Good Old-Fashioned Values

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Adam_PoE
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html

BackFire
neat

Alliance
Sex is one of the oldest values 31

finti
that it is

Mr. Sandman
$10 on SithSaber coming in and claiming it's all liberal lies and propaganda.

Soleran
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
$10 on SithSaber coming in and claiming it's all liberal lies and propaganda.


Who cares, that article only told me what I knew all along. You are all a bunch of sluts and man whores!

Spearhead
Is this article supposed to surprise me?

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Soleran
Who cares, that article only told me what I knew all along. You are all a bunch of sluts and man whores!

Remove the plank from your own eye, blah, blah blah.

But I do find the reference to Sithsabre interesting.

Tell us, Sithy, how unshakable is that leg you stand on? Abortion, "Gay rights", god-fearing christian values? Where is your love for a president that has abandoned you like a bad case of the clap? The term "true colours" springs to mind. Here we are, almost 5 years after sending troops to Iraq, and he says that he will consider sending more troops to Iraq "if they have a clear mission to accomplish"? One might assume a responsible, legitimate president would have thought about that before HE sent troops to Iraq to die for no real cause. I still don't see a legitimate reason for your ignorant, coca-cola patriotism or your membership in this personality cult. Maybe it had something to do with your father raping you in your crib when you were a baby.

--I only ask because I miss your Bush, middle finger posts.

Tarja
I am not at all surprised by these findings. I also find it rather hypocritical, that the very people who teach abstinance only in schools have probably had premarital sex themselves.

debbiejo
Darn, another secret lost. Blame it on "Rock and Roll.".......lol

lil bitchiness
Who gave this man a pemission to speak about dangers of sexual activity.

The statement above is not only false, but idiculously stupid. A peson can have 1 000 patners, use a condom and never contract anything, OR a peson can have 1 partner, NOT use protection and contract something nasty.

Stupid man! Liklehood of catching something does not depend on partners, but on the procotion one uses to protect oneself.

Grrr, people like that are giving me a nose bleed.

Victor Von Doom
Although number is A factor.

Strangelove
Another study has reported that water quenches thirst

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Although number is A factor.

And not a deciding one if you know how to take care of yourself. What he implied in this speech is that number of partners and STD's exclusively correlate - which they don't.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Strangelove
Another study has reported that water quenches thirst

Shut up!

Mindship
Neanderthals were chaste; that's how homo sapiens took over. pimp

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And not a deciding one if you know how to take care of yourself. What he implied in this speech is that number of partners and STD's exclusively correlate - which they don't.

I know this.

What you implied, though, is that it doesn't have any impact. It does, logically.

lil bitchiness
I don't believe I implied it doesn't have any impact in contacting STD's.

I said likelihood does not depend on number of partners but on protection, since he stated -

''The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease.''

Since, there are people who have been very sexually active since they were 15, and have not contracted anything, now in their 30s and 40s.

Then there are people who have been sexually active with 2 people and contracted something because they did not know enough about protection.


While it is a factor, sexually liklehood of transmitted diseases do not depend on the number, but on the protection, and the way one takes care of one self.
And I have never implied that it is not a factor at all.
My reply was in relation to the statement made by this man.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Shut up! I'm sorry....what?

Mišt
All those people are going to hell for sinning firefirefireph


He insisted there was no federal mission against premarital sex among adults.

What are they going to do, make it illegal?31

Alliance
Originally posted by Mindship
Neanderthals were chaste; that's how homo sapiens took over. pimp

laughing out loud BREEDING.

dirkdirden
If only the comic book forum got with the program we could change that number from 90% to 100%.

This comment was sponsored by the get a nerd layed spray. Just spray it on any nerd and whore will cumaflockin. www.nerdsneedlovetoo.com (spam)

Soleran
It would be so awesome if they made premarital sex illegal in the USA, it would fit in well with the states that don't allow abortions either.

Alliance
And the ones that had sodomy and miscongeniation laws.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe I implied it doesn't have any impact in contacting STD's.

I said likelihood does not depend on number of partners but on protection, since he stated -

''The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease.''

Since, there are people who have been very sexually active since they were 15, and have not contracted anything, now in their 30s and 40s.

Then there are people who have been sexually active with 2 people and contracted something because they did not know enough about protection.


While it is a factor, sexually liklehood of transmitted diseases do not depend on the number, but on the protection, and the way one takes care of one self.
And I have never implied that it is not a factor at all.
My reply was in relation to the statement made by this man.

But your reply was rather misleading.

It's hardly controversial to say that the fewer sexual partners people have, the less likely they are to get STDs, and the less likely STDs are to spread.

It would in fact by a great solution if it actually had a hope in hell of working. Condoms are better not because this man's logic is bad, but simply because abstinence is not a practical solution.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe I implied it doesn't have any impact in contacting STD's.

I said likelihood does not depend on number of partners but on protection


While it is a factor, sexually liklehood of transmitted diseases do not depend on the number, but on the protection, and the way one takes care of one self.
And I have never implied that it is not a factor at all.
My reply was in relation to the statement made by this man.

You said 'Liklehood of catching something does not depend on partners, but on the procotion one uses to protect oneself.' (sic)

Would you advocate that as perfectly sound sexual advice in schools? To me, it implies that number of partners is irrelevant, provided other steps are taken. That's not true.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You said 'Liklehood of catching something does not depend on partners, but on the procotion one uses to protect oneself.' (sic)

Would you advocate that as perfectly sound sexual advice in schools? To me, it implies that number of partners is irrelevant, provided other steps are taken. That's not true.

Obvoulsy you can still catch STDS if you have had very few partners, I dunno its seems to me that even if you use protection it still increases the chance of getting STDs. Condoms dont always work.

Lets put it this way if you have a few partners and protect yourself you have less chance of getting STDs than somebody who has lots of partners and protects themself. Therefore having lots of partners is a major factor in spreading STDs.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Alfheim
Obvoulsy you can still catch STDS if you have had very few partners



Obviously.


Originally posted by Alfheim

I dunno its seems to me that even if you use protection it still increases the chance of getting STDs. Condoms dont always work.

Lets put it this way if you have a few partners and protect yourself you have less chance of getting STDs than somebody who has lots of partners and protects themself. Therefore having lots of partners is a major factor in spreading STDs.

Yep. I wouldn't go as far as to say 'major', though: that's contingent on other matters. Just it is a clear factor.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom




Yep. I wouldn't go as far as to say 'major', though: that's contingent on other matters. Just it is a clear factor.

So in other words its better to have few partners?

Victor Von Doom
There's likely to be less risk. I don't make a value judgment on that.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
There's likely to be less risk.

Yeah I thought that was common sense.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

I don't make a value judgment on that.

Im not, but obvoulsy everything should be done within reason. Even if you drink too much water it can be bad for you.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah I thought that was common sense.

It is. I don't believe we are disagreeing; your tone puzzles me.


Originally posted by Alfheim

Im not, but obvoulsy everything should be done within reason. Even if you drink too much water it can be bad for you.

As above.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It is. I don't believe we are disagreeing; your tone puzzles me.




As above.

No its not you. Its seems to me that others were implying that if you protect yourself everything will be ok and having fewer sexual partners doesnt really make any difference at all.

dirkdirden
People just need to do the **** test. If you can have sex with the girl after the first date don't do it she's a **** if she'll bang you after one date she'll bang anyone after one date. Find a girl that takes months to sex up and you will greatly decrees your risk of the hiv.

