Feedback from Detractors

Your Opinions: a sample from our Inbox
Detractors

mn; May 16, 2005 Subject: your new party
PLEASE, give me a break, this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. You really think people are going to give you the opportunity to putrify our childrens minds with your new age crap. not if i have anything to say about it.

From: S G Sent: May 16, 2005 Subject: disgusting
If you want to be sexually explicit, go ahead, but the one thing that is disgusting is to teach children to masturbate. YOu know how many child molesters there are out there, you are promoting this horrible crime against children as far as I am concerned.
Absolutely disgusted,
Susan

From MW: May 5, 2005 My Disappointment
I recently came across your party's platform, and was keen to see
what your cause was. Upon finishing reading your platform, I was
flabbergasted and utterly disgusted. You want to teach children how
to masturbate, and you want to encourage sex workers, and you want to
get nurses to help older folk have sex. Not even in a movie have I
heard of such degrading, gross and vulgar sexually related ideals.
Children do not need to know how to masturbate. They're kids. I think
almost all parents would home-school their children if they found out
they were being taught 'sexual-gradualism' in school. Children do not
need to be taught how to sexually gratify themselves. They need to
learn how not to fall when they run, how not to get their hands dirty,
and how to behave in class. That's what kids need to learn. I think
any child who really embraces 'sexual-gradualism' doesn't need a sex
health course, they need a therapist. Immediately.

If you were to gain office, and you implemented this course, would
you warn the children of the damage it could do? Would you consult the
parents? Let both parents and children alike to the consequences of
their actions. Surely masturbation can't be healthy. You can live
without it, it's a scientific fact you cannot, and will not die if you
don't masturbate or have sex. If you were to teach children sexual
gradualism, what message is that sending them? That sex is a selfish,
pleasure-full act that is meant for oneself. Well guess what, that's
not what sex is for. Sex if for two people, who are married, who are
in love, who are willing to give oneself to one another, completely.
And that's exactly what sex is. Sex is fully giving your complete self
to your wife or husband, because there is no greater act of love then
sex. Teaching kids at a young age how to masturbate and how 'great' it
is engrains with them a very mixed and purely selfish view on sex. It
will teach them sex is only good for getting off, and that its only
for oneself. With this in mind, many, especially the male population
(myself being one), go out and abuse sex, and use others just go
gratify their needs. That's not what sex is for. Sex is to express
love for another human being, how can one express love for another
when they only think sex, the greatest act of love, is merely for
self-gratification. Sex is not a toy (not only that, it shouldn't
include toys). You're teaching it as such. Sex is meant purely for
marriage, and for love, not for fun. Masturbation is meant for nothing
except getting off by one's own means, which is extremely selfish and
unloving. If you truly love someone, you start off by dating. Next
step is hugging. Next step is kissing. Next step is (at least it
should be) marriage, and last step, the most giving, and greatest act
of love, is sex. Your party's view on sex is extremely misguided and
will give many people, especially the young, a wrong view on the
sanctity and lovingness of marriage and sex. Now you say in your
platform, "They would learn, for example, that trust, emotional
intimacy, relaxation, and verbal communication are all key to an
optimal first sexual experience." Do you not see the inherent
contradiction in that? Its IMPOSSIBLE to learn how to trust someone,
be intimate with someone, be relaxed and all those things simply by
masturbating, or even by having pre-marital sex. That makes absolutely
no sense. In fact, I guarantee that by teaching sexual-gradualism in
class, it will have an opposite effect. Its like teaching a kid to
ride a tri-cycle and getting them accustomed to that, then putting
them on a normal bicycle, and expecting them to ride perfectly. Not
going to happen. How can one learn to build trust in another human
being when all they do is masturbate, which is solely a one-person
act, as you intend it to be. Now, the way someone can build trust and
be compatible with someone else is by being with them, by dating. I
know for a fact you get to be more trusting and compatible with
someone by being with them, not by going home and masturbating like a
pervert. You realize you're the one for them, marry them, then you can
have sex. No experience needed, you'll learn pretty damn quickly, it's
a natural human instinct. I would like you to go home, read through
your platform, carefully, and logically, read through the
sexual-gradualism section, and think does it even make sense? I know
it doesn't, and many others would agree with me.

