NationStates Jolt Archive

What kind of a pregnancy control method is abstinance? People have sex. Good christian girls and boys fuck and suck just like everybody else, they are just less open to using birth control. Sex is the basest and most carnal human instinct, and so much about relationships is built around sex. No one is immune. Anybody who even considers dating is going to be tempted to have sex, thus rendering abstinence obselete. So many good christian girls and boys that I know (including myself) have been exposed and have cracked to their desires. It is inevitable.

So now, why do we want to build a model for our sexual education based on something that is a total lie? People will have sex. Sure, abstinence would work if people were angels, but we're not. Even libertarianism is more logical than abstinence education, because at least it carries one vein of truth about humanity.

Abstinence could only work if people were not sexual beings. Even the best little boys and girls still look at pornography and fantasize about hard dicks and pink pussies. And if all of us are tempted, at the very least, a few of us will fail.

So now, on to my main idea. Abstinence, given how incredibly difficult it is to accomplish is not a viable birth control policy. Certainly, preventative birth control like condoms may advocate sexual activity, but at the very least, they prevent pregnancy, and pregnancy is the only way for people to have abortions.

So here is my idea for preventing abortions and unwanted pregnancy. Free and constantly available preventative birth control, that can be acquired from anywhere, at any time. It may end up being expensive to provide all this birth control, but at least if everyone is protected, then there will be no need for abortions. Now I hate abortion. I am still a christian and believe in the sanctity of life. What I see as the cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancy, not immoral sex. I think sex happens uncontrollably. It is no longer something that can be limited by good morals. It is beyond the church's control. So what I view as the cause of unwanted teenage and poverty pregnancy is a lack of preventative measures.

Abortions are caused because birth control isn't available, and for this, deaths of millions of babies a year are the fault of one group. Hard-line Christians, like what I used to be. By limiting birth control, you are creating the need to have abortions, and if you are too blinded by your ideology to see the travesty that it is causing, then you are the one responsible. If you truly want to save 3 million babies every year then do me a favor, make sure that they never get conceived. Make sure that they never get the chance to be born. Advocate birth control, not abstinence. Sure, you can have abstinence for yourself, if you want, but it doesn't work for those of you who aren't cloistered up in a Parish.

Yes, but blaming it all on hard-line Christians is also an over simplification. As far as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a genius on religion, but isn't it only Catholics within the Christian movement that don't support the use of birth control (condoms etc). Protestants, for example, are allowed to use birth control.

Yes, but blaming it all on hard-line Christians is also an over simplification. As far as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a genius on religion, but isn't it only Catholics within the Christian movement that don't support the use of birth control (condoms etc). Protestants, for example, are allowed to use birth control.
Some protestant sects are the most vocal opponents of sex education in the classroom and free condoms available in schools. It's like they want teenage girls to get pregnant.

Some protestant sects are the most vocal opponents of sex education in the classroom and free condoms available in schools. It's like they want teenage girls to get pregnant.
Agreed ... punishment for their sins and all (punishment by baby LOL)

Abstinence works... there was only 1 reported case of a virgin getting pregnant and even today, there are people doubting that case.

of course, I'm leaving out Artificial Insemmination and alien abduction.

I have been urged to point out a major flaw in the opening of your argument:
"Sex is the basest and most carnal human instinct..."

There are several things a human being REQUIRES in order to survive, sex is not counted among them. Human beings are mammals, you see, and very few mammals have sex quite as often as human beings. Generally sex in nature is intended to produce offspring. This does not hold true for humans these days, because they are slaves to desire.

Abstinence works... there was only 1 reported case of a virgin getting pregnant and even today, there are people doubting that case.

of course, I'm leaving out Artificial Insemmination and alien abduction.
Right, as long as you are abstinent. Try to build a relationship with a modern girl/boy. It will get pretty difficult after the first few weeks.

Humans in a state of nature are emotional beings arnt we ? Our actions and thoughts are driven by emotions.. yet we dont let emotions rule us do we ? We suppress and control emotions because we know the benifits, as things like logic are far more useful. In correleation with this we as humans dont have to be slaves to our desires, nor should we! Perhaps humans in nature are sexual beings, but in society sex has its place and time. Especially when no other form of controception is 100% effective, in an enviornment when deisease runs rampent and moral issues like the murder of children is an alternative something like abstiencene is not only fesiable but the most LOGICAL answer! If we submited ourselves to every desire we had millions would die on the roads every day because of road rage and people would be standing on every street corner with shot guns ready to blast the first thing that frigtens them. In life you have to learn to control yourself or your impulses will control you.. and nothing good has ever come from excessive permiscuity.

I have been urged to point out a major flaw in the opening of your argument:
"Sex is the basest and most carnal human instinct..."

There are several things a human being REQUIRES in order to survive, sex is not counted among them. Human beings are mammals, you see, and very few mammals have sex quite as often as human beings. Generally sex in nature is intended to produce offspring. This does not hold true for humans these days, because they are slaves to desire.

Might I add only humans and dolphins are the only mammels which engage in sexual activity for pleasure. Most every other species waits to mate once a year ! Perhaps there is something to be learned from nature..

Abstinence sounds good, (especialy to parents) but it just don't work out that way. Teens in Astinence programs are more likely to have STDs and just as likely to have sex.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/18/virginitystudy.stds.ap/


http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/press/092704.htm

So here is my idea for preventing abortions and unwanted pregnancy. Free and constantly available preventative birth control, that can be acquired from anywhere, at any time. It may end up being expensive to provide all this birth control, but at least if everyone is protected, then there will be no need for abortions. Now I hate abortion. I am still a christian and believe in the sanctity of life. What I see as the cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancy, not immoral sex. I think sex happens uncontrollably. It is no longer something that can be limited by good morals. It is beyond the church's control. So what I view as the cause of unwanted teenage and poverty pregnancy is a lack of preventative measures.

