NationStates Jolt Archive

www.silverringthing.com

Teehee, I mean you should never laugh at people's beliefs but these ppl honestly believe they can stop teens having sex without spaying! That is all we are good for, why would they take that away?

Also chastity teaching has been PROVEN not to wrwork sincwe teens are taught that contaception does not work so when they DO have pre-maritial sex they do not use it.

Oh and chasty until marriage= lesbians and gays can never have esex. Not sure that troubles these religous nutcases somehow though...

it's not just that it doesn't work, it's that it's dangerous; a recent Yale study found that males who take abstinance pledges are 50% less likely to use condoms when they break their pledge (which over 90% of them will do), and that young people who take abstinance pledges have a higher rate of exposure to STDs per sexual encounter than their non-pledging peers. pledgers are also less than half as likely to see treatment or get checked for STDs, making them more likely to unknowingly spread disease or to have serious medical complications from an STD they don't know they have.

though young people who sign an abstinance pledge usually keep their word for about 18 months, in the long run more than 90% eventually give in and have premarital sex. some might say that any delay is good with young people, but each and every accredited study done in the last 10 years confirms that pledgers are more dangerous when they DO start having sex than the kids who were doing it for that whole 18 months. pre-marital pregnancy rates are HIGHER among pledgers than non-pledgers, and STD infection rates are HIGHER because the over all number of infectees is equal even if the time frame for pledgers is shorter; in other words, pledgers usually start having sex later and marry earlier, but in the shorter time they are "playing the field" they contract and distribute as many STDs as their non-pledging counterparts do in a much larger time window.


worst of all, those who have pledged to remain virgins until marriage have similar rates of sexually transmitted diseases as non-pledgers, according to a six-year study of the sex lives of 12,000 young Americans. that's right, even if they DO stick with the pledge it doesn't make much difference. and, as you would expect, those who stick with the pledge are even less likely than those who "fall off the wagon" to seek medical help, increasing their likelihood of serious medical problems and further spread of the diseases.

several studies by abstinance-education supporters have been demonstrated to have use falsified or manipulated data to give skewed results, such as a longitudinal study by the Herritage foundation that claimed to find female pledgers 40% less likely to have a child out of wedlock; when the data were re-examined by a peer-review system it was found that the females in the study were actually 3% MORE LIKELY to have had a child out of wedlock. yet this Herritage study is still quoted by abstinace touters as "proof" the programs work.

conversely, no comprehensive sex ed program has been shown to increase likelihood of sexual activity, and studies continually reinforce support for the stance that comprehensive programs reduce teen pregnancy and STD infection rates.

of course, we shouldn't be surprised that all these facts go totally ignored, since over 98% of the people who support abstinance-only programs also ignore logic and fact by choosing to believe the absolute truth of a collection of fairytales compiled by a secular dictator some 400 years after the events they purport to discuss.

God says its bad, so its bad

lol

god

what a joke

Pfh, they're just trying to jump on the straightedge bandwagon.

.....

Dorks :p

I mean, hey, I'm all for waiting a bit and not sport fucking. But..."silver ring thing?" That's just...dumb :p

I can't get laid if I wanted to anyway, man, I'm so undersexed I say perverted statements by mistake >.>

it's not just that it doesn't work, it's that it's dangerous; a recent Yale study found that males who take abstinance pledges are 50% less likely to use condoms when they break their pledge (which over 90% of them will do), and that young people who take abstinance pledges have a higher rate of exposure to STDs per sexual encounter than their non-pledging peers. pledgers are also less than half as likely to see treatment or get checked for STDs, making them more likely to unknowingly spread disease or to have serious medical complications from an STD they don't know they have.

though young people who sign an abstinance pledge usually keep their word for about 18 months, in the long run more than 90% eventually give in and have premarital sex. some might say that any delay is good with young people, but each and every accredited study done in the last 10 years confirms that pledgers are more dangerous when they DO start having sex than the kids who were doing it for that whole 18 months. pre-marital pregnancy rates are HIGHER among pledgers than non-pledgers, and STD infection rates are HIGHER because the over all number of infectees is equal even if the time frame for pledgers is shorter; in other words, pledgers usually start having sex later and marry earlier, but in the shorter time they are "playing the field" they contract and distribute as many STDs as their non-pledging counterparts do in a much larger time window.


