Good Old-Fashioned Values

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

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.

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

You monster.

He's right though.

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.

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?

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.

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."

[b]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. [/B]

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

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."

[b]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. [/B]

Next.

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?"

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

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?

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, [b]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. [/B]

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%.

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.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No. That is the entire point of the article.

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, [b]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. [/B]

Next.

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%.

Of all AIDS cases in 2003 in the United States,

48% were tracked back to male-to-male contact, (60% African-American men, 15% Caucasian men)
27% were tracked back to male-to-female contact and intravenous drug use,
7% were tracked back to male-to-male contact and intravenous drug use,
16% tracked back to male-to-female contact, and
2% were tracked back to other causes, including hemophilia and other blood recipients, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.[5]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

🙂

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

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