Abortions are caused because birth control isn't available, and for this, deaths of millions of babies a year are the fault of one group. Hard-line Christians, like what I used to be. By limiting birth control, you are creating the need to have abortions, and if you are too blinded by your ideology to see the travesty that it is causing, then you are the one responsible. If you truly want to save 3 million babies every year then do me a favor, make sure that they never get conceived. Make sure that they never get the chance to be born. Advocate birth control, not abstinence. Sure, you can have abstinence for yourself, if you want, but it doesn't work for those of you who aren't cloistered up in a Parish.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
You do realie some 54% of women who become pregant and go for abortions cite they have used conroception during the months of their impregnation. Women dont become pregnant and then go for abortions just because they dont have access to controception... on the contrary they have access but our controception is faulty.. even more reason to accept the only 100% effective means of not becoming pregnant.. then and only then will abortion become a thing of the past

Abstinence works... there was only 1 reported case of a virgin getting pregnant and even today, there are people doubting that case.

of course, I'm leaving out Artificial Insemmination and alien abduction.
It seems to work best for eunichs.

"Teens in Astinence programs are more likely to have STDs and just as likely to have sex. "

What makes a person more susceptible to acquiring an STD if they have the same chance of having sex with or without the abstinence programs?

Might I add only humans and dolphins are the only mammels which engage in sexual activity for pleasure. Most every other species waits to mate once a year ! Perhaps there is something to be learned from nature..
Bullshit. Dogs get horny whenever. Horses too. There are plenty of species that are willing to screw all year round.

"Teens in Astinence programs are more likely to have STDs and just as likely to have sex. "

What makes a person more susceptible to acquiring an STD if they have the same chance of having sex with or without the abstinence programs?
Because Absinence programs replace comprehensive sex ed programs that teach about how to prevent STDs.

Abstinence sounds good, (especialy to parents) but it just don't work out that way. Teens in Astinence programs are more likely to have STDs and just as likely to have sex.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/18/virginitystudy.stds.ap/


http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/press/092704.htm

that is crap.. you can put up these statistics.. but I can give you 10 other studies which show the exact opposite as in teens in absitence programs are 90% less likely to be sexually active... there is no concrete evience either way

http://www.azpolicy.org/html/abstinence2005.html

Bullshit. Dogs get horny whenever. Horses too. There are plenty of species that are willing to screw all year round.

Please note that those are domesticated animals.

Please note that those are domesticated animals.
Ok, wolves, lions, hyenas, and many others screw whenever.

Because Absinence programs replace comprehensive sex ed programs that teach about how to prevent STDs.

I disagree. I was taught abstinence, and I learned in the same program all about preventative ways. As if abstinence weren't enough, though...

Bullshit. Dogs get horny whenever. Horses too. There are plenty of species that are willing to screw all year round.

an there are millions more that have set mating seasons.. dogs are domesticated animals afterall..

Ok, wolves, lions, hyenas, and many others screw whenever.

INCORRECT :rolleyes:

http://groups.msn.com/TheCalloftheWild/wolffaq.msnw

mating season of wolves is from early january to late april

http://www.fundwildlife.org/lions.html

as well as lions.... you know... had you done a simple google search on these subjects BEFORE YOU BLURTED OUT IGNORANCE ... (i shall end here)

Ok, wolves, lions, hyenas, and many others screw whenever.

Goodness do you know little about animals. All of those species have hierarchies. The TOP wolf, lion, hyena... They get to do whatever they want. HOWEVER, they STILL have marked mating seasons...

Heres my proof absitence works. Show me one case of someone who has practiced absitence and has an STD or got pregnant. It's not that it's Bullshit your arguement should be that it's impractical. And yes you can have a relationship in the modern day with out haveing Sex. Yes i have had sex no I don't practice absitence but it was a year and a half before me and my g/f had sex for the first time. and obviously it worked because we have been married for over a year now. that and just so i don't get the yo Catholic arguement i'm a diest.

INCORRECT :rolleyes:

http://groups.msn.com/TheCalloftheWild/wolffaq.msnw

mating season of wolves is from early january to late april
My bad. Sorry about that. I was under the opposite impression.

Right, as long as you are abstinent. Try to build a relationship with a modern girl/boy. It will get pretty difficult after the first few weeks.so you're saying... if you want a Boyfriend/Girlfriend, you gotta put out?

you telling all the pre adolesent users on this forum that the only way to get a relationship is to start it by getting Nekkid and making the beast with two backs?

Goodness do you know little about animals. All of those species have hierarchies. The TOP wolf, lion, hyena... They get to do whatever they want. HOWEVER, they STILL have marked mating seasons...
Hyenas have no set mating season. www.lioncrusher.com/animal.asp?animal=74

Seems I was wrong about lions and wolves though. I apologize.

so you're saying... if you want a Boyfriend/Girlfriend, you gotta put out?

you telling all the pre adolesent users on this forum that the only way to get a relationship is to start it by getting Nekkid and making the beast with two backs?

nooo not at all.. he is just saying all relationships are based on sex and that people should be taking the easy way out and put out on the first date instead of trying to WORK at a relationship which is DIFFICULT in nature.... of course im so glad relationships built on sex are so easy and dont have problems :confused: ... good advice :rolleyes:

how about the governments of the world require all females under 18 and of menstrating age be implanted with birth control? there are already implantable forms of BC on the market so we wouldn't need new technology. it would solve the problem of teen pregnancy and would reduce abortions! then the next step can be to sterilize stupid people.

The problem isn't while they're practicing abstinence. The problem is when they stop practicing abstinence and have sex without knowledge of or access to condoms and other contraceptives. Or have oral or anal sex ("it's not real sex", they say) without realizing that they can still get STDs that way if they don't use a condom.

Generally speaking, teens who practice abstinence do wait longer to have sex, but most of them do eventually have sex.