worst of all, those who have pledged to remain virgins until marriage have similar rates of sexually transmitted diseases as non-pledgers, according to a six-year study of the sex lives of 12,000 young Americans. that's right, even if they DO stick with the pledge it doesn't make much difference. and, as you would expect, those who stick with the pledge are even less likely than those who "fall off the wagon" to seek medical help, increasing their likelihood of serious medical problems and further spread of the diseases.

several studies by abstinance-education supporters have been demonstrated to have use falsified or manipulated data to give skewed results, such as a longitudinal study by the Herritage foundation that claimed to find female pledgers 40% less likely to have a child out of wedlock; when the data were re-examined by a peer-review system it was found that the females in the study were actually 3% MORE LIKELY to have had a child out of wedlock. yet this Herritage study is still quoted by abstinace touters as "proof" the programs work.

conversely, no comprehensive sex ed program has been shown to increase likelihood of sexual activity, and studies continually reinforce support for the stance that comprehensive programs reduce teen pregnancy and STD infection rates.

of course, we shouldn't be surprised that all these facts go totally ignored, since over 98% of the people who support abstinance-only programs also ignore logic and fact by choosing to believe the absolute truth of a collection of fairytales compiled by a secular dictator some 400 years after the events they purport to discuss.


Well yes that is completely right.

Well yes that is completely right.
i like you.

i like you.

And I like you...

Apparently though there real concern is NOT actualy the children's physical safety but rather their souls. They wish to convert children to Relgious Right Christians to save them from hell and whether a few (thousand) die in the real world or not is irrelivent to them. Sick huh?

That is all we are good for, why would they take that away?
On a side note, that's a fantastic line.

It was all a stunt to try to make chastity a popular thing. Didn't work, obviously. Still, if you make it popular enough, it could actually work, just didn't get big enough.

On a side note, that's a fantastic line.

Thanks *g*. It was a bit of self-deprecation since I am 14.
Oh and chastity will NEVER become popular. I see chastity as a kinda weird thing...

www.silverringthing.com

Teehee, I mean you should never laugh at people's beliefs but these ppl honestly believe they can stop teens having sex without spaying! That is all we are good for, why would they take that away?

If ALL you are good for is sex, you are a sad, sad person.

Also chastity teaching has been PROVEN not to wrwork sincwe teens are taught that contaception does not work so when they DO have pre-maritial sex they do not use it.
Or perhaps because they are irresponsible? I don't know, I'm pretty old, and I was taught in high school how to use a condom, that abstinence was better, but that one should visit one's doctor or Planned Parenthood to prevent a pregnancy if one chose to have sexual intercourse. And admit it. teens have poor impulse control: if they did not, there would not be news stories about automobile fatalities due to drinking, drugging, and/or high rates of speed, nor stories about OD's, nor about date rapes occuring whilst someone is drunk or drugged.

Oh and chasty until marriage= lesbians and gays can never have esex. Not sure that troubles these religous nutcases somehow though...
Your ignorance is astounding. Choosing to wait for the right time (hmm, can we say MATURITY LEVEL??) never made anyone unable to have sex or 'turned them' gay or lesbian.

You may choose to have sex whenever you want, but don't bray about your half-baked, unsourced ideas.

The ring, as I understand it, is not to FORCE teens into chastity -- it's symbolic of a promise to wait, just as an engagement ring symbolizes one's promise not to sleep with other people and to marry one's partner.

Given your attitude, I don't find it at all surprising that you disdain this idea, nor would I believe someone who espouses this attitude to choose monagamy at such time as they decide to marry.