Alfheim
Originally posted by dirkdirden
People just need to do the **** test. If you can have sex with the girl after the first date don't do it she's a **** if she'll bang you after one date she'll bang anyone after one date. Find a girl that takes months to sex up and you will greatly decrees your risk of the hiv.

Common sense again.

Robtard
Originally posted by dirkdirden
People just need to do the **** test. If you can have sex with the girl after the first date don't do it she's a **** if she'll bang you after one date she'll bang anyone after one date. Find a girl that takes months to sex up and you will greatly decrees your risk of the hiv.

Wrong , wrong and wrong. There's a simpler and safer way to lower your risk of contacting HIV, use a condom.

dirkdirden
Originally posted by Alfheim
Common sense again.

And common sense isn't very common now days. If everyone used common sense then we'd have no problems.

Alliance
Very unlikely.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
$10 on SithSaber coming in and claiming it's all liberal lies and propaganda. Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Remove the plank from your own eye, blah, blah blah.

But I do find the reference to Sithsabre interesting.

Tell us, Sithy, how unshakable is that leg you stand on? Abortion, "Gay rights", god-fearing christian values? Where is your love for a president that has abandoned you like a bad case of the clap? The term "true colours" springs to mind. Here we are, almost 5 years after sending troops to Iraq, and he says that he will consider sending more troops to Iraq "if they have a clear mission to accomplish"? One might assume a responsible, legitimate president would have thought about that before HE sent troops to Iraq to die for no real cause. I still don't see a legitimate reason for your ignorant, coca-cola patriotism or your membership in this personality cult. Maybe it had something to do with your father raping you in your crib when you were a baby.

--I only ask because I miss your Bush, middle finger posts.


You want my thoughts?



This has F*ck all to do with me. stick out tongue






I find the studies info to be par for the course. Nothing new, really.

People, most people in fact have sex before marriage. I did. Both my parents and my wife's parents did.

What I find to be funny, or just flat-out wrong is the studies conclusions: "Most people aren't practicing abstinence, so we shouldn't be promoting it."

The study only talks to 38,000 people, whilst there are 300 million in the U.S.

I think that you would find the numbers slightly lower on premarital sex if you did the study in a large scale, since there are many millions of Americans who have committed themselves to be virgins until marriage.

Certainly more than 5% of the country, anyway.



But that's all beside the point.

Just because people are doing something, doesn't mean that they should. (see smoking)

Every smoker who smokes knows the effects of tobacco and nicotine, knows the dangers, and the end-result. (many have probably seen it first hand as family members have died from cancer)

No amount of "TRUTH" ads will stop them.

But we don't stop teaching about the effects or possible outcomes of smoking do we?


It's all simple:

Abstinence= No chance of STD's, no chance of pregnancy
Protected Sex (few partners)=risk of STD's, risk of pregnancy
Protected Sex (many partners)=medium risk of STD's, medium risk of pregnancy
Unprotected Sex(few partners)=high risk of STD's, high risk of pregnancy
Unprotected Sex(many partners)=Extremely high risk of STD's, extremely high risk of pregnancy


Lot's of people not practicing abstinence does not change the above from being fact.

With the percentages of people who have STD's or un-wanted pregnancies, should't we tell them so?




http://gallery.brawl-hall.com/data/media782245/10/bush_finger.jpg

For 'Cap /\

Alliance
*snore*

You don't get pregnant if you have gay sex silly.

Please b*tch about liberal media bias. I need some humor before my exam.

"The study only talks to 38,000 people, whilst there are 300 million in the U.S."

laughing out loud Not much of a stats man aren't you. This is a HUGE study and likely very representative,

sithsaber408
*cough*

"The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth."



A gay joke, a liberal joke, and an incorrect statement about stats.

THAT'S your answer?

Methinks you know that while most people don't practice abstinence and do have pre-marital sex, you also know that abstinence is the BEST prevention of STD's, AIDS, or pregnancy and should still be shown as an option (the BEST option) and not discarded because it isn't widely practiced.


You just don't want to admit it because I, the infallable Sithsaber said it.

Heaven forbid I should ever get anything right. stick out tongue

PVS
more to the point: rarely practiced at all.
thus, practical solutions are needed.

the best way to avoid a car accident is to stay out of a car, but what kind of practical solution is that? get it?

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
*cough*

"The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth."



A gay joke, a liberal joke, and an incorrect statement about stats.

THAT'S your answer?

Methinks you know that while most people don't practice abstinence and do have pre-marital sex, you also know that abstinence is the BEST prevention of STD's, AIDS, or pregnancy and should still be shown as an option (the BEST option) and not discarded because it isn't widely practiced.


You just don't want to admit it because I, the infallable Sithsaber said it.

Heaven forbid I should ever get anything right. stick out tongue

Your "Best Option" isn't practical* so therefore it ceases to be a "Best Option". People are not going to stop having sex, that is a fact. You had premarital right? Did all the "Be Abstinent" propaganda work on you. A better/best option would be the promotion of "Safe Sex", but unfortunately most Christian organization throw a hissy fit when condoms are offered to kids for free and Sex Education classes have ignorant people pushing for their demise. It's the nut-job Christians/Religios Freaks who are promoting the spread of STD's and un-wanted pregancies.

(*See PVS's car/accident analogy)

-Edit: As proof that Religion is a major cause of STD's, look at Africa. 20+% of the people in many African countries are infected w/ either HIV-1 or HIV-2... Why is this you ask? Because of the massive lack of sexual education due to religion. The religious heads denouce the use of safe-sex practices as it "interferes with God's will".

PVS
now its either time for a reality check or an "i have sinned, but now my eyes see the light" speech.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by sithsaber408
*cough*

"The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth."

But how many of those women were pregnant? Surely their unborn children had an opinion or possibly even experience.



Originally posted by sithsaber408
A gay joke, a liberal joke, and an incorrect statement about stats.

THAT'S your answer?

Why not? That's typically how you respond when you don't have anything valid to say.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You want my thoughts?



This has F*ck all to do with me. stick out tongue






I find the studies info to be par for the course. Nothing new, really.

People, most people in fact have sex before marriage. I did. Both my parents and my wife's parents did.

What I find to be funny, or just flat-out wrong is the studies conclusions: "Most people aren't practicing abstinence, so we shouldn't be promoting it."

The study only talks to 38,000 people, whilst there are 300 million in the U.S.

I think that you would find the numbers slightly lower on premarital sex if you did the study in a large scale, since there are many millions of Americans who have committed themselves to be virgins until marriage.

Certainly more than 5% of the country, anyway.



But that's all beside the point.

Just because people are doing something, doesn't mean that they should. (see smoking)

Every smoker who smokes knows the effects of tobacco and nicotine, knows the dangers, and the end-result. (many have probably seen it first hand as family members have died from cancer)

No amount of "TRUTH" ads will stop them.

But we don't stop teaching about the effects or possible outcomes of smoking do we?


It's all simple:

Abstinence= No chance of STD's, no chance of pregnancy
Protected Sex (few partners)=risk of STD's, risk of pregnancy
Protected Sex (many partners)=medium risk of STD's, medium risk of pregnancy
Unprotected Sex(few partners)=high risk of STD's, high risk of pregnancy
Unprotected Sex(many partners)=Extremely high risk of STD's, extremely high risk of pregnancy


Lot's of people not practicing abstinence does not change the above from being fact.