Heres my proof absitence works. Show me one case of someone who has practiced absitence and has an STD or got pregnant. It's not that it's Bullshit your arguement should be that it's impractical.

I think that was his argument.

Hyenas have no set mating season. www.lioncrusher.com/animal.asp?animal=74

Seems I was wrong about lions and wolves though. I apologize.

and like i said MOST Animals... in the animal kingdom have a mating season... not all

Announces that people "can't help it" in any situation is just trying to make weakness accepted. If sex really were so widely required, I should have been did long ago, and yet, here I am. Fascinating, isn't it? Of course, maybe I am some sort of freak who can survive without this all important need, and has somehow learned to avoid something that is happening "uncontrollably" now. However, I must ask, why is it that sex is so uncontrolable now? Has it become air born? Is it in the water? Are you maybe exagerating the situation to excuse the fact that you lacked the wilpower to avoid certain situations?

Hyenas have no set mating season. www.lioncrusher.com/animal.asp?animal=74

Seems I was wrong about lions and wolves though. I apologize.

My bad about the hierarchy -- but that is only one of the types of hyena, there are quite a few ;)

You act as if we aren't in control of our own bodies! If a guy sees a girl, he obviously immediately has to relieve his pent up passion in some form or another.

I tell you, that for me at least, this hasn't been the case. I'm 19 years old, at the University of Georgia, surrounded by 60% female population, half of which are drunk at any particular time. If I wanted to have sex, I could easily do it.

However, I'm a virgin (by the grace of God!). If I hadn't decided to trust Christ and become a Christian, that might be a different story, but since giving my life to him and trusting him to live it out for me and in me and through me, I haven't had to worry about it. Pornography I'll admit is tough, and I failed at that temptation for a while, but instead of just accepting it as natural, I was convinced to take my laptop home and only use public computer labs here on campus. And I can fortunately say that I haven't looked at it since.

Not having sex has certainly worked for me. I have no STDs, no fears of the emotional betrayal that happens when two people who have "hooked up" separate, and no fears of pregnancy. When the time is right and I get married, believe me, there won't be any difficulties, but for now, I'm content to wait. And the cool thing is, that when my future wife and I finally do have sex, it will be a brand new thing that only she and I will share, something intimate between just the two of us.

And for anyone who has already blown it, there are plenty of stories of "born-again virgins". Just because you've messed up once doesn't mean you should keep messing up. There's always a second chance. That's what grace is all about.

What kind of a pregnancy control method is abstinance? People have sex. Good christian girls and boys fuck and suck just like everybody else, they are just less open to using birth control. Sex is the basest and most carnal human instinct, and so much about relationships is built around sex. No one is immune. Anybody who even considers dating is going to be tempted to have sex, thus rendering abstinence obselete. So many good christian girls and boys that I know (including myself) have been exposed and have cracked to their desires. It is inevitable.

Good Christians boys and girls don't suck. Alsi they shouldn't have sex till marriage if they want to be good chriostian boys and girls. The Bible and God are aghainst the natural man, says so right in the Old testament. The Natural man is the enemy of god. Being tempted doesn't mean uyou succumb, Christ was tempted of all sins yet he rose above it and did not do it.
Well once you crack and sin, you aren't so "good" a christianm anymore. But ther is hope in forgiveness, but actiong like everyone should means you aren't sorry after all. Thus you are not actually sorry and so you can't be forgiven till you are sorry. So you won't be forgiven for a long time I bet.

Abstinence could only work if people were not sexual beings. Even the best little boys and girls still look at pornography and fantasize about hard dicks and pink pussies. And if all of us are tempted, at the very least, a few of us will fail.

You said a few, but previously you said many(implying many by saying everybody in first paragragh)?

Abortions are caused because birth control isn't available, and for this, deaths of millions of babies a year are the fault of one group. Hard-line Christians, like what I used to be. By limiting birth control, you are creating the need to have abortions, and if you are too blinded by your ideology to see the travesty that it is causing, then you are the one responsible. If you truly want to save 3 million babies every year then do me a favor, make sure that they never get conceived. Make sure that they never get the chance to be born. Advocate birth control, not abstinence. Sure, you can have abstinence for yourself, if you want, but it doesn't work for those of you who aren't cloistered up in a Parish.

Agreed, birth control like Condoms shouldn't be limited. Advocate Birth control and abstinence!

and like i said MOST Animals... in the animal kingdom have a mating season... not all
I thought you were saying that humans and dolphins were the only exception. That's what I got from your post. Obviously I can't disagree that most animals have a mating season. Trying to bring up a litter in the dry season or in the dead of winter wouldn't work out too well.

The problem isn't while they're practicing abstinence. The problem is when they stop practicing abstinence and have sex without knowledge of or access to condoms and other contraceptives. Or have oral or anal sex ("it's not real sex", they say) without realizing that they can still get STDs that way if they don't use a condom.

Generally speaking, teens who practice abstinence do wait longer to have sex, but most of them do eventually have sex.

might i add there is no evidence to suggest codoms stop pregnancies or std's.. and plenty of evidence to suggest that education based around controception increases sexual activity.. as its BLATENTLY clear in society today.

again ill post this source : http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

showing a majority of women who have abortions Have used controception prior to the pregnancy... its seems ACcESS isn't the major issue.

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

funny how that works huh ?

I thought you were saying that humans and dolphins were the only exception. That's what I got from your post. Obviously I can't disagree that most animals have a mating season. Trying to bring up a litter in the dry season or in the dead of winter wouldn't work out too well.


no i said that sceintifically speaking humans and dolphins are the only animals who are known to mate for pleasure.. all other spieces mate for reproduction alone

that is crap.. you can put up these statistics.. but I can give you 10 other studies which show the exact opposite as in teens in absitence programs are 90% less likely to be sexually active... there is no concrete evience either way

http://www.azpolicy.org/html/abstinence2005.html


Big whoop, that's just Arizona while the study reported by CNN was National, and Arizona is trying to justify waisting tax payer money on this BS.