Or perhaps because they are irresponsible? I don't know, I'm pretty old, and I was taught in high school how to use a condom, that abstinence was better, but that one should visit one's doctor or Planned Parenthood to prevent a pregnancy if one chose to have sexual intercourse. And admit it. teens have poor impulse control: if they did not, there would not be news stories about automobile fatalities due to drinking, drugging, and/or high rates of speed, nor stories about OD's, nor about date rapes occuring whilst someone is drunk or drugged.What the research shows is that because of the guilt instilled by the pledge that if sex happens by 'pledgers' it a) is far less likely to be thought through and planned- hence the lack of contraception and b) are less likely to talk to anyone even before or after.


Your ignorance is astounding. Choosing to wait for the right time (hmm, can we say MATURITY LEVEL??) never made anyone unable to have sex or 'turned them' gay or lesbian.I think you've misunderstood the post. It means that if you tell someone to "wait for marriage" that precludes gays and lesbians from ever having sex in places where gay marriage doesen't exist.
Given your attitude, I don't find it at all surprising that you disdain this idea, nor would I believe someone who espouses this attitude to choose monagamy at such time as they decide to marry.The idea is to be disdained because it's misguided and harmful. As to your other point, I've been in open relationships in the past. I'm currently in a monogamous relationship. And I can honestly say I have never cheated on anyone. IME, it's those people who agree to monogamous relationships when they don't really want them that end up cheating. Not those of us that are honest with our partners.

How you people manage I'll never know. Your entire life revolves around something that is bestial, unsanitary, slimy, and embarrasing. It must be incredibly boring, being sexual.

More on topic: Abstinence, or celebacy, can work. Its just that most haven't the will power to maintain it. Further, the "sexed" people are all to eager to point out the failings of the "nonsexed" because if many people can go without sex it means that those others are "weak." An example of this is Catholic Priests, how many have actually engaged in sexual acts (Discounting the child molesters. They were child molesters before they were priests, they merely picked a job that would serve their purposes)? How many exist in the world? Yes, their are wayward followers, every group has those, and yes, those who stray will try to disguise their failings.

Finally, what do you care if your nextdoor neighbor doesn't sweat it up between the sheets? A good deal of the worlds problems would be solved if people just crossed their damn legs.

If anyone feels the need to have something to affirm there beliefs, go for it; it's not my cup of tea, but that doesn't make it something we should look down upon or make fun of nowadays. A lot of people use symbols to affirm beliefs.

More on topic: Abstinence, or celebacy, can work. Its just that most haven't the will power to maintain it.
well thats the point isnt it?

its not that there is no one who can remain chaste. people do it all the time. even teens can abstain.

the POINT is that it wont work for MOST PEOPLE. so while its nice to tell people that its an excellent option, it is rather limited in how useful it is.

most people need real info on birthcontrol, avoiding STDs, the advisablity of various sexual practices.

i live in a town that is 50% hispanic. the birth rate to unwed teens is appalling. is it because hispanic girls are sluts? good lord NO. its because their families are so conservative that these girls know nothing about sexual safety. they dont even admit to THEMSELVES that they are sexually active. so they end up pregnant.

these girls need real information on sexuality not the stupid abstinence only cirriculum that is in our highschool now. when my son had these lectures in his junior year, they were laughed at. so few of the kids were still virgins and so many of them already had children.

an even more important consideration is that it leaves these young men and women NO idea of what to do if they break the vow. a person needs to know how to conduct themselves when they are no longer virgins. do you just then have sex with everyone who offers? how does a mature sexually active person act? how the hell do they know?

How you people manage I'll never know. Your entire life revolves around something that is bestial, unsanitary, slimy, and embarrasing. It must be incredibly boring, being sexual.

Don't forget slippery, smelly and sweaty.

I love it.

Why are people so adamant in their denial of sex? Sex is part of life. You don't have life without sex. It's a natural act and kids should be educated about it, but not prevented from practising it. This is precisely the reason why so many grown ups are a terrible lay... they never practised when they were younger!!

More on topic: Abstinence, or celebacy, can work. Its just that most haven't the will power to maintain it.

Uh... that is precisely the reason it won't work. Why fight something that's natural? You tell a 14 year old boy he's not supposed to get an erection, and then tell him that when he does, he's not supposed to fiddle with it?