As per public nudity, the main reason people are so 'turned on' by
seeing a naked human being is because its hidden. Its secret, its
sensual, seeing it turns people on. Now, if you were to see this every
day, days on end, how pleasing do you think this would be? Eating
chocolate once a month is satisfying. If you have a craving for it,
and eat it everyday then no it won't be satisfying, it will be
disgusting and you'll want to rid yourself of it. Same goes for
looking at a naked human being. There are some people in the Middle
East that I have heard of who find elbows, yes, elbows, sexually
pleasing. Why? Because they're always hidden under veils. If you were
to introduce public nudity, in several years it wouldn't surprise me
at all if many started finding clothed people a turn on.

Now I could go on pointing out the defects in every point of your
platform, but I want to just talk about two before I finish. First
being the long-term care. Why would 85 year olds want to have sex.
They've probably been married for 60 or so years. They're no there to
get off, they're close to death, they want to enjoy life to the
fullest before they die. There's more to life then sex. How can sex
for them be gratifying and loving as it should be when you have nurses
doing 75% of the work for you, and you need drugs to become erect.
That's not sex, that's torture.

Also, you talk of overt censorship. These rules are put in place for
a reason. Fuck is a bad word. It has a bad connotation to it, it has a
bad meaning, and it will never be a good word to hear, nor will it
ever have a good meaning. What's the point of un-censoring theses
words? Of course they would bleep these words. They are negative, and
letting them to be broadcasted through the media is just the beginning
of the end of a moral society as we know it.

Lastly I would like to deal with your view on tolerance. You state
specifically that schools, and I'm assuming you believe the same for
society on a whole, are irrational about their attitudes towards sex,
and you want to teach tolerance. Well, I believe it is you who is
intolerant. Rules and such attitudes are put in place for a reason.
Sex has the ability to be very damaging. STDs, AIDs, unwanted
pregnancies, all can damage anyone. AIDS particularly. Ever heard of
Africa? Thousands die there every day because of their lax view on
sex, which is similar to yours.

That's all I have to say. I hope you think long and hard about your
platform and its consequences. it's a terrible idea, and will really
kill society. Sex is great, in a healthy marriage, Children do not
need to know how to masturbate, old people in old folks home do need
to have sex nor do they need nurses to do it for them. Please, be more
tolerant. I know it seems I have a very negative view on sex. But in
essence, I believe it is you who has that view. I view sex as a
sacred, loving act that should only be used in certain circumstances,
and when done, it is great, the greatest act of love you can express.
You treat it as if it's a piece of garbage that can just be thrown
around.

Thank You for your time,
MW

From GD: May 4, Concerning Your Issue of Overt Censorship
To the Sex Party,
Hello, I am GD and I'm writing this e-mail concerning the topic
of 'Censorship' in your platform. Apparently you have said that the media
has a sex-negative attitude towards on sex, but I want to ask you why movies
such as 'American Pie' and 'Sin City', and TV shows like 'The L Word' or
'That 70's Show' and do not forgot the Video Game Industry (which also has
influence on youth) with such series like 'Grand Theif Auto' and 'Dead or
Alive' have become popular with the teenage and adult audiences.

Firstly, I disagree with your choice of attempting to remove the
censorship of genital regions and female breasts from newspapers, because it
will corrupt the future child of British Columbia into having an
undisciplined attitude towards sex. Personally, I cannot see any decent and
loving parent allowing their children into viewing male genital areas and
females breast on the daily newspapers. There is a reason why these areas of
the body have been censored from the media. Such images should be restricted
from children and young teens because they are generally immature with
anything to do with sexual body parts or having sex. The attitudes and minds
of youth are easily influenced by the media and their peers, if one of these
immature children get one of their hands on a picture of female breast or a
male genitals, then the immaturity of these sexual parts will spread
throughout the children.