With the percentages of people who have STD's or un-wanted pregnancies, should't we tell them so?




http://gallery.brawl-hall.com/data/media782245/10/bush_finger.jpg

For 'Cap /\




While it is true that Abstinence is the only guarantee of not contracting STD's or getting pregnant (for heterosexual couples), most people are NOT going to follow that.

You KNOW THIS Sithsaber...you yourself are an example of someone who did not choose to remain abstinent before Marriage...does that make you a bad person? No....you were responsible when you had sex right ?



I have nothing against teaching the rewards of Abstinence, but to push an Abstinence-Only sex education is fkn absurd. That will NOT work, as history has proven again and again.

ALL OPTIONS, from Abstinence to Safe Sex, to different methods of masturbation, should be taught and exposed, so that people have options and have the CHOICE to choose what is best for them.


I wondor what you would say to Gay people who decide to have sex before marriage. Would you tell them, "No, you should wait til you get married....HA ! eek! "




I find it a repulsive repetition of how Conservative Christians, in general, are either intensely hypocritical or intensely stupid.....

FeceMan
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Remove the plank from your own eye, blah, blah blah.

But I do find the reference to Sithsabre interesting.

Tell us, Sithy, how unshakable is that leg you stand on? Abortion, "Gay rights", god-fearing christian values? Where is your love for a president that has abandoned you like a bad case of the clap? The term "true colours" springs to mind. Here we are, almost 5 years after sending troops to Iraq, and he says that he will consider sending more troops to Iraq "if they have a clear mission to accomplish"? One might assume a responsible, legitimate president would have thought about that before HE sent troops to Iraq to die for no real cause. I still don't see a legitimate reason for your ignorant, coca-cola patriotism or your membership in this personality cult. Maybe it had something to do with your father raping you in your crib when you were a baby.

--I only ask because I miss your Bush, middle finger posts.
What a huge troll attempt.

By the way, the main cause of HIV infection in Africa is the mistaken belief that sleeping with a virgin woman will cure one of it.

Fishy
Originally posted by FeceMan
What a huge troll attempt.

By the way, the main cause of HIV infection in Africa is the mistaken belief that sleeping with a virgin woman will cure one of it.

Of course the rapid spread of Roman Catholicism and the pope forbidding the use of Condoms has nothing to do with it...

Strangelove
Originally posted by FeceMan
What a huge troll attempt.

By the way, the main cause of HIV infection in Africa is the mistaken belief that sleeping with a virgin woman will cure one of it. Originally posted by Fishy
Of course the rapid spread of Roman Catholicism and the pope forbidding the use of Condoms has nothing to do with it... That's it on the nose, right there.

Soleran
Originally posted by Fishy
Of course the rapid spread of Roman Catholicism and the pope forbidding the use of Condoms has nothing to do with it...


Yes because I'm sure condems are available everywhere for free in all the underdeveloped villages and to the poor. Yeah, right....................

Religion isn't the solution but lets not make it out to be the cause.

Robtard
Originally posted by Soleran
Yes because I'm sure condems are available everywhere for free in all the underdeveloped villages and to the poor. Yeah, right....................

Religion isn't the solution but lets not make it out to be the cause.

Point being, Religion is a huge trunk-in-the-road to sexual education in Africa... The places were condoms would be readily available, the religious heads denounce such practices. Africans have virtually zero sexual education, a skewed view of religion is one of the larger factors to why this is.

Fishy
Originally posted by Soleran
Yes because I'm sure condems are available everywhere for free in all the underdeveloped villages and to the poor. Yeah, right....................

Religion isn't the solution but lets not make it out to be the cause.

Of course it's not the cause, it does however play a part and is one of many reasons for aids spreading as fast as it does....

Bardock42
Originally posted by FeceMan
What a huge troll attempt.

By the way, the main cause of HIV infection in Africa is the mistaken belief that sleeping with a virgin woman will cure one of it.

Well, that should be done with soon.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by FeceMan
What a huge troll attempt.

attempt?

Strangelove
Originally posted by Soleran
Yes because I'm sure condems are available everywhere for free in all the underdeveloped villages and to the poor. Yeah, right....................

Religion isn't the solution but lets not make it out to be the cause. There are plenty of missionaries who go to Africa to help out with the AIDS epidemic, but they can't give out condoms because they're there by the will of the church.

It's the Catholic church's fault there. No real way around that. Unless you're calling African's sex-crazed who refuse to practice abstinence....but that would be racist.

Soleran
Originally posted by Strangelove
It's the Catholic church's fault there. No real way around that. Unless you're calling African's sex-crazed who refuse to practice abstinence....but that would be racist.


No it wouldn't be racist.

LOL Catholicism is to blame for the epidemic of AIDS in Africa, what a hoot.

RedAlertv2
Originally posted by Soleran
No it wouldn't be racist.

LOL Catholicism is to blame for the epidemic of AIDS in Africa, what a hoot. Its already been explained that while not entirely to blame, it is part of the problem. Obviously catholicism isnt causing AIDS, but it is hindering efforts to stop the spread.

FeceMan
Ooh, boy, let's blame religion for AIDS.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Anyway, I take some form of perverse pleasure in wondering what the answers would have been if the following questions had been asked:

1. If you could go back and wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse, would you?

2. If you could go back and wait to have sex, saving yourself for your current husband, would you?

I'm still not certain how not waiting until marriage to have sex is impractical. The only answer I can come up with is that we've decided that self-control is for suckers.

Soleran
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ooh, boy, let's blame religion for AIDS.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Anyway, I take some form of perverse pleasure in wondering what the answers would have been if the following questions had been asked:

1. If you could go back and wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse, would you?

2. If you could go back and wait to have sex, saving yourself for your current husband, would you?

I'm still not certain how not waiting until marriage to have sex is impractical. The only answer I can come up with is that we've decided that self-control is for suckers.


I blame pharmaceutical companies for pill popping instant gratification, truly the moral decay of our country. *points a finger at pharmaceutical companies* I like blaming and it's easy too!

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm still not certain how not waiting until marriage to have sex is impractical.

I am not certain either.

Alfheim
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ooh, boy, let's blame religion for AIDS.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Anyway, I take some form of perverse pleasure in wondering what the answers would have been if the following questions had been asked:

1. If you could go back and wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse, would you?

2. If you could go back and wait to have sex, saving yourself for your current husband, would you?

I'm still not certain how not waiting until marriage to have sex is impractical. The only answer I can come up with is that we've decided that self-control is for suckers.

By the way Robtard said "a skewed view of religon", so he was not saying religon is bad itself just how people enforce abuse religon.

I think with pre-marital sex there needs to be a bit of common sense. The whole purpose of marriage is to create a loving bond between man and woman and to create a stable envinronment for children to brought up in, thats not a bad thing.

Do you have to get married though? If somebody has a girlfriend or boyfriend but loves them and intends to stick with them as much as possible why do they need to get married? Isn't this marriage in spirit?