Err... No.

Further, the "sexed" people are all to eager to point out the failings of the "nonsexed" because if many people can go without sex it means that those others are "weak." An example of this is Catholic Priests, how many have actually engaged in sexual acts (Discounting the child molesters. They were child molesters before they were priests, they merely picked a job that would serve their purposes)? How many exist in the world? Yes, their are wayward followers, every group has those, and yes, those who stray will try to disguise their failings.

There is no proof that a priest hasn't gone and wanked off in the shower. Unless you're willing to take on faith that what they say is true, you can get rid of sexual frustration by masturbation. Sure, sex with someone else is better, but I guess priests can survive.

Finally, what do you care if your nextdoor neighbor doesn't sweat it up between the sheets? A good deal of the worlds problems would be solved if people just crossed their damn legs.

Rather, a good deal of the world's problems would be solved if more legs were spread open. You telling me that if Clinton was getting a good lay every night he'd have screwed around with Lewinsky? Please.... :P

Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brothers, don't swear, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your "yes" be "yes," and your "no," "no;" so that you don't fall into hypocrisy.

Also, the same principle that Jesus used to admonish against displays of public piety concerning prayer (Mat 6:4-5) and fasting (Mat 6:16-8) would seem to be as equally applicable here.

Why are people so adamant in their denial of sex?
There has never been something for me two deny. The equipments all there, the drivers just don't work. Is that a good enough analogy for you?

Sex is part of life. You don't have life without sex.
No, you don't have birth without sex. Another point, just think, your grandparents did it. Just think about that for a minute.

It's a natural act and kids should be educated about it, but not prevented from practising it. This is precisely the reason why so many grown ups are a terrible lay... they never practised when they were younger!!
Taking a crap is a natural act, there is no educational course for that (or is there, I wouldn't put it past some people). As far as practice, well, no I won't say anything on practice.

Uh... that is precisely the reason it won't work. Why fight something that's natural? You tell a 14 year old boy he's not supposed to get an erection, and then tell him that when he does, he's not supposed to fiddle with it?
Masturbation isn't the problem, little boys getting stiffies isn't the problem, porking everything that moves, thats the problem.

There is no proof that a priest hasn't gone and wanked off in the shower. Unless you're willing to take on faith that what they say is true, you can get rid of sexual frustration by masturbation. Sure, sex with someone else is better, but I guess priests can survive.
The Celibacy/Abstinence to which I was refering had nothing to do with Mary and her four sisters. Very rarely has a hand been impregnated, and even rarer do you see people receiving STDs from them. I was reffering to the benefits of people limiting their sexual partners.

Rather, a good deal of the world's problems would be solved if more legs were spread open. You telling me that if Clinton was getting a good lay every night he'd have screwed around with Lewinsky? Please.... :P
I was refering, once again, to maintaining the fewest number of partners possible (preferably one or none), in order to prevent the spread of STDs. The other problem, is the burgeoning human population. Less sex=Less Kids=Smaller size of generations=World population goes down=More space for the survivors.

It's up to the person, not some glamour club, to mantain any kind of sexual conduct.

Damn, sex is a lot fun though!

There has never been something for me two deny. The equipments all there, the drivers just don't work. Is that a good enough analogy for you?

Sure it is. Why though? Why are you so scared about sex that you think people should "practise" not having it. Quite a contradiction there, but I'll let it slide.

No, you don't have birth without sex. Another point, just think, your grandparents did it. Just think about that for a minute.

Yah, so what? I'm comfortable with that. I'm not your typical idiot who shudders at the thought of my parents having sex. I'm willing to bet my parents STILL have sex. While I certainly wouldn't bring out the popcorn and watch (ok, NOW I'll shudder), it's a natural part of life and I am perfectly fine with it. In fact, I'm rather grateful for both the acts of my grandparents and my parents.

Taking a crap is a natural act, there is no educational course for that (or is there, I wouldn't put it past some people). As far as practice, well, no I won't say anything on practice.