The Abtinence movement has now become a multimillion dollar industry selling useless educational programs to school systems.

The truth is teens are all horn dogs. You put male and female teens together in a social setting, don't go leaving the room because they've signed a piece of paper saying they'll be good. Hormones and pheromones are a lot stronger than paper and ink.

Abstinence is complete, utter, and offensive bullshit to me. Sex is the main force that drives us as a human being and we exist for nothing more than that. All these intricate little cultural things that human beings have developed through the evoloution of thought have done nothing but fuck up the definition of what sex actually is. From a biological standpoint human males have 2 purposes in life, while females have 3. Let's take a look at them:

Male Directives:
A.Have sex

B. Die

Female Directives:
A.Have sex

B. Provide the child with nutrients amoung other things to allow growth.

C. Die

As you can see the male directives are quite simple in comparison to the female ones, which is also similar in the animal kingdom. For instance, female bees are the ones who are capable of working while the male bees simply exist and have no working abilities what so ever(not unlike some human males :p).

Abstinence programs mean to me, the supression and the mask to hide ourselves from our own identity, our own humanity, and in some cases even shame ourselves for being what we are.

I think absitence is important in a three prong teaching on how we can control and prevent teen pregnacy and STD's. YOU need to teach good choices like not having sex with everyone and anyone (absitence) but you also need to know ways to make smart choices when you find the right person to have sex with. hence BC and condoms and other forms of contraception. But it should also speak of the risks that taking BC can have they are not high i'm not saying that but there are risks and this should also be explained.

(a) I agree that abstinence-only programs are bull. People will always have sex, regardless, and should have access to and education about contraception.

(b) However, your argument that people cannot control themselves is bullshit. I have had easy access to birth control since I knew what it was. I was a virgin until I was nearly 20 and have only had two sexual partners in my life. If you are that out of control, you need some serious help.

(c) Anyone who will not have a relationship unless you have sex with them within the first few weeks is worthless - period.

no i said that sceintifically speaking humans and dolphins are the only animals who are known to mate for pleasure.. all other spieces mate for reproduction alone
Well, then my first post about dogs proves you wrong. They may be domesticated, but they probably aren't trying to get someone's leg pregnant when they're humping it. Anyway, I'm hijacking this thread and I'll knock it off now. Thanks for the discussion.

no i said that sceintifically speaking humans and dolphins are the only animals who are known to mate for pleasure.. all other spieces mate for reproduction alone

Yeah, because whales, chimps, dogs, giraffes, etc, etc, etc, don't count.

Human beings are driven by the need to live.

might i add there is no evidence to suggest codoms stop pregnancies or std's..

None at all, eh? Wow, nothing like spouting utter bulsshit.

and plenty of evidence to suggest that education based around controception increases sexual activity.. as its BLATENTLY clear in society today.

(a) I call bullshit. Do you have evidence for this?

(b) It is abstinence only programs that have the highest rates of problems. No one intelligent would say that we shouldn't teach abstinence, it should simply be a part of a broader sex education plan.

Big whoop, that's just Arizona while the study reported by CNN was National, and Arizona is trying to justify waisting tax payer money on this BS.

The Abtinence movement has now become a multimillion dollar industry selling useless educational programs to school systems.

The truth is teens are all horn dogs. You put male and female teens together in a social setting, don't go leaving the room because they've signed a piece of paper saying they'll be good. Hormones and pheromones are a lot stronger than paper and ink.

god I wonder why 60 years ago our schools werent plagued with astronomical teen pregnancy rates.. maybe because SEX wasn't sold on a daily basis to teens as being "cool".... there are bigger issues at work then just the hormonal symptons of teens... i got through my teens just fine without having to lay every girl i set eyes on... maybe if you start EDUCATING kids about the dangers of sex and NOT TO DO IT.. instead of teaching them to use methods which are NOT 100% effecitive.. we will have to worry less about STD's and teen pregnancies..

Might I also add most schools nation wide practice Controceptive education and Teen sexual activity is HIGHER then ever now with teens in elementary and middle schools as young as 11 years old (in some cases even younger) engaging in sexual acitivity... as well the Controceptive industry is a MULTI BILLION dollar industry. So what are you trying to prove ?

Human beings are driven by the need to live.

Which is exactly my point. Sexual feelings ARE what keeps the human race alive. The proccess just happens to bring pleasure to make human beings WANT to do it. Therefore since it is human nature to seek pleasure and happiness, sex for pleasure is nothing to be ashamed of or prevented.

Yeah, because whales, chimps, dogs, giraffes, etc, etc, etc, don't count.


I'm a student of math.
If a handful of species' habits made up the whole of nature, then statistically we would have quite a hard time doing anything. The ground would be covered by mating animals, because many reproduce quite a bit faster than we do.

Summary:
Stastistically speaking, Nature is governed by the VAST majority. A handful of species aren't going to change the world...

None at all, eh? Wow, nothing like spouting utter bulsshit.

so... give me your source showing controception is 100% effective please.. im DYING to see it.

what about this idea i chosse to practice absitence to show my supierior intellect over other animals and human beings because i can control my urges and my body. umnlike the rest of you on this thread that seem to think they must have sex to survive or to prove they are living you are just lying to your self absitence is a choice and it is made by a indivdual not a group. If i make it and i follow it then i avoid pregnacy and STD's. I choose to have sex with a condom i might also avoid STD's and pregnacy so these are the choices that are out there and that is why all should be taught as affective.

I believe this is what Drunk Commies was trying to say:

Sure, if someone is abstinent, they won't get pregnant or get STDs. But not all children will stay abstinent. So abstinence-only education puts those children at greater risk for pregnancy and STDs. I don't believe Drunk Commies is referring to any education that includes abstinence, I believe he is referring to abstinence-only education.

so... give me your source showing controception is 100% effective please.. im DYING to see it.

