their rational thought processes. They'll engage in fewer risky behaviors, have better sex, and wake up next to someone less horrifying.


THIS.
 
2011-07-08 11:29:25 PM
LindenFark

Also, notice how the main focus of the article is the WOMEN being too promiscuous...but not the men?
 
2011-07-08 11:39:54 PM

alltandubh: Valiente: Actually, it reflects a good 3/4 of my observation of humans of whose sex lives I have been made aware.

I'm sure it's true of many people, just not of everyone or even of the vast majority. If it were true that 3/4 of people are only limited by their options, that'd have to suggest that 3/4 of married women are straying, if only because it'd be very easy for them to do so. But I don't think the incidence of female adultery is known to be that high.

You have got to be kidding. First of all, married women are not commonly sexually attractive. Some of 'em "let things go" once the ring is on. Also, one in eight men is parenting a child not his own, or so I've heard. So even the fuglies are getting some strange.

People like lots of sex, and if they can't get lots, they'll take what they can get. They also like good sex, but will settle for bad sex.

Again, everyone knows that there are men out there who will stick their dicks in anything, no matter how repulsive it is (if that's what you mean by "bad sex"). It's not a mindset I understand, and I don't think it's true that a majority of men if they had no better alternatives would have sex with hideous and/or ancient women, animals, children, or household appliances. But possibly I've just led a sheltered life.


There are men out there who won't, also. And what I meant by "bad sex" was "incompetently performed, evidently unschooled, and of insufficient duration". There's a lot of this about, actually. Men who are clueless, despite and/or because of porn, and women who don't want to appear "slutty" and therefore opt for "knotholed plank".

Now, that's bad sex. And yes, you've led a sheltered life if you think, like pot leads to meth and heroin, the male sex drive leads to farking she-trolls, goats, and Shop-Vacs. Past the age of 20, that stuff really tapers off.
 
2011-07-08 11:56:21 PM
i54.tinypic.com

this is a New Zealand woman
 
2011-07-09 12:21:08 AM

I Said: yert: [c.photoshelter.com image 640x482]
Come here often? Hsssss!

[t0.gstatic.com image 226x223]

"What's a lady gotta do to get a drink around here?"


I'd still hit it.
 
2011-07-09 12:25:34 AM
Somehow New Zealand has emasculated most of their men and way too many of them are momma's boys. The result is the women have to take control of things and they wound they like it. They have also dumped the cultural prudeness that is so common around the world. They tend to be willing to tell you what they want and not force you to play guessing games which make things better for everyone involved.
/likes Kiwi women
 
2011-07-09 12:26:56 AM

JohnAnnArbor: FTA (first sentence): "A Timaru gynaecologist wants a campaign against promiscuity after encountering a shocking number of pregnant patients who cannot remember whom they had sex with."

OK, that's a good argument for genetic testing of babies at birth to see who the father is. ALL babies.


Guessing this is a troll, but it's an interesting thought. I'd also take it as obviously politically impossible in the US for many years to come. But if you could pass such a law...

First off, it'd inflame the abortion rate like napalm on thatch. It wouldn't just be women carrying the wrong man's baby getting abortions; it would be anyone who even suspected that she was carrying the wrong man's baby. As this would mostly affect married women it would depress the married birth rate preferentially. Depending on privacy laws it might also increase the rate of illegal abortions in the case of wives who couldn't think of a convincing reason to tell hubby.

Child support laws appear not to have caught up with technology here, so mandatory testing in itself would not improve things for cuckolded men. It would increase the rate of divorce suits filed by men, but wouldn't necessarily help win them.

Whites and blacks would mostly react to failed paternity tests by breaking up or divorcing. Mostly. Some other groups would tend to respond in ways that would make for really ugly news articles. In absolute numbers it might not significantly increase the rate of torture-killings, murder-suicides, and bludgeonings, but a policy doesn't have to produce too many of them before folks reexamine the wisdom of it.
 