Sure there is. It's called POTTY TRAINING... Or did you learn to use a toilet all by yourself? Sex, like shit, requires education. Sex, like shit, is part of life.

Masturbation isn't the problem, little boys getting stiffies isn't the problem, porking everything that moves, thats the problem.

Assuming the thing that moves allows itself to be poked. If they're educated to use proper protection then that's the most important thing. Abstinence certainly does help, but you cannot enforce it. Nor should you. You can preach it and any kid who listens will be safer for it, but that's it. I personally think it's all prudish and hyperconserative. Sex is part of life. Enjoy it when you can.

The Celibacy/Abstinence to which I was refering had nothing to do with Mary and her four sisters. Very rarely has a hand been impregnated, and even rarer do you see people receiving STDs from them. I was reffering to the benefits of people limiting their sexual partners.

So that they can be completely crappy at it when they do get a partner? Bah. You're no fun.

I was refering, once again, to maintaining the fewest number of partners possible (preferably one or none), in order to prevent the spread of STDs. The other problem, is the burgeoning human population. Less sex=Less Kids=Smaller size of generations=World population goes down=More space for the survivors.

Funny enough, the population for most first nations is going down. It is a historic trend that as a nation becomes more powerful, the driving need to have children goes down. Children are most often a source of labour in developing nations and thus people have lots of them. Meanwhile, in more developed countries, you will find a trend of decreasing population because children become dependents and burdens to otherwise more luxurious lifestyles.

I don't think population is an issue, to be honest with you. All the doomsayers saying we'll be out of living space in 5 years have never visited Canada.

I was refering, once again, to maintaining the fewest number of partners possible (preferably one or none), in order to prevent the spread of STDs. The other problem, is the burgeoning human population. Less sex=Less Kids=Smaller size of generations=World population goes down=More space for the survivors.
or, comprehensive education = more contraception + better sexual experiences = fewer kids = smaller generations of happier people having better sex.

if your goal is fewer babies being born then abstinance ed isn't the way to go. even if kids followed the abstinance programs (which they don't) they would still pork like bunnies once married and are going to be less likely to use condoms or birth control to prevent having babies all the time.

the wonder of our modern world is that sex never has to result in babies any more. i have been sexually active for more than 5 years and have no children, and i intend to be sexually active for many more years and never have children.

Okay, here is the break down:

"The only safe sex is no sex." --That's a pretty accurate argument. However, let me add this: Protected sex is a hell of a lot better than unprotected sex.

well thats the point isnt it?

its not that there is no one who can remain chaste. people do it all the time. even teens can abstain.

the POINT is that it wont work for MOST PEOPLE. so while its nice to tell people that its an excellent option, it is rather limited in how useful it is.

most people need real info on birthcontrol, avoiding STDs, the advisablity of various sexual practices.
It is the best option, all other options and methods have a chance of failure and entering a family way, or contracting something French.

i live in a town that is 50% hispanic. the birth rate to unwed teens is appalling. is it because hispanic girls are sluts? good lord NO. its because their families are so conservative that these girls know nothing about sexual safety. they dont even admit to THEMSELVES that they are sexually active. so they end up pregnant.
So if I tell you "Ashmoria, whatever you do, don't stick a fork in that toaster" and then you stick a fork in the toaster, its my fault because I told you not to do it? But if I tell you "Ashmoria, go ahead and stick a fork in that toaster, you're just gonna do it anyway. First, put on these rubber gloves, they'll protect you for the most part." and you stick the fork in the toaster (while wearing the rubber gloves) but the gloves are defective and you get electrocuted anyway then it is not my fault, because I told you about safe toaster poking, and you were just unlucky.

these girls need real information on sexuality not the stupid abstinence only cirriculum that is in our highschool now. when my son had these lectures in his junior year, they were laughed at. so few of the kids were still virgins and so many of them already had children.
If the kids were all ready making thunder under the covers, what does it matter what the school tells them to do? Or should sex ed start in the 2nd grade?