No one is sayin that. You wrote that there is no evidence that contraceptives stop pregnancies. They dont stop 100% of them but they do stop around 98-99%. So they have obviously stopped rather a lot.

Yeah, because whales, chimps, dogs, giraffes, etc, etc, etc, don't count.

0.0 STOP THE IGNORANCE!!!!!!!! do some damn research before you go on a rant.... As I said.. Sceince has found that only DOLPHINS AND HUMANS mate for sexual pleasure... of course if your going to offer evidence that all these other species of animals are mating for something other then reproduction.. PLEASE im all EARS

No one is sayin that. You wrote that there is no evidence that contraceptives stop pregnancies. They dont stop 100% of them but they do stop around 98-99%. So they have obviously stopped rather a lot.

if controception is stoping 99% of pregnancies.. explain these statistics then ??
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

especially this one

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

This represents 1% of women using contraception ??

why the hell are we talking about animals. I think we can prove quit easily that we humans are different from animals in many ways.

Which is exactly my point. Sexual feelings ARE what keeps the human race alive. The proccess just happens to bring pleasure to make human beings WANT to do it. Therefore since it is human nature to seek pleasure and happiness, sex for pleasure is nothing to be ashamed of or prevented.

Pleasure comes from sex because we are INTENDED TO PROPAGATE. That is all sex exists for. Look at nature, again. That is the natural order of things.
I will not argue your lack of religion (for if you have one, I urge you to reconsider your position on that matter). However, I will argue that devoting your time to seeking pleasure will get you nowhere. Great, you will feel good for a little while. Then you'll want to feel good again, and again. Why do that? Relying on something over and over again will get you nowhere.

0.0 STOP THE IGNORANCE!!!!!!!! do some damn research before you go on a rant.... As I said.. Sceince has found that only DOLPHINS AND HUMANS mate for sexual pleasure... of course if your going to offer evidence that all these other species of animals are mating for something other then reproduction.. PLEASE im all EARS

Actually a species of ape known as Bonobos have sex for pleasure in the many forms that human beings do. They do it heteorsexually, bisexually, etc. They also use some of the same techniques as we do.

Okay so we are up to what... 3 out of how many billion?

if controception is stoping 99% of pregnancies.. explain these statistics then ??
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

especially this one

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

This represents 1% of women using contraception ??

Probably, a lot of people have sex y'know.

And i dont see how they calculate the "at risk bit". How can they tell if someone is at risk of getting pregnant? Surely all they can ask if if the woman was using contraception when they ARE pregnant.

Pleasure comes from sex because we are INTENDED TO PROPAGATE. That is all sex exists for. Look at nature, again. That is the natural order of things.
I will not argue your lack of religion (for if you have one, I urge you to reconsider your position on that matter). However, I will argue that devoting your time to seeking pleasure will get you nowhere. Great, you will feel good for a little while. Then you'll want to feel good again, and again. Why do that? Relying on something over and over again will get you nowhere.

If nature intended for sex to be mainly for that purpose then human beings wouldn't do it for pleasure in the first place. You are correct, I have no religion. I despise religion in all forms because of the negativity that has consumed the planet because of it. I do good things because it'll help somebody else, most religious people I know do good things so they can get into heaven.

Now you assume I rely on sex as my main form of pleasure. I extremely enjoy it especially with my partner whom I love, and that love keeps it fresh and new each time. It also brings us closer. Without sex I don't think my relationship would be as great as it is today. We didn't start doing it until 2 years into the relationship, but when we did it our relationship changed for the better. Let me tell ya, it has REALLY changed for the better. Not because of the pleasure we get, because of how well we know each other. We know each other's personalities and movements, we are one. So much for it getting me nowhere, it has done a lot for my life. When I'm stressed I just have sex and it goes away. When I'm sad it can cheer me up. While other things can do that as well, sex works with way way WAY more potency.

0.0 STOP THE IGNORANCE!!!!!!!! do some damn research before you go on a rant.... As I said.. Sceince has found that only DOLPHINS AND HUMANS mate for sexual pleasure... of course if your going to offer evidence that all these other species of animals are mating for something other then reproduction.. PLEASE im all EARS
Giraffes and dogs have been seen engaging in homosexual behavior and sex with things outside their species respectively. Are you telling me a male giraffe is trying to impregnate another male? Does a naughty dog want to get your shin pregnant?

Damn it. I said I was going to stop posting on this topic, but I just couldn't resist.

Probably, a lot of people have sex y'know.

And i dont see how they calculate the "at risk bit". How can they tell if someone is at risk of getting pregnant? Surely all they can ask if if the woman was using contraception when they ARE pregnant.


At risk: Do a study on women that are pregnant, see how many were using contraceptives and still got pregnant.

Why use contraceptives if you ARE pregnant? You can't get pregnant twice.

instead of teaching them to use methods which are NOT 100% effecitive.. we will have to worry less about STD's and teen pregnancies..



When using proper contraception like the pill in combination with condoms the probability of becoming pregnant within one year is about 0.1% even when considering that one might make some mistakes appling both.
AND WHAT IN LIVE is 100% sure?
If you clean your windows you may fall down the ladder and get seriously hurt. Going by car is dangerous.
So one may as well demand not dring by car or cleaning windows.

It's very much like my position of abortion; there's my political self, then there's my personal self. First off, politically speaking, I think there needs to be emphasis on contraceptive methods short of abstinence. Many won't practice abstinence, therefore it is foolish to think otherwise. The tax impact could be minimalized by having contraceptive corporations (ie Trojan) sponsor it, but not provide the cirriculum; it brings absurd images that can only be compared to sheer absurdity of Petey the Pistol, from that one Family Guy episode.
Personally, I am abstinate; I find sex overrated (NS users: BLASPHEMY!). I never had it, just doesn't seem like something I want to do. I won't lie; I have fantasies every now and then (it's not your buisness so don't ask), and I have, well, beat the salami so to speak (god, that was awkward), I decided to be abstinate is all. I don't plan on having children, or dating, so I'm not gonna have it; ever. Chew on that for awhile.

