SexEducation.com

True sexual equality is gender neutral. : )
The SexEducation.com (when the domain turns on again) teaches how to have sex in a gender neutral manner. Everything else - is just intercourse.


QUOTE: "Now you want to say because majority don't have a vaginal orgasm, that vaginal orgasm is a lie. You are pushing back the women sexual revolution. You are telling women that have vaginal orgasm's that they can't, because it is a lie...you are stating they are living a lie. Instead of helping, you are hurting by using those two words...lie and myth."

Nope I am not - the word lie is specifically chosen for the attention it brings to the issue - and it works - extremely well.

Where the vast majority of women do not experience an orgasm by penis insertion stimulation only - and where the vast majority of men and women - believe that they can - it is a global lie - propogated by the "media" AND propogated by adult film makers which continue to film "fake" orgasms at the end of coitus only interaction films.

Vaginal orgasm is a lie.

The average of pornography is a lie too...

[PLUG]
No aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids on any DIRECTLY accessed domain name.
Lets start there - where the majority of adults agree.
Agree or disagree?

UPDATE: Rackshack.net reports there was an error in my zone files and they have deleted them and things should be working tomorrow ...

we shall see ...

"POOF"
"fluff & fodder"
"Vaginal orgasm - is a lie."
"never had a single complaint"
"NO AROUSED GENITALS OR REPRODUCTIVE BODILY FLUIDS ON ANY DIRECTLY ACCESSED DOMAIN"
"global magazine"
"global magazine of sexual intercourse"
"how to have sex in a gender neutral manner"
"Everything else - is just intercourse."

This guy is mental. Way too many weird fixations.

Not only did JFPDude explain to me that online free speech was different the offline free speech ...

But he also explained that a good percentage of GFY posters were 19 kids - and really not reflective of the "main adult industry".

This is becoming increasingly obvious.

Heh.. you can dig your own grave.. You are no longer worthy of my time.. Not that you ever were, but I've said all *I* need to say on this.

Yep - you have.

The primary difference between yourself and myself is that I can admit when you have said something I agree with.

You speak in "absolutes" and hunt for "exceptions" to the case.

I am a week away from a quarter century. Not an old fart (except inside), but hardly a 19 year old kid either.

= = = = = = = = = = = =
GFY BASIC RULES ...
1 ...
2 ...

3. Anything goes, except do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Also don't post links to illegal sites.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

That is the funniest thing I have ever read ...
just hilarious ...

So calling someone a "convicted child molestor" is NOT attacking someone personally ...

Same thing on other adult boards ... total hypocrisy...

There's my new homepage.
Once it starts resolving at my end ...grrr

UPDATE:
Swoit.com has given me permission to use their free licensed content as background images on SexEducation.com

The domain is resolving again and reconstruction begins.
I will not have time to reply as much as I did in the past as I only have so much time in the day ... but I will keep you informed on my progress of reconstruction and the decisions I am making with regards to what I have learned/gained from this experience.

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO THE FUCK AWAY

This is where I will reply to this crap if I choose.

What's your problem with me bud?
Like just say a couple reasons ...

Your site is really nice, sexeducation..... looks like the work of a colorblind old horse on drugs

That's funny - I really am color blind.

OFF TOPIC QUOTE: HOLLY

Oh sorry, Dad. I didn't see your post. I was wishing a big congrats about the wedding last December in the guest book. Too bad about everything getting canceled this year, though.


__________________
335259320
Fools belittle that which they do not understand. Cynics belittle everything. Midgets simply belittle.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
What are you talking about ...
I am not married ...
What cancelled?

Oh ... frig ... now I know ....
Really? ... that is sad.
Bryan is one of the most honest and hard working people you will every meet.

One of the rarest of the rare - who does not change his morals with the balance of his cheque book.

And you guys think you are globe trotters ....
you are nothing compared to him.

That's sad ..
I wish him all the best of luck.

His introduction to me - influenced my life.
The best of the best.

Off topic? Naaah, I think I've hit the nail on the head. I was just curious about what all the "unforeseen circumstances" were that caused everything to get canceled this year. Probably a lot of people disappointed about that. It would be a shame to bring even more disappointment into their lives, now wouldn't it Dad?

grade 6 education

ahahahahahahaha
Nice try, "Dad". Day late and a dollar short, I'd say though.