an even more important consideration is that it leaves these young men and women NO idea of what to do if they break the vow. a person needs to know how to conduct themselves when they are no longer virgins. do you just then have sex with everyone who offers? how does a mature sexually active person act? how the hell do they know?
Give me a second to laugh at the phrase "mature sexually active person," almost none of the sexually active people I know are mature.
All done now, on with the show.
Anyways, you haven't advocated any program that would teach them how to act the morning after, sex ed would only teaach them condom use and the like, not how to be mature. Further, you are acting as if at the moment they are no longer virgins they have turned some all changing milestone. Sex or no sex, they are the same person. Further, how would this make their situation any worse than that of all the now mums and dads who decided to have a go at it before junior high? Its not the schools job to teach your kids about screwing, its your job to teach Little Timmy about the clap.

So if I tell you "Ashmoria, whatever you do, don't stick a fork in that toaster" and then you stick a fork in the toaster, its my fault because I told you not to do it? But if I tell you "Ashmoria, go ahead and stick a fork in that toaster, you're just gonna do it anyway. First, put on these rubber gloves, they'll protect you for the most part." and you stick the fork in the toaster (while wearing the rubber gloves) but the gloves are defective and you get electrocuted anyway then it is not my fault, because I told you about safe toaster poking, and you were just unlucky.
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as defective rubber gloves (when it comes to preventing one from being shocked), that was a good analogy.


If the kids were all ready making thunder under the covers, what does it matter what the school tells them to do? Or should sex ed start in the 2nd grade?
Hit 'em before the hair does...

Sure it is. Why though? Why are you so scared about sex that you think people should "practise" not having it. Quite a contradiction there, but I'll let it slide.
Damned if I know why, maybe my parents workmanship wasn't up to par, maybe I got kicked in the crotch when I was a toddler, maybe aliens came down aand stole my libido when I first hit puberty. Anyway, I'm not scared, just pointing out that Abstinence is not "Rubbish."

Yah, so what? I'm comfortable with that. I'm not your typical idiot who shudders at the thought of my parents having sex. I'm willing to bet my parents STILL have sex. While I certainly wouldn't bring out the popcorn and watch (ok, NOW I'll shudder), it's a natural part of life and I am perfectly fine with it. In fact, I'm rather grateful for both the acts of my grandparents and my parents.
It was just a joke. And how is it being an idiot not to want to think of gandma and grandpa moving like two beached whales. Skin flapping in the breeze, licking the sweat from between their wrinkles. *Ugh*

Sure there is. It's called POTTY TRAINING... Or did you learn to use a toilet all by yourself? Sex, like shit, requires education. Sex, like shit, is part of life.
And who potty trained you? Was it an internet organization? Was it the public school system? Or was it perhaps, Mom and Dad?

Assuming the thing that moves allows itself to be poked. If they're educated to use proper protection then that's the most important thing. Abstinence certainly does help, but you cannot enforce it. Nor should you. You can preach it and any kid who listens will be safer for it, but that's it. I personally think it's all prudish and hyperconserative. Sex is part of life. Enjoy it when you can.
I didn't say it should be enforced (nor do I think that), humans are a different kind of animal, but they are still animals. I am just saying that it should be made known that it works. I am just saying that, as a race, we need less sex, not more. I am just saying that, with people whining about the AIDS "crisis," STDs on the rise, and high rates of teen pregnancies, maybe a bit less humping would serve us all well.

So that they can be completely crappy at it when they do get a partner? Bah. You're no fun.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

Funny enough, the population for most first nations is going down. It is a historic trend that as a nation becomes more powerful, the driving need to have children goes down. Children are most often a source of labour in developing nations and thus people have lots of them. Meanwhile, in more developed countries, you will find a trend of decreasing population because children become dependents and burdens to otherwise more luxurious lifestyles.
Except, the world population just keeps going up, yet the world, gets no bigger.

I don't think population is an issue, to be honest with you. All the doomsayers saying we'll be out of living space in 5 years have never visited Canada.
And who wants to live there? In the frozen wastes of Canada mind, the cities are fine, but miles of flat (or mountainous) expanse with freezing temperatures and year long snow aren't everyone's cup of tea.