To be quite honest it seems to me in general the reason why people tend not to have stable relationships in general is because mankind in general is a selfish species. Peoples attitudes to sex amongst other things can be a reflection of a persons personality. Do we live in a world were we can trust each other? Do we live in a world were there is justice? Do we live in a world were people are considerate? No the world is not a complete hell hole but there is a lot wrong with the world and society. Most people only care about number one and that attitude reflects itself in what people do sex being one of those things. If people were more considerate and compassionate stable relationships would be more common.

P.S. Im not saying that all people who have lots of partners are scumbags.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am not certain either.
Snaps.

Of course, you know what I meant.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by FeceMan
What a huge troll attempt.

By the way, the main cause of HIV infection in Africa is the mistaken belief that sleeping with a virgin woman will cure one of it.

Also, don't quote only me in your response as though I somehow implied that the belief that screwing a virgin in Africa would cure you of AIDS was a position I held.

I'm more than aware that poor education and backwater beliefs are a huge factor in the spread of AIDS in Africa.



Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am not certain either.

Too late anyway.

Naz
Originally posted by PVS
more to the point: rarely practiced at all.
thus, practical solutions are needed.

the best way to avoid a car accident is to stay out of a car, but what kind of practical solution is that? get it?

Exactly roll eyes (sarcastic) Because sex is necessary for you to go to the grocery store and carry food back to your house so you can eat, and sex is necassary for you to go to work to you can make some money to buy that food. Yes, sex is very practical. I mean, what would I do without sex to get me some STDs and a baby that I'll wind up aborting anyway? God, I love sex.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Naz
Exactly roll eyes (sarcastic) Because sex is necessary for you to go to the grocery store and carry food back to your house so you can eat, and sex is necassary for you to go to work to you can make some money to buy that food. Yes, sex is very practical. I mean, what would I do without sex to get me some STDs and a baby that I'll wind up aborting anyway? God, I love sex.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

Naz
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

I don't think so. He suggested that sex could be looked at in the same way a car can: Unsafe but necessary. I tried to point out that a car, unlike sex, is in someway remotely useful.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Naz
I don't think so. He suggested that sex could be looked at in the same way a car can: Unsafe but necessary. I tried to point out that a car, unlike sex, is in someway remotely useful.

Sex is useful in quite a few aspects. For one it is a lot of fun (or so I heard). It also kinda is the only way so far how we can keep our species alive. So sex can produce babies..that is also useful. It's also healthy. Oh and if done correctly much safer than a car.

hat0r.

Naz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sex is useful in quite a few aspects. For one it is a lot of fun (or so I heard). It also kinda is the only way so far how we can keep our species alive. So sex can produce babies..that is also useful. It's also healthy. Oh and if done correctly much safer than a car.

hat0r.

"fun" does not make something useful.
True, but I suppose I did fail to mention that this thread is about premarital sex, and premarital sex was what I was primarily adressing in my post. And that I assume when an unmarried couple has sex, they're not looking for a child.
Please enlighten my to how sex is healthy.

Kinneary
http://www.progressiveu.org/091935-the-health-benefits-of-sex
http://www.forbes.com/health/2005/10/05/sex-health-lifestyle-cz_af_1005health.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/30094/health_benefits_of_sex.html

Let the grown ups talk, virgin.

Naz
Originally posted by Kinneary
http://www.progressiveu.org/091935-the-health-benefits-of-sex
http://www.forbes.com/health/2005/10/05/sex-health-lifestyle-cz_af_1005health.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/30094/health_benefits_of_sex.html

Let the grown ups talk, virgin.

So basically it's like running except you got to also have the risk of contracting a disease or getting pregnant. Oh boy.

Soleran
Originally posted by Naz
So basically it's like running except you got to also have the risk of contracting a disease or getting pregnant. Oh boy.


LOL, yeah and a runners high is just as good as orgasm! eek!

BackFire
Sex also feels really good, can be relaxing, can relieve pressure and is just good fun.

Naz
Originally posted by Soleran
LOL, yeah and a runners high is just as good as orgasm! eek!

LOL, yeah and I wasn't even talking about the feel-good part, just the physical and cardio benefits! eek!

Lana
Originally posted by Naz
"fun" does not make something useful.
True, but I suppose I did fail to mention that this thread is about premarital sex, and premarital sex was what I was primarily adressing in my post. And that I assume when an unmarried couple has sex, they're not looking for a child.
Please enlighten my to how sex is healthy.

Just because a couple is unmarried it does not mean they may not want children. Just as it doesn't mean a couple DOES want kids if they they ARE married.

dirkdirden

Kinneary
Originally posted by Naz
So basically it's like running except you got to also have the risk of contracting a disease or getting pregnant. Oh boy.
So you read the first three sentences of the first article and then posted? That is outstanding.

Someone remind me why they let 8 year olds post on here again?

Naz
Originally posted by Kinneary
So you read the first three sentences of the first article and then posted? That is outstanding.

Someone remind me why they let 8 year olds post on here again?

Actually I skimmed all three, thank you.
And they told me all the same thing: Sex is good if it is practiced safely with a steady partner.
Which really isn't true. Because I assume it's common knowledge that condoms and birth control don't work 100% of the time, and even if both partners are tested for STDs, you still run the risk of becoming pregnant no matter how safe you believe you're being.

BackFire
Yeah, and when running you run the risk of breaking an ankle, getting kidnapped, or hit by a bus, still isn't a reason to not do it, just take precautions, just like with anything.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Naz
"fun" does not make something useful.
True, but I suppose I did fail to mention that this thread is about premarital sex, and premarital sex was what I was primarily adressing in my post. And that I assume when an unmarried couple has sex, they're not looking for a child.
Please enlighten my to how sex is healthy.

Oh hell yes it does. More useful than anything else. It is all based on fun.

They might anyways. And you can't just generalize sex in that way then. You know you don't have to be married to want children.

Is a good workout

Bardock42
Originally posted by Naz
Actually I skimmed all three, thank you.
And they told me all the same thing: Sex is good if it is practiced safely with a steady partner.
Which really isn't true. Because I assume it's common knowledge that condoms and birth control don't work 100% of the time, and even if both partners are tested for STDs, you still run the risk of becoming pregnant no matter how safe you believe you're being.

Abortion works basically every time. So, yeah.

dirkdirden
Originally posted by Naz
Actually I skimmed all three, thank you.
And they told me all the same thing: Sex is good if it is practiced safely with a steady partner.
Which really isn't true. Because I assume it's common knowledge that condoms and birth control don't work 100% of the time, and even if both partners are tested for STDs, you still run the risk of becoming pregnant no matter how safe you believe you're being.

My wife is on birth control......She hasn't goten pregnet in the past 6 years. The chances are just like they say on the box. 99.9%. The benifits outweight the risk if done correctly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Abortion works basically every time. So, yeah.

I laughed out loud becuase of this

Naz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh hell yes it does. More useful than anything else. It is all based on fun.

They might anyways. And you can't just generalize sex in that way then. You know you don't have to be married to want children.

Is a good workout

I in no way meant to imply that unmarried people don't want children.

Naz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Abortion works basically every time. So, yeah.

You monster.

BackFire
He's right though.

Kinneary
Originally posted by Naz
Actually I skimmed all three, thank you.
And they told me all the same thing: Sex is good if it is practiced safely with a steady partner.
Which really isn't true. Because I assume it's common knowledge that condoms and birth control don't work 100% of the time, and even if both partners are tested for STDs, you still run the risk of becoming pregnant no matter how safe you believe you're being.
How is that different from having sex with the person you get married to? Not all married couples want children, should they never have sex? Would you marry someone who has had premarital sex? You're running the same risk of getting an STD from that person as you would from being with a steady partner with protection.