I guess - I don't know.
He donates SexEducation.com server use.
I have no idea what he is up to - and neither does he about me.

If you are questioning his morals - you are way out of his league.
Way out of his league.
You're not even on the same planet.

The best of the best.

Do you think I am Bryan?

And how did you get this information?

How did you get this information?

Oh I've got lots more information. Names. Family members. Phone numbers. PO boxes. Street addresses. Home addresses. Business addresses. Cell numbers. Fax numbers. Business contacts. Email addresses. URLs.

Real ones. Not the shit you've posted here. For some reason, I'm feeling awfully benevolent today. Shall I share them?

Share what - about who?

Are you saying - you are prepared to put children, teens and innocent spouses in potential harms way?

Are you threatening me?

What's up here?

Do you not realize who is watching these threads?


Are you threatening to post personal information about who you think I am in this newsgroup?

John E. Beacock
[email protected]
1-403-619-2739

How did you get this information?

No threats. Just promises.

Nice Job Dad

I just had to quote you from page 4 of this thread where instead of pulling child porn pics you told everybody to shut thier graphics off

And on page 7 of this thread you again say you have child porn on your site. Amazing this continues on.

Just who is slandering who on this board ???

Come on JFPdude ,,, I put up with way more then I needed to.

none - the hun gets revenue from pre-paid gallery placements on the top 15 spaces and banners. the rest of thegalleries are free placements.

LOL! I'd almost forgotten about that

When you're in jail and being ass raped that may start to come close to being true.

Really, really long threads are just a trip...

The domain is going ...
The police have not called, phoned or come to get me.
The sky did not fall - and - the sun comes up daily.

And this once again is the only thread I will look at regularily.

UPDATE: I should have time this weekend to fix the "email only" membership code ...

Have a great day everyone.
I will keep you informed.
And never again - will GFY - spark an emotional response from me.
I appologize to those I cursed at. It was wrong.
Never again.

John E. Beacock
[email protected]
1-403-619-2739

sexeducation:

"John E. Beacock" I doubt anyone is interested in what happened in your life today, your "opinions" or your apologies.

As a reminder, you published child pornography, you stole material which you had no rights to use.

You were advised yesterday to shut down all adult or "sex education" domains in your control. You have failed to do this.

Material and data in my possession is being passed to several people who are welcome to invesitigate further and do as they see fit with this information.

As a reminder - I have never published child pornography - although I do discuss it.

I did not quote material properly in some cases with regards to "fair use" ... I was made aware of that issue - it is being corrected and studied up on to ensure not only compliance to the law but the spirit of it as well.

Anyone - may investigate me - at any time.
You can only do the best you can do in life.

[PLUG]
"Feed the world and you feed peace. How many do you want to feed?"

Many in the religious world today believe and teach the doctrine that we are saved by faith only. They teach that all one has to do is pray a "sinners prayer" and God will forgive their sins and at that point, they will be saved.
I believe with all my heart that man is saved by faith in the Lord. And that men will be saved eternally by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I have always believed that without faith it is impossible to please God, I believe this because the Bible teaches this. I do not believe in the doctrine of " salvation by faith only" because it is false, not taught in the Bible. There is a great difference between the two.
The doctrine of faith only was made popular by Martin Luther. His break from the Roman Catholic Church resulted in the first protestant denomination. Martin Luther's protest to the false doctrine of salvation by the works of the Catholic Church was the cause of his contending for salvation by faith only. In other words, as a protest against one false doctrine he fathered another. In his swing away from the accepted idea of saved by Catholic works doctrine, he did
not stop with the Bible truth of salvation by faith, but ended up teaching the doctrine of faith alone.
His trouble and the trouble with most people that believe this false doctrine was and is a misunderstanding of what the Bible means by the term "works." In other words, a misunderstanding of the Bible word, "works," was really the cause of Luther's preaching the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. here is what I mean. Luther saw Paul teaching in Eph. 2:8-9 salvation is not by works and then read James 2:24 were James says we are not justified by faith only but by works. He could not correlate the two. His decision was to reject the inspired writings of James. The trouble was not with James and the trouble was not with Paul; the trouble was with Luther's misunderstanding of the term "works" and how it is often used in the New Testament.
The word works is used in at least three ways in the New Testament.