It's very much like my position of abortion; there's my political self, then there's my personal self. First off, politically speaking, I think there needs to be emphasis on contraceptive methods short of abstinence. Many won't practice abstinence, therefore it is foolish to think otherwise. The tax impact could be minimalized by having contraceptive corporations (ie Trojan) sponsor it, but not provide the cirriculum; it brings absurd images that can only be compared to sheer absurdity of Petey the Pistol, from that one Family Guy episode.
Personally, I am abstinate; I find sex overrated (NS users: BLASPHEMY!). I never had it, just doesn't seem like something I want to do. I won't lie; I have fantasies every now and then (it's not your buisness so don't ask), and I have, well, beat the salami so to speak (god, that was awkward), I decided to be abstinate is all. I don't plan on having children, or dating, so I'm not gonna have it; ever. Chew on that for awhile.

Well more power to you then. I WISH I didn't have any sexual feelings so maybe I could concentrate more, but alas, I'm one horny son of a bitch.

At risk: Do a study on women that are pregnant, see how many were using contraceptives and still got pregnant.

Why use contraceptives if you ARE pregnant? You can't get pregnant twice.

Being "at risk" of becoming pregnant means they're not pregnant right now, but could be sometime soon because they are "at risk" of becoming pregnant. You cant be "at risk" of becoming pregnant if you already are. So like i said, how is it possible to calculate that?

simple answer for simple question "At Risk" means having sex. since that is the only way to get pregnant

I'm a student of math.
If a handful of species' habits made up the whole of nature, then statistically we would have quite a hard time doing anything. The ground would be covered by mating animals, because many reproduce quite a bit faster than we do.

Summary:
Stastistically speaking, Nature is governed by the VAST majority. A handful of species aren't going to change the world...

I don't know why you are so focused on reproduction. Numerous species have sex without any reproduction involved at all.

so... give me your source showing controception is 100% effective please.. im DYING to see it.

Who said anything about 100% effective? You stated that they don't prevent these things at all.

Being "at risk" of becoming pregnant means they're not pregnant right now, but could be sometime soon because they are "at risk" of becoming pregnant. You cant be "at risk" of becoming pregnant if you already are. So like i said, how is it possible to calculate that?


How? Easy... I told you how they did the study: They surveyed women (RANDOMLY). They determined the number that were pregnant, and probably asked whether or not they were using SOME MEANS of contraceptives at the time of conception.

I'm pretty sure this would qualify as a binomial experiment, because one woman being pregnant doesn't depend on another woman being pregnant.

So, with the survey, you can calculate the chance of getting pregnant while using contraceptives. Then you can apply this observed chance and say that women are "at risk" of getting pregnant because they are statistically inclined to be so.

0.0 STOP THE IGNORANCE!!!!!!!! do some damn research before you go on a rant.... As I said.. Sceince has found that only DOLPHINS AND HUMANS mate for sexual pleasure... of course if your going to offer evidence that all these other species of animals are mating for something other then reproduction.. PLEASE im all EARS

A book called Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemil.

Meanwhile, if you had done any research at all, you would know that, at the very least, Bonobos chimps have sex constantly - for fun. Many other species, (all of the ones I lsted and much, much more) have sexual contact for fun.

Male bighorn sheep hump each other *constantly* with no reproduction involved at all.

You really should do your own research before you make yourself look like an utter ass.

How? Easy... I told you how they did the study: They surveyed women (RANDOMLY). They determined the number that were pregnant, and probably asked whether or not they were using SOME MEANS of contraceptives at the time of conception.

I'm pretty sure this would qualify as a binomial experiment, because one woman being pregnant doesn't depend on another woman being pregnant.

So, with the survey, you can calculate the chance of getting pregnant while using contraceptives. Then you can apply this observed chance and say that women are "at risk" of getting pregnant because they are statistically inclined to be so.


No really "At Risk" means having sex

I don't know why you are so focused on reproduction. Numerous species have sex without any reproduction involved at all.


And yet becoming pregnant is a side effect of having sex.
If they were so inclined to have sex as often as some of you suggest, then we would be covered in animals. They know their place, and stick to it.

If nature intended for sex to be mainly for that purpose then human beings wouldn't do it for pleasure in the first place. You are correct, I have no religion. I despise religion in all forms because of the negativity that has consumed the planet because of it. I do good things because it'll help somebody else, most religious people I know do good things so they can get into heaven.


Kejott, man, I'm sorry that you've come to despise religion because of its perceived negativity, and I'm sorry that christians have been the ones to do that.
The thing is, I'd like to share with you what religion is SUPPOSED to be about. I want to tell you this out of love, because I'd like to think that I love you and I want the best for you. And no, this doesn't get me any "salvation points".
The whole point of grace is that it's supposed to be FREEING. In a fallen nature, separated from God, we are just reaping what we've sown. We're tried to take some of God's glory for ourselves, and we just weren't made to be able to do that. That's why things often suck down here. The truth of the matter is that when we're firmly seated in God's will, we don't lack for anything. It wasn't like Adam and Eve were going, "Man, God's given us all this stuff, told us to do whatever we wanted, to be fruitful and multiply, and it just makes me so angry! Jeez, why is he so concerned with our welfare!?" We're happiest when we're where God wants us, reflecting his glory.
So we've separated ourselves, and God could just let us have what we want. Hell is simply the exponential of where we're at now, without God. Instead, of leaving us here though, he tried to intervene, took it upon himself to take our place, separate himself from the Trinity (something the angels probably PUKED at hearing!), and then offered us a chance at TRUE LIFE! I find that amazing, each and every day that I experience it.
It's GRACE, unmerited, undeserved grace. And when we do good works, it's not to earn a place in Heaven, it's just supposed to be the outflow of our thanks, our worship of God. A God who deserved our worship before he took it upon himself to free us, but deserves it a hundred-fold now.
That's why it's called GOOD news. Because it has the power to free us from a life of separation, and meaninglessness, and all that goes along with it.

