 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
how can you be a sex therapist if you are not heterosexual? |
Easy. Sex therapy doesn't involve doing anything to anybody, if it needs to, then a surrogate is used. However the legality of that is questionable. But the sex of your partner does not affect the quality of therapy you can give. The people she'd be helping probably wouldn't even know. Even if it was an issue, she could counsel gay people.
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
I'm sure they help with a wide range of issues.
Some couples may go because their partners aren't satisyfing them. Perhaps a woman won't give her partner fellatio. WTF does she know about fellatio. Or say the man has impotence problems that are psychological and not physical, how can she help with that? How many sexual positions can she possibly know? |
As many as anyone else. Knowing positions does not involve, necessarily, having tried them. You can read about most things like that the advice that would be given. Besides, that wouldn't be a large part of sexual therapy, usually. She can help as well with a mans psychological problems as any women. Sleeping with a man isn't necessary to learn what anxieties and psychological problems affect them.
Also, there is generally more simility between a hetero and a homosexual relationship than differences. There's fears of performance in both, things that parters will/won't do, the same anxieties, etc. Technique and application may be different, but I don't see why she has to know less even about those because she doesn't sleep with men.
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
that is Euros so It is more like 80 to 90 thousand dollars a year, a fairly respectable sum. How much of it is taxed though? |
Actually, that sums in pounds sterling. It's more like 100-110,000 USD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
reds4ever
|
 |
of the Spion Kop
Mar 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
And of those many readers, how many go to college, are likely to feel passionately about the value of education, and are not too lazy to write angry letters or boycott? Raising issues about higher learning in the tabloids is like promoting marital fidelity in a whorehouse. |
Elok, I don't mean to be patronising but you really don't understand the way it operates over here, The Sun is a downmarket rag, everyone knows this- even it's readers. But it can still put governments out of (and into) power over issues that you'd think it's readership would n't give a rats @ss about
Last edited by reds4ever on 24-03-2004 at 05:19
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by reds4ever
Elok, I don't mean to be patronising but you really don't understand the way it operates over here, The Sun is a downmarket rag, everyone knows this- even it's readers. But it can still put governments out of (and into) power over issues that you'd think it's readership would n't give a rats @ss about |
See, this is why you guys are only a third rate power. When unfounded political babble takes a printed form, stupid people have a chance to read it carefully in detail and act on it. You should have bigoted news and radio programs instead, like we do. The mouth-breathers get all hot and bothered during the actual programming, but it gets quickly swept out of their heads by the commercials, and the passion they felt for Poor Wittle Loudmouth Lesbian is transferred mentally to some harmless consumer product, which they then go out and buy. They didn't care about her anyway, and are much happier with the product, so everybody wins.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
It's a nominal sum really. I wouldn't mind paying it if I thought it would do some good to the university, like if the government matched it. I'd rather pay the £2000 extra a year and have the government pay £2000 extra per year too, so our uni's can actually compete with the quality of other countries education. Sure, we don't need the $45000 per year Harvard charges, but something around £10000 per year would be reasonable, rather than the £6000 per year they currently get. How can we compete for the best lecturers and researchers when top American universities get about 4 and a half times more money than ours do? That is why we have a foreign brain drain.
Charging the students £3000 per year (means tested) seems sensible, even going higher to £5000 or so, providing it is linked to need, and there are enough bursaries for universities to judge solely on ability, not financial status, but even that won't fix the funding gap. If we pay more, let the government match it, so we know that we're getting a good education, and that the universities we're going to will be financially viable. Or expect that universities will look to foreign students who pay more, so not accepting as many UK students, and that the best academics will continue to go abroad to teach ordo further study.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C0ckney
cheeky gits, i buy the sun everyday and the news of the world on sundays. you get the news, the sport and a pair of tits on page 3, what more do you want?
 |
Tits on page 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,........maybe 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2004 04:12
|