1. Sometimes the word refers to the works of the Old Testament or the works of the law of Moses.

2. Sometimes the word is used to refer to our own personal plans, mans ideas, or traditions devised by men. Of course we don't believe that these works will lead us to God or save us from sin. We could call these our own works or works of men, or works of men's righteousness.

3. And there is the kind the Bible calls the "works of God." If we do not under stand the clear difference between these terms as used in the Bible then we will always have a difficulty understanding Gods plan of salvation By faith in Christ.

* The works of God

In John 6:28 people came and asked Jesus " What shall we do that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answers in verse 29 "this is the work of God that you believe on him whom He hath sent." Yes Jesus said that to believe on Christ is to do the works of God. Yes,faith in the Lord is a work of God. FAITH IS A WORK. It is not the kind of works that Paul is speaking of in Eph. 2:8-9. Jesus said it was the work of God. When God gives a command, and man obeys, man is working the works of God. The act of obedience to Gods command is not the work of man. It is the work of God. Personal obedience to the will of the Lord is the Work of God. Faith is a work. Jesus said so. If you
are saved by faith, you are saved by works. You cannot believe insalvation by faith and disbelieve in salvation by the works of God.
You can believe in salvation by faith and reject the doctrine of salvation by the works of men. You can Believe in salvation by faith in the Lord and disbelieve the proposition of salvation by the works of the law of Moses. Neither salvation by the works of man nor by the works of the law of Moses is true. But, salvation by faith in Christ and salvation by the works of God-they are both true.They are both taught in the New Testament.

*THE WORKS OF MEN

Eph. 2:8-9 "By grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Study the context you will see that Paul does not have in mind the same kind of works that James is referring to in James 2:24 where James says we are justified by works.In Eph. 2: Paul is speaking of our own personal goodness. He means our own deeds that we devised ourselves. to paraphrase, you can't do it yourself; you can not devise yourself schemes or plans or traditions or righteous ceremonies that will save you. You can not do enough of your own invention to save yourself or make yourself worthy of salvation.

* THE WORKS OF THE LAW

Paul in Romans chapter four discusses Abraham and the justification of this patriarch of God ages before the law of the Jews was given to them at Mt. Sinai. He is proving that Abraham was not justified by works but rather by faith in God. Careful reading shows that Paul has in mind the Works of the law of Moses-the deeds of the law of the Jewish nation.. Rom. 3:20 says, "for by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Paul speaks here of the law of Moses, "by the deeds of that law"-by the obedience of that law
you cannot be redeemed or saved in Gods sight. Paul says that Abraham was not saved by that old law. He is arguing with those Jews in Rome who were still holding to the idea that the rites and ceremonies and traditions handed down to them by their fathers and received from Moses would save them. The works of the O. T. law will not save us.

* "SAVING FAITH" IS "OBEDIENT FAITH"

Often times in the New Testament the word faith is used as"saving faith" and often the term believer means a " saved believer." Whenever you find that faith saves, or the expression saving faith, it always means obedient faith. Saving faith is obedient faith.
Whenever you find a believer that is saved you always find an obedient believer. His obedience is always included in the expression or idea of faith. If the believer is saved then that believer has obeyed. Saving faith always includes obedience. Rom.13:11 talks of those that believed, these were obedient believers as we see when we go back and see them in Rom. 6:3-4.. Paul tells us when and how they believed in chapter 6 he tells us very plainly that these same
persons had been baptized by a burial and that is when their newness of life began. Rom. 13 talks about "obedient faith" Rom. 6 explains that "obedient faith", Look at Rom. 6:17 "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you."