Do what you will with this, I can't force you and I'm not about to try. But I really wish you'd think about it, because 1) God deserves your worship, and 2) you'd be a lot better off giving it to him. Someone once took the time to tell me, and I've never regreted the decision I made.

God's peace,
Michael

And yet becoming pregnant is a side effect of having sex.
If they were so inclined to have sex as often as some of you suggest, then we would be covered in animals. They know their place, and stick to it.

No, we wouldn't. Most animals can only get pregnant certain times of the year - which doesn't necessarily stop them from humping all the time.

In truth, a woman only has a good chance of getting pregnant something like 4 days out of every month.

No really "At Risk" means having sex

*chuckle* If you don't have sex you aren't at risk (because you can't become pregnant). But, if you do have sex, this study applies to you.

"They know their place, and stick to it."

^

I have been urged to point out a major flaw in the opening of your argument:
"Sex is the basest and most carnal human instinct..."

There are several things a human being REQUIRES in order to survive, sex is not counted among them. Human beings are mammals, you see, and very few mammals have sex quite as often as human beings. Generally sex in nature is intended to produce offspring. This does not hold true for humans these days, because they are slaves to desire.
We are not talking about frequency ... sex is one of the most basic things to all animals it is NESSISARY for conitnual of the race ... I would say it is amoing the most basic instincts

thats right if you don't have sex don't worry about pregnacy

*chuckle* If you don't have sex you aren't at risk (because you can't become pregnant). But, if you do have sex, this study applies to you.
There have been cases of non penitrative pregnancies

However, I'm a virgin (by the grace of God!). If I hadn't decided to trust Christ and become a Christian, that might be a different story, but since giving my life to him and trusting him to live it out for me and in me and through me, I haven't had to worry about it.


I certainly hope you're not implying that atheists, such as myself, are incapable of practicing abstinence. That would, however, be the type of thing I've grown to expect from Christians. I promised myself a few years ago - I was thirteen, I think - that I would not have sex until I was married. I'm sixteen now, and I've not broken that promise yet.


Believing that abstinence will work is, for lack of better words, foolish and naive. True, if people don't have sex, they won't get STDs and they won't get pregnant. But, looking at just my little 400-person high school I saw a place where guys were judged based on how many girls they've fucked. And, while I might be wrong in this, I'm sure it's like that in many of the United States' high schools. I'm sure many of you are going to say that it's their choice anyway, and they aren't forced to give in to peer pressure. It's not that easy for many of them. I detatched myself from the masses of people in public schools long ago, so it wasn't a problem for me, but not many people can handle going through years of school friendless; many would rather do what they can to draw attention to themselves, regardless of or not knowing the consequences.

We are not talking about frequency ... sex is one of the most basic things to all animals it is NESSISARY for conitnual of the race ... I would say it is amoing the most basic instincts


See absitence is not going with out sex forever. I'm sure waiting isn't going to cause massive extinction. and how about this why if teen pregnacy is a huge problem then why is the national birth rate in a lot of countries droping.

There have been cases of non penitrative pregnancies

And STDs.

There are way too many kids out there who think "technical virginity" will protect them from everything - mostly because the "religious right" doesn't want things other than good, missionary position, between-two-married-individuals-of-opposite-sex sex mentioned at all.

We are not talking about frequency ... sex is one of the most basic things to all animals it is NESSISARY for conitnual of the race ... I would say it is amoing the most basic instincts


But... You can't say it is necessary for the human race's survival and then use that to justify doing it all the time with people you don't intend to have children with. If it is necessary for one thing and one thing only, leave it at that?

And STDs.

There are way too many kids out there who think "technical virginity" will protect them from everything - mostly because the "religious right" doesn't want things other than good, missionary position, between-two-married-individuals-of-opposite-sex sex mentioned at all.


Thats right sex ED should include porn style training of positions and all foms of oral and anal sex because that will help a ton. and i think it should also include a sheet and you win a prize if yo can do them all by the end of sex ED.

Very accurately said Stop Banning Me Mods, Abstinance only education is a dismal failure. All it does is discourage sex and birth control. Unfortuantly, all thats happening is kids are having sex without birth control, uping thier chances for STI's and pregancy.

Thats right sex ED should include porn style training of positions and all foms of oral and anal sex because that will help a ton. and i think it should also include a sheet and you win a prize if yo can do them all by the end of sex ED.
Good job, you've stated that people who are against abstinence-only education want something completely unlike what they actually want.

It might help if you go learn what you're talking about before arguing.

Thats right sex ED should include porn style training of positions and all foms of oral and anal sex because that will help a ton. and i think it should also include a sheet and you win a prize if yo can do them all by the end of sex ED.

Darling, I didn't say anything about teaching them positions, etc. However, they should certainly be taught about the risks of such positions. Do you know how many "virgins" have already had unprotected anal and oral sex because no one ever told them those were dangerous as well? Did you know that a girl can get pregnant even if she is technically a virgin if a man touches himself and then her? These are things that most teenagers don't know - and that is a problem.

But... You can't say it is necessary for the human race's survival and then use that to justify doing it all the time with people you don't intend to have children with. If it is necessary for one thing and one thing only, leave it at that?

Just one question:
Do you (sometimes) enjoy eating?
STOP THAT!
Eating is necessary for your survival and only for that.
So leave it at that.

SELF CONTROL is a virtue.
---
In the olden days, things tasted good because they were good for you.
Today, things taste good because the things that made them signal that they are good for you are put into them even if this is not true.