2011-07-09 12:30:33 AM
Wow! A US feminist hate thread on Fark. As if we don't have enough of that on a daily basis here in the US. Pretty soon in the US, if a brother and sister lives together, and the girl becomes prego from some random guy, the brother will be held financially accountable for some of the child support through an obtuse interpretation of common law. If you don't think so, obviously you haven't been paying attention.
 
2011-07-09 12:54:45 AM

ShannonKW: JohnAnnArbor: FTA (first sentence): "A Timaru gynaecologist wants a campaign against promiscuity after encountering a shocking number of pregnant patients who cannot remember whom they had sex with."

OK, that's a good argument for genetic testing of babies at birth to see who the father is. ALL babies.

Guessing this is a troll, but it's an interesting thought. I'd also take it as obviously politically impossible in the US for many years to come. But if you could pass such a law...

First off, it'd inflame the abortion rate like napalm on thatch. It wouldn't just be women carrying the wrong man's baby getting abortions; it would be anyone who even suspected that she was carrying the wrong man's baby. As this would mostly affect married women it would depress the married birth rate preferentially. Depending on privacy laws it might also increase the rate of illegal abortions in the case of wives who couldn't think of a convincing reason to tell hubby.

Child support laws appear not to have caught up with technology here, so mandatory testing in itself would not improve things for cuckolded men. It would increase the rate of divorce suits filed by men, but wouldn't necessarily help win them.

Whites and blacks would mostly react to failed paternity tests by breaking up or divorcing. Mostly. Some other groups would tend to respond in ways that would make for really ugly news articles. In absolute numbers it might not significantly increase the rate of torture-killings, murder-suicides, and bludgeonings, but a policy doesn't have to produce too many of them before folks reexamine the wisdom of it.


you don't think it might reduce the adulterous behavior in the first place, or at least increase the use of contraception during these cheating endeavors?
 
2011-07-09 01:50:29 AM
Damn, I just came back from Auckland and I failed to encounter this behaviour.

\ or it could just be me ...
 
2011-07-09 02:35:30 AM
Ah Timaru. That explains it. Chicks from there are well known for being loose.
I went up there on a road cruise with a friend once and he told me this. At our next stop this woman from another group (mostly guys) comes over to us and gives us a big hug.

This news story is CONFIRMED.
 
2011-07-09 03:37:29 AM

FrylockMastershake: FTA "New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world, with 20.3 sexual partners on average. The world average was 7.3."

OOooo so Kiwi girls can count and they don't lie???


Which probably means their actual average is higher

/Why are some people not ok with this?
 
2011-07-09 09:03:38 AM
That article is PURE GOLD. I work daily with New Zealand folks (our agents), including several women...this is getting forwarded Monday!! LOL
 
2011-07-09 01:47:20 PM
Haven't finished the thread, so sorry if someone mentions this type of thing...
Dmars- several places already do not let people just put names on the birth certificate. When I had my son, they wanted the biological father to be present with ID and to sign the paperwork himself. I shrugged and did my part. It is blank on the father's side; I didn't bother telling the biological father that I was even in the hospital since he made it very clear he wanted nothing to do with the baby (left me when I refused an abortion).
/Haven't ever asked him for a single cent since I went against his wishes having my wonderful son. His loss!!
 
2011-07-09 02:07:06 PM

Optimus Primate: That article is PURE GOLD. I work daily with New Zealand folks (our agents), including several women...this is getting forwarded Monday!! LOL


careful...forwarding that to female agents might be considered harassment.
 
2011-07-10 02:20:15 PM

MeanJean: LindenFark

Also, notice how the main focus of the article is the WOMEN being too promiscuous...but not the men?


The headline, probably chosen by an editor, certainly supports the old double-standard. The article writer also gives that impression, more subtly, by mixing statistics and contexts. I might give doctor Makary the benefit of the doubt since his quoted calls for the stigmatization of promiscuity are not gender-specific. All of the health-related facts are about women's health, but you could argue that's justified because when men and women are promiscuous, it's more likely the woman's health that will suffer. What with pregnancy and binge drinking.

But yeah, I noticed.
 
Displayed 29 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report