* EPHESIAN'S FAITH INCLUDES OBEDIENCE

Check out Acts 19, Paul goes to Ephesus and there finds 12 disciples who knew only the baptism of John and Paul said "Have ye received the Holy Spirit SINCE YE BELIEVED?" Look at what they said; "We have not so much as heard that there be any Holy Spirit." Paul said unto them, " Unto what then were ye baptized?" They said "Unto Johns baptism."
Reading this passage carefully you can see that their baptism was included in the term "believed." Baptism is a command of God.Repentance is a command of God and these are included in the idea of Bible faith or saving faith because saving faith is obeying faith.

* CRISPUS SAVED BY OBEDIENT FAITH

Read Acts 18 for this example.

* JAILER'S BELIEVING INCLUDES OBEYING

Read Acts 16 for this example.

* THE KIND OF FAITH THAT WILL NOT SAVE

John 12:42-43 is an example of the kind of faith that will not save. "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many BELIEVED on Him but because of the pharisees they did not confess him lest they should be put out of the synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." Saving faith is faith that obeys.
Is there any one that cannot quote Jno. 3:16? I do not think so. Lets look at verse 36 of this same chapter. " He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life, but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, for the wrath of God abideth on him.(R.S.V.) Look at it carefully, what's the negative of he that believeth. He that obeyeth not. Why should this be worded like this? He that believeth on the son means the obedient believer. That is why he then could logically say in the next part,"he that obeyeth not" or " he that believeth
not." Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect he became the author of eternal
salvation unto all who obey him; Author of eternal salvation to who? Believers that obey him. Gal.3:26" For ye are all children of God by faith in the Lord Jesus." Faith made them God's children, the question is if faith made them God's children then how did faith do it? God answers this in the very next verse. Verse 27 " for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." That is the inspired writers explanation of how faith makes us God's children. Obedience is again included in saving faith.

* HOW TO LET YOUR FAITH SAVE YOU

Mankind has devised so many different plans of salvation it seems difficult to know who to listen to. Man is not the author of salvation, Jesus Christ is. Lets hear Him; Christ said, "Believe on me." Then he tells me to repent of my sins, and then he commands me to be baptized for the forgiveness of my sins ( Acts 2:38 ). He promises to save the baptized believer Mark 16:16. That is Gods plan
of redemption for mankind revealed to us in his Holy Word.

Instead of spending your money getting new domains, why not fucking save your pennies and hire yourself a lawyer. In fact, most lawyers will give you a free telephone consultation.. Instead of acting like you know something, do the right thing and call a lawyer.

sexeducation:

Save all that for others... I'm finished with you.

I believe in the Lord Jesus and that he died on the cross for our sins. I have read the entire bible - cover to cover.

Even Einstein believed in God.

I do have a problem with "religions" that is unresolved with my personal faith.

I try to be a "contributor" to the planet - and not soley a "consumer" of it's limited resources.

It took the Catholic Church centuries to admit the earth revolved around the sun - and not vice-versa. This planet does not have centuries to gain a mature understanding of sex.


The fact is - women are not treated equally throughout the world.
Sexual prejudice is learned - it is NOT genetic.
Most women can not calculate the only day in their cycle they become fertile - that's pretty sad ... very sad indeed.

sexeducation:

Yes.. tell it to the judge and others - they may think it relevant when dealing with a child pornographer.

Why do you keep posting here???? (Don't bother answering)

You need to change that sig to:

Everything else - is young girls and boys!

GFY is supposedly the world's busiest "Adult Webmaster" board.
What's happening to SexEducation.com considering recent events is now a valid and on topic - post.

I have no problem explaining my actions & motivations to any judge be that the Creator or a in a court of law.

There has never been - in all the many years - that SexEducation.com began evolving a "formal complaint".

And even - with this current temporary shut-down - I was not presented with any evidence or formal correspondence for the reason of the shut-down from the people involved in this shut-down.

What others need to realize ... and that you clearly do ... from other boards is that this started when I posted ...

"NO AROUSED GENITALS OR REPRODUCTIVE BODILY FLUIDS ON ANY DIRECTLY ACCESSED DOMAIN."

And from that single post - a "witch hunt" began ...
and quite honestly ... lessons were learned.

The decision to post this statement has been beneficial and SexEducation.com is in the process of changing.

But the readers of this post should know ...
There has not been a healthy focussed discussion of this statement regardless of where I go - what ever board - I have posted this on.