What if both partners ran STD checks on themselves and used a condom every time? Is that acceptable? Or is it unwise because there's a chance that the condom might not work .1% of the time? Is it stupid to light candles because there's a chance that your house might catch on fire? Is it a bad idea to eat steak because there's always that possibility you could get salmonella? How far does this "There's a slight possibility that something bad might happen, so you should NEVER do it" logic train go?

sithsaber408
Because the millions upon millions with AIDS (and many more with Syphillis, ghonorrea, and herpes) when coupled with those who have unexpected pregnancies are hardly in the category of "slight possibility".


It's a fact folks: Abstinence equals no std's or babies, sex equals chance of babies or std's. (protected or unprotected.)



As I said in my first post in here, it's obvious that most people don't practice abstinence.

The study quoted in the first post takes that fact and says: "We shouldn't even teach abstinence as an option anymore."

That's reason for the thread, and the topic that should be discussed.

Whether or not we should teach it. (an obvious "yes" in my view)

The abstinence v.s. pre-marital sex issue is best left in the abstinence thread.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because the millions upon millions with AIDS (and many more with Syphillis, ghonorrea, and herpes) when coupled with those who have unexpected pregnancies are hardly in the category of "slight possibility".


It's a fact folks: Abstinence equals no std's or babies, sex equals chance of babies or std's. (protected or unprotected.)



As I said in my first post in here, it's obvious that most people don't practice abstinence.

The study quoted in the first post takes that fact and says: "We shouldn't even teach abstinence as an option anymore."

That's reason for the thread, and the topic that should be discussed.

Whether or not we should teach it. (an obvious "yes" in my view)

The abstinence v.s. pre-marital sex issue is best left in the abstinence thread.

Remind us as to how many children you have, please.

Kinneary
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because the millions upon millions with AIDS (and many more with Syphillis, ghonorrea, and herpes) when coupled with those who have unexpected pregnancies are hardly in the category of "slight possibility".


It's a fact folks: Abstinence equals no std's or babies, sex equals chance of babies or std's. (protected or unprotected.)



As I said in my first post in here, it's obvious that most people don't practice abstinence.

The study quoted in the first post takes that fact and says: "We shouldn't even teach abstinence as an option anymore."

That's reason for the thread, and the topic that should be discussed.

Whether or not we should teach it. (an obvious "yes" in my view)

The abstinence v.s. pre-marital sex issue is best left in the abstinence thread.
It's estimated that .7% of the population lives with HIV in the USA. Of that, 16% of cases have been traced to male-to-female contact, meaning that if a man and woman have sex with each other, they have a .1% chance of contracting HIV. If protection is used, that chance drops to a .001% chance of contracting the virus. And that's if you just went out and had sex with any random person. The chances are incredibly, incredibly low of contracting HIV if the proper precautions are used. They're still very low even if the proper protection isn't used.

Next.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Naz
I don't think so. He suggested that sex could be looked at in the same way a car can: Unsafe but necessary. I tried to point out that a car, unlike sex, is in someway remotely useful.

Nowhere did he state that a car is a necessity. He stated, "the best way to avoid a car accident is to stay out of a car," but for one who is going to drive, "what kind of practical solution is that?"

Badabing
Cool article. I think most of us have figured out what our parents and grandparents were doing as teenagers and young adults. Ewwwww! sick

I'm Catholic and went to a Catholic school. We were NEVER told we'd burn in Hell or anything like that for having sex. We were taught that if we were going to do "it" that we should be in a relationship. I even had a priest tell me in Confession that the Church realized the times we live in and that I wouldn't have to repent for sex while in a relationship.

Does anybody think that more people are promiscuous now and sleeping around with more people just to hook up than back in the day?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Kinneary
It's estimated that .7% of the population lives with HIV in the USA. Of that, 16% of cases have been traced to male-to-female contact, meaning that if a man and woman have sex with each other, they have a .1% chance of contracting HIV. If protection is used, that chance drops to a .001% chance of contracting the virus. And that's if you just went out and had sex with any random person. The chances are incredibly, incredibly low of contracting HIV if the proper precautions are used. They're still very low even if the proper protection isn't used.

Next.

According to the Center For Disease Control, the number one risk factor for HIV infection is heterosexual contact. By extention, the percentage of cases of HIV infection due to male-to-female contact is higher than 16%.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Badabing
Does anybody think that more people are promiscuous now and sleeping around with more people just to hook up than back in the day?

No. That is the entire point of the article.

Badabing
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No. That is the entire point of the article.
I know but I just wanted to get an idea of what everybody else thought.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Kinneary
It's estimated that .7% of the population lives with HIV in the USA. Of that, 16% of cases have been traced to male-to-female contact, meaning that if a man and woman have sex with each other, they have a .1% chance of contracting HIV. If protection is used, that chance drops to a .001% chance of contracting the virus. And that's if you just went out and had sex with any random person. The chances are incredibly, incredibly low of contracting HIV if the proper precautions are used. They're still very low even if the proper protection isn't used.

Next.
I like how this sidesteps the entire point of "abstinence equals no risk."

Next.

Kinneary
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to the Center For Disease Control, the number one risk factor for HIV infection is heterosexual contact. By extention, the percentage of cases of HIV infection due to male-to-female contact is higher than 16%.
http://www.answers.com/topic/hiv-aids-in-the-united-states




Because abstinence is a non-issue. It's simply not going to happen, at least with 95% of the US population. Protected sex with partners who you don't meet on street corners is a reasonable solution.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Kinneary
http://www.answers.com/topic/hiv-aids-in-the-united-states




Because abstinence is a non-issue. It's simply not going to happen, at least with 95% of the US population. Protected sex with partners who you don't meet on street corners is a reasonable solution.
Not the point.

Kinneary
What's the point? That abstinence should be shoved down people's throats? It's a bad idea. You're asking for the impossible from students, and it makes them less likely to take anything else you say seriously. Approach a person with something reasonable, and you'll see results.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Kinneary
What's the point? That abstinence should be shoved down people's throats? It's a bad idea. You're asking for the impossible from students, and it makes them less likely to take anything else you say seriously. Approach a person with something reasonable, and you'll see results.
First of all, abstinence is hardly unreasonable.

Second of all, I never said I supported abstinence-only sexual education.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by FeceMan
First of all, abstinence is hardly unreasonable.

only if you ignore how much fun sex is
and if you ignore that it is a deeply ingraned impulse for humans
and if you ignore that at some point we will need kids (keep the species going and such)

Originally posted by FeceMan

Second of all, I never said I supported abstinence-only sexual education.

smile

Badabing
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
only if you ignore how much fun sex is

eek! Happy Dance laughing

Also, this isn't the 1800's when people were married at 13-15 years old.

Bardock42
Well, how do you want to teach abstinence. Most peopel know how to not have sex I assume. You can of course mention the advantages of such an approach as long as you don't leave the more useful ones out (condoms, anti-baby pills, abortion, etc.)

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because the millions upon millions with AIDS (and many more with Syphillis, ghonorrea, and herpes) when coupled with those who have unexpected pregnancies are hardly in the category of "slight possibility".