Secondly, your idea of uncensoring the word "fuck." I have to admit that
I myself have used this word when in anger or shock, I have never though,
used it to mean something good. According to
http://dictionary.reference.com:
"fuck Audio pronunciation of "fuck" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fk) Vulgar
Slang
v. fucked, fuck·ing, fucks
v. tr.
1. To have sexual intercourse with.
2. To take advantage of, betray, or cheat; victimize.
3. Used in the imperative as a signal of angry dismissal.
v. intr.
1. To engage in sexual intercourse.
2. To act wastefully or foolishly.
3. To interfere; meddle.

According to the website, it means to have sexual intercourse, but it also
puts negative into the word (The bolded text.) Apparently the word 'fuck'
does not only mean to have sexual intercourse, it also means while doing
this action, the person took advantage of the other, and victimized them.
This is not a positive action at all. When you get married one day and your
wife is about to give birth to your child, when her parents come to meet
you, you do not say "Hello Mr. and Mrs. Garner, I fucked your daughter,"
according to the definition: You basically say "I took advantage of your
daughter and victimized her." I am sorry, but I do not see any benefit in
allowing this word to be uncensored. I remind you that we are humans, not
mere animals.

Thirdly, the 'beep' sound of sexual words. I think we are mature enough
to not allow children to hear these words. Whenever I hear a beep or see a
'****' I can usaully tell what word it is, I do not see any positives when
removing the beep sound. There are many movies that do not have any
censoring such as 'Collateral' or 'Phone Booth', these words are also in the
music we listen to such as 'Eminem's - Like Toy Soldiers, or Eminem's -
Mocking Bird" but when its on the radio or on television it will play the
censored version. I have no problem with the music and video games with
uncensored words or images, but they should be restricted from the youth.

Lastly, you say that the media doesn't have journalist specializing on
sexuality. Well, in my opinion, there is no need for sexuality to have its
on section. Sexual intercourse, when done, is done. I do not find why we
should have 20+ articles on sex, just a few will do. In addition, those
things you've listed such as 'fashion, cars, and wine", these are pleasures,
and if you just consider sex to be a pleasure, than it is quite unnecessary
isn't it? Also you compare sex to 'Food, Health, Education, Travel, The
Enviroment, and Business" But these are all necessities for our culture,
last time I have checked sex is not a necessity to 'living,' if it was a
necessity the pope, the priests, and I would have died a long while ago, it
is only necessary for the reproduction of humans.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with your descisions to omit the
censorship of sexual actions and parts from our media. I dislike the fact
that your party says that our society has a sex-negative attitude, when
clearly the media has been putting more and more sexual content, like the
examples I have seen in the begining paragraphs. Why must you make the BC
Government into a house of Lies?

GD

From Bonnie: April 17 - What Are you Thinking?
Just what we need....another small party. This is the smartest move you could have made if your aim is to stiffle sexual freedom in this province. You do not find many moral majority proponents in the left...they are known to strongly support the right. Therefore, you will take votes from the left, weaken them, and strengthen the party that believes you're all going to hell in a handbasket. Fighting for your issues from within one of the parties makes far more sense. Congratulations on the bright idea to bring further division to this province.
Bonnie

From Steve: April 12 Platform Question
Interesting platform. Maybe if you really focussed on a specific
riding you could get a seat and then have your ideas heard. I do
think that some of your ideas have gone too far though. Sex education
in school is vital. I managed to slip through without even being
shown how to put on a condom (maybe I was away that day?) However BC
is a very diverse community and I can imagine many religious groups
having a valid objection to the level of education you suggest (it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn to masturbate anyway). In
short, I am questioning why your platform is so extreme when if you
toned it down a bit you would have a better shot at getting a seat.

Thanks,
Steve

From Todd: April 11 One comment on your platform
I support your platform except for the Victoria Day name change. I
recognize Queen Victoria is not a healthy role model for sexuality however
she was not a foreign queen. The Queen is the Queen of the Commonwealth and
she is our Head of State. She or her representative still has powers under
our Constitution. The powers were limited with the repatriation but not
removed. This attack on the Monarchy is a negative in your platform that
doesn't need to be there and will give ammunition to the reactionaries and
conservatives to attack your message. As screwed up as the Monarchy is I
still like the idea of it.

I look forward to seeing if you can generate some sex positive discussions
during the election.

Todd