What has happened is personal attacks against me and my website or I just get banned.

"NO AROUSED GENITALS OR REPRODUCTIVE BODILY FLUIDS ON ANY DIRECTLY ACCESSED DOMAIN."

The discussion of this statement - which I believe - is necessary for the evolution of the internet and the reasonable rights of the majority of the world (children) to the information age - remains undebated among the adult industry which often does the opposite.

I'm taking the traffic of this discussion to another board.
Where hopefully - the rules are enforced - and a debate of the topic can take place and so that I may learn from that debate.

Quite truthfully - I was expecting - some type of constitional discussion that "once you force authors to ...." or "it's a slippery slope when Big Brother gets involved with freedom of speech ..."
What seems to be the answer is that Adult Webmasters feel that this will cut into profits ... pocketbooks.

But you know what? I don't think so.
Most consumers are prepared to click on an over "18 button".
They in fact expect to now.

What I did not say - is that there should be no "nudity" of any type.

However, I feel - and still do - that it is unreasonable to show aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids on a directly accessed domain - just that one page - and that doing so is not an unreasonable restriction to freedom of the press.

Adult Webmasters will still make money, and be able to show whatever they wish within the law, and it would aid software filtering companies like NetNanny etc.

[PLUG]
Every person that is reproductively capable has a self evident right to an understanding of such.

What and when they learn about certains aspects is a Parents decision.

too much here for me to read...i'll wait for the movie

Man, as long as you try to fit the laws to what you believe, you're going to have problems. Stop interpreting the law and start following it.

I am NOT trying to fit the laws to what I believe.
The misconception about SexEducation.com stems at least in this thread (IMO) from the thinking that my website is a "pornographic" website. This is incorrect - as it is not.

Yes - it is an adult website.
Yes - there is content on the website I recommend Parents give to their teens.
Yes - there is inappropriate content on the website that should not be given to teens.

SexEducation.com is an adult magazine of alternative discussions regarding sexual intercourse. SexEducation.com is NOT a porn site even though it is an adult site which contains discussions of teen emails.

It is each individual Parents (Adults) decision or not whether they wish to print or show a discusion which takes place there.

I have tried very hard to provide unique content / appropriateness filtering capabilites to those Adults that feel - for example; that their teen which has been caught surfing the "free tour" areas of adult websites - needs a more "adult" understanding - of sex.

The average of internet pornography is a lie. Most people are not having sex the way pornography in general is being portrayed on the internet.

50% of women never have an orgasm.
70% of men complain of premature ejaculation.

There are more modern Parents that wish their teens have a more modern and healthy understanding of sex - and do NOT grow up sexually dysfunctional - which seems to be the case in a majority of situations ( see percentages above).

Sometimes those "lessons" need to be a little more "punchy" then the standard "medical" or "politically" correct website.

That's what I provide.

sexeducation:

Get this... you are not an "adult webmaster" - you are a CHILD PORNOGRAPHER with zero skills in HTML.

What happened to "sexeducation.com" is a total irrelevance and it is not "a valid and on topic-post". This is an illegal domain which contained CHILD PORN. Webmasters are NOT interested in the "opinions" of a CHILD PORNOGRAPHER.

Don't waste your keyboard in some "freedom of speech" and "rights" oratory - you have NO freedom of speech with regard to child porn. You can deny till the end of time you had any child porn images, however I have copies of these and all HTML which is on your domains. Others have been provided copies of this and, they too, agree this is CHILD PORN.

Questions are already arising over banners used and where these are used in an inappropriate manner since you are appealing to children to get further involved in your "tendencies".
Is it "appropriate" to display this crap on boards which are visited by young girls??

<center>
<img src="http://www.sexeducation.com/private/sexeducation_com/graphics_sexeducation_com/banners/banners_freebanners.jpg">
</center>

Your conduct is not that of a webmaster in any respect - you ran an illegal business.

Now.. quit any "discussion" - there is nothing to discuss of value other than to other CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS.

Without saying much, I can assure you there is a lot coming your way - far more than you ever thought possible..

Now... stay away from any more children and