It's a fact folks: Abstinence equals no std's or babies, sex equals chance of babies or std's. (protected or unprotected.)



As I said in my first post in here, it's obvious that most people don't practice abstinence.

The study quoted in the first post takes that fact and says: "We shouldn't even teach abstinence as an option anymore."

That's reason for the thread, and the topic that should be discussed.

Whether or not we should teach it. (an obvious "yes" in my view)

The abstinence v.s. pre-marital sex issue is best left in the abstinence thread.

Why would you waste the resources teaching something that has an incredibly high rate of failure though? It is counterproductive and possibly dangerous for the pupils.

Take a class of 50 teenagers and teach them that "abstinence is the best alternative", the majority of them are not going to listen, care or obey. So what you end up with is 80+% of the class having premarital sex and being mostly ignorant on safe sex practices (i.e. using condoms for all forms of sex, keeping partners to a minimal etc.) when if you taught them "Safe Sex", you would have 80+% of the class still having sex, but having it in a safe/safer manner.

Now, which sounds the more logical and safer method?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Robtard
Why would you waste the resources teaching something that has an incredibly high rate of failure though? It is counterproductive and possibly dangerous for the pupils.

Take a class of 50 teenagers and teach them that "abstinence is the best alternative", the majority of them are not going to listen, care or obey. So what you end up with is 80+% of the class having premarital sex and being mostly ignorant on safe sex practices (i.e. using condoms for all forms of sex, keeping partners to a minimal etc.) when if you taught them "Safe Sex", you would have 80+% of the class still having sex, but having it in a safe/safer manner.

Now, which sounds the more logical and safer method?

I'm sorry, you lost me when you said that teaching abstinence as part of sex education would be "counter-productive and possibly dangerous."


That's a crock of shit.


You take your 50 kids in the class, you explain the birds and the bees, the semen and ovaries, the penis and the vagina... all of that.

You tell them how sex works, and what it does: Make babies.

Go into social and literary history if you like, and explain sex in all it's aspects including how it's been viewed throughout history and so on.

You can present the obvious fact that many people have sex other than just for babies, but biologically that's its primary function.

Explain childbirth, adoption, and abortion, and the ramifications socially, economically, emotionally, and physically for each.

Explain all STD's including AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and genital warts. Pictures are often helpful.

Then present the sexual options and consequences of each:

Unprotected sex= risk of pregnancy or STD.
Protected sex=lower risk of pregnancy or STD.
(explain all forms: condoms, the pill, ... the dreaded diaphragm)

abstinence=no risk of pregnancy or STD.





^^^^Oh wait, that is how we currently teach sex education.
My bad.



This "study" and it's "recommendations" about not teaching abstinence is just a bunch of liberal bullshit.

I like how it tries to connect the Bush Administration with a "policy of abstinence"..... as if the people who advocate abstinence and it being taught as an option wouldn't be here if Bush wasn't.

Or as if Kerry, Edwards, Clinton or ANY other Democrat would have the balls to remove abstinence from what is taught about sex in schools.


The study is of 36,000 people, yet there are 300 million in the country.

And young people make up what, about a 1/3rd right? (approx. 100mil)

And there are about 4 or 5 million of them who commit to abstinence, to saving sex for marriage.


I agree that percentage wise it's only 4 or 5% of kids that choose abstinence, but when you say that what are you saying?

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't have to deal with a pregnancy and either keep it, abort it, or give it up. (all of which suck)

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't contract an STD.



And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."




What a load of horseshit.




*checks first page*



Ahh, 'twas started by Adam_PoE....now I get it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm sorry, you lost me when you said that teaching abstinence as part of sex education would be "counter-productive and possibly dangerous."


That's a crock of shit.


You take your 50 kids in the class, you explain the birds and the bees, the semen and ovaries, the penis and the vagina... all of that.

You tell them how sex works, and what it does: Make babies.

Go into social and literary history if you like, and explain sex in all it's aspects including how it's been viewed throughout history and so on.

You can present the obvious fact that many people have sex other than just for babies, but biologically that's its primary function.

Explain childbirth, adoption, and abortion, and the ramifications socially, economically, emotionally, and physically for each.

Explain all STD's including AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and genital warts. Pictures are often helpful.

Then present the sexual options and consequences of each:

Unprotected sex= risk of pregnancy or STD.
Protected sex=lower risk of pregnancy or STD.
(explain all forms: condoms, the pill, ... the dreaded diaphragm)

abstinence=no risk of pregnancy or STD.



I agree, that's how it should be.

Kinneary
The point is, teach it. Offer it as an option. But don't dedicate a lot of time on it. Since 95%, or 95,000,000, are going to have sex anyway, it only makes sense to dedicate much more time teaching safe sex methods rather than abstinence. By constantly harping on abstinence, you're only going to alienate 95% of your classroom and make them pay attention to you even less when you start to delve into options that they might actually be able to use.

Symmetric Chaos
Absitinece is not counter productive as long as you teach the kids what they should do when they inevitably do have sex

and they will have sex unless you castrate them or lock them in cages

drewbiefan
I do not get thismessed

Symmetric Chaos
OK so there's this thing called sex where a man puts his penis in a womans vagina

abstinence is when that doesn't happen

should we tell kid to be abstinent?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
OK so there's this thing called sex where a man puts his penis in a womans vagina

abstinence is when that doesn't happen

should we tell kid to be abstinent?

Nah, just the facts.

Symmetric Chaos
that was the facts

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
that was the facts

Those were facts.

Not "the" facts.

You can mention that Abstinence is a sure way to avoid STDs and Pregnancy.

You can mention the protection rate of other things.

Symmetric Chaos
but then I get into my personal biases and people become angry.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
but then I get into my personal biases and people become angry.

Those you should leave out.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The study is of 36,000 people, yet there are 300 million in the country.

And young people make up what, about a 1/3rd right? (approx. 100mil)

And there are about 4 or 5 million of them who commit to abstinence, to saving sex for marriage.


I agree that percentage wise it's only 4 or 5% of kids that choose abstinence, but when you say that what are you saying?

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't have to deal with a pregnancy and either keep it, abort it, or give it up. (all of which suck)

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't contract an STD.



And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."




What a load of horseshit.




*checks first page*



Ahh, 'twas started by Adam_PoE....now I get it.



Need I go on?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Those you should leave out.

are you asking me to leave or to not be biased?

I'd rather no leave this is a subject that interests me

In case you didn't realize my post that started this discussin was a joke

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The study is of 36,000 people, yet there are 300 million in the country.

And young people make up what, about a 1/3rd right? (approx. 100mil)

And there are about 4 or 5 million of them who commit to abstinence, to saving sex for marriage.


I agree that percentage wise it's only 4 or 5% of kids that choose abstinence, but when you say that what are you saying?

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't have to deal with a pregnancy and either keep it, abort it, or give it up. (all of which suck)

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't contract an STD.



And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."




What a load of horseshit.




*checks first page*



Ahh, 'twas started by Adam_PoE....now I get it.

Furthermore, even if we presume this is correct, the contrapositive of this is that the other 95 or 96 million kids do not matter.

Kinneary
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Need I go on?
Nope. And here is a big part of your post that a lot of people should pay attention to.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
are you asking me to leave or to not be biased?

I'd rather no leave this is a subject that interests me

In case you didn't realize my post that started this discussin was a joke

I was referring to the bias. Also, not a "you" as in "you, Symmetric Chaos", but a "you" as in "you, one that teaches sexual education". No offense meant.

Lord Urizen
I'm all for teaching Abstinence as a method of preventing diseases or preventing Child Birth.

I am NOT for Abstinence-Only education. That method will ultamately FAIL. Not to mention, Abstinence only simply promotes Heterosexual Marraige Sex, and completely IGNORES homosexual and bisexual teenagers/adults.

They will have no outlet, no options, nothing to help them in thier daily lives.


Come to think of it, many heterosexuals will not benefit fromAbstinence Only education either no

It will never work. Ever....

FeceMan
The best response to the above post, I think, is "cri more."

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm sorry, you lost me when you said that teaching abstinence as part of sex education would be "counter-productive and possibly dangerous."

That's a crock of shit.

You take your 50 kids in the class, you explain the birds and the bees, the semen and ovaries, the penis and the vagina... all of that.

You tell them how sex works, and what it does: Make babies.

Go into social and literary history if you like, and explain sex in all it's aspects including how it's been viewed throughout history and so on.

You can present the obvious fact that many people have sex other than just for babies, but biologically that's its primary function.

Explain childbirth, adoption, and abortion, and the ramifications socially, economically, emotionally, and physically for each.

Explain all STD's including AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and genital warts. Pictures are often helpful.

Then present the sexual options and consequences of each:

Unprotected sex= risk of pregnancy or STD.
Protected sex=lower risk of pregnancy or STD.
(explain all forms: condoms, the pill, ... the dreaded diaphragm)

abstinence=no risk of pregnancy or STD.

^^^^Oh wait, that is how we currently teach sex education.
My bad.

This "study" and it's "recommendations" about not teaching abstinence is just a bunch of liberal bullshit.

I like how it tries to connect the Bush Administration with a "policy of abstinence"..... as if the people who advocate abstinence and it being taught as an option wouldn't be here if Bush wasn't.

Or as if Kerry, Edwards, Clinton or ANY other Democrat would have the balls to remove abstinence from what is taught about sex in schools.

The study is of 36,000 people, yet there are 300 million in the country.

And young people make up what, about a 1/3rd right? (approx. 100mil)

And there are about 4 or 5 million of them who commit to abstinence, to saving sex for marriage.

I agree that percentage wise it's only 4 or 5% of kids that choose abstinence, but when you say that what are you saying?

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't have to deal with a pregnancy and either keep it, abort it, or give it up. (all of which suck)

You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't contract an STD.

And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."

What a load of horseshit.

*checks first page*
Ahh, 'twas started by Adam_PoE....now I get it.

I'm not sure if you deliberately missed the point or missed it out of plain ignorance...

Teaching abstinence is a waste, you then double the disaster by(if) advocating only teaching abstinence as a safe-sex method. The vast majority of people are going to have sex, it's a natural urge. So knowing that, wouldn't you rather teach kids and educate them on how to have safe-sex for their own safety?

Using your family and extended family as an example, you, your wife, your parents and your wife's parents ALL had premarital sex, what makes you think it will work on others if it had a 100% rate of failure in your family? 4-5% is not a success, you then have to take into consideration, how many of those that make up that measely 4-5% will stick with abstinence.

sithsaber408
So teaching the risks of smoking is a waste too then?

Millions smoke.

Ads and info won't change their minds, they already know "what could happen."

If only 5% of people (again when you say 5% remember that it represents 5 million people) listed to the TRUTH ads about cigarettes and didn't smoke....... would you call that "a waste" as you do abstinence education?


Obviously most don't keep to saving sex for marriage. (as I said before and as you were happy to point out, niether I nor most of my family did.)

But if the education leads to 5 million choosing abstinence (and safe sex is still taught for those who don't).... then what exactly is your issue?

Do you have one?

Or is it that "Good Old Fashioned Values" as the thread title calls them, along with anything having to do with Christianity is so taboo these days that you'll speak out against them for no good reason.


I have a good reason.

Abstinence education still leads to 5 million kids saving themselves for marriage.

As I posted in the abstinence thread, two of them are my wife's friends. She 23 and he 26 when they married as virgins.

So while neither I nor my wife chose abstinence, this girl Emily who went to the same school as my wife..... DID.

Apparently that abstinence education is still working, even on people that I know. cool

Symmetric Chaos
As long as safe sex is taught too there is nothing wrong with talking about abstience.

Unfortunately way too many abstinece people teach only abstinence and try to use it to promote thier religion

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So teaching the risks of smoking is a waste too then?

Millions smoke.

Ads and info won't change their minds, they already know "what could happen."

If only 5% of people (again when you say 5% remember that it represents 5 million people) listed to the TRUTH ads about cigarettes and didn't smoke....... would you call that "a waste" as you do abstinence education?


Obviously most don't keep to saving sex for marriage. (as I said before and as you were happy to point out, niether I nor most of my family did.)

But if the education leads to 5 million choosing abstinence (and safe sex is still taught for those who don't).... then what exactly is your issue?

Do you have one?

Or is it that "Good Old Fashioned Values" as the thread title calls them, along with anything having to do with Christianity is so taboo these days that you'll speak out against them for no good reason.


I have a good reason.

Abstinence education still leads to 5 million kids saving themselves for marriage.

As I posted in the abstinence thread, two of them are my wife's friends. She 23 and he 26 when they married as virgins.

So while neither I nor my wife chose abstinence, this girl Emily who went to the same school as my wife..... DID.

Apparently that abstinence education is still working, even on people that I know. cool

Sex is a nature urge and smoking is a harmful addiction, comparing the two is ridiculous.

I do have a point, teaching abstinence by itself or as the main form of safe-sex/sexual education is unproductive. If you're advocating teaching kids safe-sex methods along with abstinence, then I agree, the abstinence teachings can't hurt. But unfortunately, most who advocate abstinence reject teaching safe-sex or the passing out of condoms.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So teaching the risks of smoking is a waste too then?

Millions smoke.

Ads and info won't change their minds, they already know "what could happen."

If only 5% of people (again when you say 5% remember that it represents 5 million people) listed to the TRUTH ads about cigarettes and didn't smoke....... would you call that "a waste" as you do abstinence education?


Obviously most don't keep to saving sex for marriage. (as I said before and as you were happy to point out, niether I nor most of my family did.)

But if the education leads to 5 million choosing abstinence (and safe sex is still taught for those who don't).... then what exactly is your issue?

Do you have one?

Or is it that "Good Old Fashioned Values" as the thread title calls them, along with anything having to do with Christianity is so taboo these days that you'll speak out against them for no good reason.


I have a good reason.

Abstinence education still leads to 5 million kids saving themselves for marriage.

As I posted in the abstinence thread, two of them are my wife's friends. She 23 and he 26 when they married as virgins.

So while neither I nor my wife chose abstinence, this girl Emily who went to the same school as my wife..... DID.

Apparently that abstinence education is still working, even on people that I know. cool

#1 You really need to get over this notion that anything Christian is taboo and rejected by the population of America. That's just bullshit. You know it, I know it, the whole ****ing country knows it. Christianity is so in right now, it's practically a religion.

#2 No one is arguing that abstinance education is a bad thing, they're saying that relying on it alone is ridiculous and irresponsible. I'm sure that if you taught abstinence-only to every kid in the country, you'd still end up with nearly the same 5 million figure of kids that buy into it.

#3 I love your example of Emily. But, considering there are 5 million others just like it, it is irrlelvent. Not only is your example irrelevent; but 99% of your reasoning is too, simply based on the fact that you use your own life as through it were an experince common to everyone else in the country...what with all these abstinence-loyal friends, and homo relatives that found christ under the cushions of his couch and left his sinful ways behind, etc, etc, etc. I also like how all your christian views seem to be in one form or fashion relevent to your wife. Like I said, you may be living your life for christ these days, but you seem to have bought into it just to dip your wick without her feeling conflicted.

#4 Have you ever considered what a tiny number is your 5 million? I'm willing to bet that's pretty much equal to the number of kids who just can't get laid. I don't doubt that there are many who subscribe to abstinence through virtue, but I think a lot of people who tout it as a noble descision would drop their drawers if they thought they could get laid. (You might want to ask your wife about this one)

#5 You boast about having been a born-again virgin. And then you argue about how less-likely those who practice abstinence are so much less likely to get STDs, did your wife give you crabs or something and that led you two to recommit actions in your marrital bed to god?

#6 Cigarettes are not sex and it serves as a false comparison. You keep talking about how less likely your sacred cow number of 5 million are to get an STD or an unwanted pregnancy...but how many studies have been done on the number of kids who have sex and don't end up a lifetime tv movie of the week?

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
#1 You really need to get over this notion that anything Christian is taboo and rejected by the population of America. That's just bullshit. You know it, I know it, the whole ****ing country knows it. Christianity is so in right now, it's practically a religion.

#2 No one is arguing that abstinance education is a bad thing, they're saying that relying on it alone is ridiculous and irresponsible. I'm sure that if you taught abstinence-only to every kid in the country, you'd still end up with nearly the same 5 million figure of kids that buy into it.

#3 I love your example of Emily. But, considering there are 5 million others just like it, it is irrlelvent. Not only is your example irrelevent; but 99% of your reasoning is too, simply based on the fact that you use your own life as through it were an experince common to everyone else in the country...what with all these abstinence-loyal friends, and homo relatives that found christ under the cushions of his couch and left his sinful ways behind, etc, etc, etc. I also like how all your christian views seem to be in one form or fashion relevent to your wife. Like I said, you may be living your life for christ these days, but you seem to have bought into it just to dip your wick without her feeling conflicted.

#4 Have you ever considered what a tiny number is your 5 million? I'm willing to bet that's pretty much equal to the number of kids who just can't get laid. I don't doubt that there are many who subscribe to abstinence through virtue, but I think a lot of people who tout it as a noble descision would drop their drawers if they thought they could get laid. (you might want to ask your wife about this one)

#5 You boast about having been a born-again virgin. And then you argue about how less-likely those who practice abstinence are so much less likely to get STDs, did your wife give you crabs or something and that led you two to recommit actions in your marrital bed to god?

#6 Cigarettes are not sex and it serves as a false comparison. You keep talking about how less likely your sacred cow number of 5 million are to get an STD or an unwanted pregnancy...but how many studies have been done on the number of kids who have sex and don't end up a lifetime tv movie of the week?

sorry, I hit the quote button rather than the edit button.

xmarksthespot
Does "abstinence education" actually entail teaching about the risks of sexually transmitted disease?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Does "abstinence education" actually entail teaching about the risks of sexually transmitted disease?

under the best of circumstances yes

but in many it doesn't

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Does "abstinence education" actually entail teaching about the risks of sexually transmitted disease?

Probally in regards to a lot of fear mongering.

Robtard
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Does "abstinence education" actually entail teaching about the risks of sexually transmitted disease?


The majority of abstinence educators do not teach or advocate safe-sex methods because they know that if you give children/young people the options of:

A) Say yourself until marriage and only have one sexual partner, your future spouse
or
B) Have sex when you're ready, but do it safely

...the vast majority will choose "B" so they leave it out of the equation.

xmarksthespot
In which case the analogy to "the risks of smoking", notwithstanding that it's already highly flawed (smoking is addictive and unhealthy -- trust me I know), is completely inaccurate.

If abstinence education doesn't entail teaching the actual repercussions of sex, then it's the equivalent of telling kids that smoking is bad and they shouldn't do it without actually telling them how it is bad for their health.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Probally in regards to a lot of fear mongering.
Showing pictures of STDs tends to do that by itself.

Yuck.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So teaching the risks of smoking is a waste too then?

Millions smoke.

Ads and info won't change their minds, they already know "what could happen."

If only 5% of people (again when you say 5% remember that it represents 5 million people) listed to the TRUTH ads about cigarettes and didn't smoke....... would you call that "a waste" as you do abstinence education?

This argument commits the logic fallacy of False Analogy. One can reduce the health risks associated with sex, but one cannot reduce the health risks associated with smoking.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
Obviously most don't keep to saving sex for marriage. (as I said before and as you were happy to point out, niether I nor most of my family did.)

But if the education leads to 5 million choosing abstinence (and safe sex is still taught for those who don't).... then what exactly is your issue?

Do you have one?

Most abstinence-only programs are not successful in delaying the initiation of sex.

Let us presume that abstinence-only programs are successful in delaying the initiation of sex among the 5 million children you propose. The contrapositive of this is that abstinence-only programs fail in delaying the initiation of sex among the other 95 million children.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
Or is it that "Good Old Fashioned Values" as the thread title calls them, along with anything having to do with Christianity is so taboo these days that you'll speak out against them for no good reason.

Since the 1930s, 95% of Americans have been having premarital sex. "Good Old Fashioned Values," indeed. You see, it is not the behavior of Americans that has changed over the past 75 years, but rather their attitudes about their behavior.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
I have a good reason.

Abstinence education still leads to 5 million kids saving themselves for marriage.

As I posted in the abstinence thread, two of them are my wife's friends. She 23 and he 26 when they married as virgins.

So while neither I nor my wife chose abstinence, this girl Emily who went to the same school as my wife..... DID.

Apparently that abstinence education is still working, even on people that I know. cool

88% of teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage have sex within 18 months. If that is how you define success, I would hate to see how you define failure.

FeceMan
I reduce the health risks of smoking by using Lite brands.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FeceMan
I reduce the health risks of smoking by using Lite brands.

Light cigarettes do not reduce the health risks associated with smoking.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
I reduce the health risks of smoking by using Lite brands.



Duhhhhh....I reduce da risk of getting STD's by having Oral Sex instead of Anal sex roll eyes (sarcastic)

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Light cigarettes do not reduce the health risks associated with smoking.

Nor does he think so.

FeceMan
I guess it's a good thing I don't smoke, eh?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
I guess it's a good thing I don't smoke, eh?


For you...i doubt the rest of us here care either way.....

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
For you...i doubt the rest of us here care either way.....
What a petty, pathetic attempt to insult me.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
What a petty, pathetic attempt to insult me.


I wasn't trying to insult you....



I seriously doubt anyone in KMC truly cares though....this forum is full of highly insensitive people....

That is why I toned down on fighting people here....my arguments with you, or Adam Poe, or Bardock, or Jesusisalive simply entertain 3rd party posters, and I refuse to give them that pleasure.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.