Darling, I didn't say anything about teaching them positions, etc. However, they should certainly be taught about the risks of such positions. Do you know how many "virgins" have already had unprotected anal and oral sex because no one ever told them those were dangerous as well? Did you know that a girl can get pregnant even if she is technically a virgin if a man touches himself and then her? These are things that most teenagers don't know - and that is a problem.


No it was sarcasam. but did you know in a school of 250 kids In a very conservative area of Oregon called Tillamook county we are taught about the dangers of all sexual positions and acts.

Good job, you've stated that people who are against abstinence-only education want something completely unlike what they actually want.

It might help if you go learn what you're talking about before arguing.


and something that might help you is reading my other posts I'm no dumb conservative . Or some radical Liberal. got my masters at Yale and i'd like to think i know a little about my trade which is Politics which is were this thread started in the argument by world bodies about sexual education. thanks.

and something that might help you is reading my other posts I'm no dumb conservative as you would like to think i am. got my masters at Yale and i'd like to think i know a little about my trade which is Politics which is were this thread started in the argument by world bodies about sexual education. thanks.
I never called you a 'dumb conservative'. I said that you did not know what you were talking about with the post about teaching children positions. I seriously doubt any person worth listening to is campaigning for teaching children about that. It sounded to me as though you were asserting that people who were anti-abstinence-only wanted to teach children how to have sex, when that is not the case.

SELF CONTROL is a virtue.
---
In the olden days, things tasted good because they were good for you.
Today, things taste good because the things that made them signal that they are good for you are put into them even if this is not true.

And what is put into sex?

if controception is stoping 99% of pregnancies.. explain these statistics then ??
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

especially this one

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

This represents 1% of women using contraception ??

This statistic that you have cited 2 or 3 times actually makes the case for abstinence. If 90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception, that dosen't say much for contraception, does it???

Abstinence is the only method proven to be 100% certain to prevent pregnancy or STD's. It should, therefore, be an integral part of sex-education programs. I don't think, however, we should rely on abstinence-only education...it just makes sense to point out that BC only reduces the chances. Sex works best in a committed (read: married) relationship where an unplanned child wouldn't necessarily destroy the three lives involved.

What the hell is wrong with abstinence training? Logically, it should work. See, this is how you logically break it down:

Sex occurs when a couple have sex.
Abstinence is the lack of having sex between couples.
If a couple practice abstinence, they will not have sex.

And it solves problems too:

STD's and Pregnancy can happen during sex.
Abstinence is the lack of having sex.
Therefore if you practice Abstinence, you will not get pregnant or contract an STD.

Its so damn simple. Break it down logically and it works.

As for the human instinct argument... sure, we are humans. We have urges. Sometimes they are powerful. The urge to mate is no different...

TAKE A COLD SHOWER FOR SMEG'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should I feel sorry for people who can't exercise a little self control? The one thing that separates humans from the animals is that we have more control over our instincts. So what the hell is wrong with exercising a little bit of that control? Are people really that weak willed?!?!?!?! Geez, you'd think that the risk of an unwanted pregnancy or an STD would be enough, but NO! People make excuses, saying that it's natural, and it's hard to ignore. It's also natural for one to take a dump anywhere they wish, but do they do so? NO! They go to a damn toilet, no matter how much it hurts!

So for heaven's sake people, practice some restraint. I don't care if your balls turn blue and your pecker is on permanent overload, and your girlfriend is in endless heat. Show some self control for once in your life!

And what is put into sex?

Quite a lot of hormones.

I never called you a 'dumb conservative'. I said that you did not know what you were talking about with the post about teaching children positions. I seriously doubt any person worth listening to is campaigning for teaching children about that. It sounded to me as though you were asserting that people who were anti-abstinence-only wanted to teach children how to have sex, when that is not the case.


As i said read my other posts I believe the very first one was about teaching a three pronged approach. this might be similar to things you have heard on the news coming out of political talks on the issue.

Psshhht both my bro and his wife were virgins when they married. It's like talking to a two-headed person now. I can't talk to my bro without talking to his wife. They are united souls. As for me, I probably don't have as much self-control as my bro. I am still a virgin, but I think I could be seduced easily.

So for heaven's sake people, practice some restraint. I don't care if your balls turn blue and your pecker is on permanent overload, and your girlfriend is in endless heat. Show some self control for once in your life!

Why? I lost my virginity a long time ago and I have never looked back. I have been with the same girl now for three years. We began doing it about one year into it. I have to say that it is the best stress releaver I have ever had. It is also a excellent cure for insomnia. It has improved our relationship and has made things quite fun. Out of highschool no one honestly cares if you are a virgin or not. For all those whom are against pre-marital sex and birth control...... stuff it.

Yes, but blaming it all on hard-line Christians is also an over simplification. As far as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a genius on religion, but isn't it only Catholics within the Christian movement that don't support the use of birth control (condoms etc). Protestants, for example, are allowed to use birth control.

People in India are supposed to be abstinent before marriage. Dating is frowned on. Unrealistic? I can't say.

I've been deliberately abstinent before, and not for religious reasons.

"Teens in Astinence programs are more likely to have STDs and just as likely to have sex. "

What makes a person more susceptible to acquiring an STD if they have the same chance of having sex with or without the abstinence programs?
Sorry if someone already answered this, but:

Abstinence programs discourage the use of condoms, and do not instruct kids in how to use them. They still have the same amount of sex, but fewer of them use condoms, and so STDs and pregnancy are more common.

I fell in love with the woman who I had sex with after two weeks. I've never been happier, and I'm getting married soon. We've had nothing but good relationship, and we had sex with each other TWO WEEKS after meeting each other. We continue to have sex at least once per day, and our relationship remains love based, the sex is just fun.

We were both determined and committed christians, who agreed to wait until marriage. But she was just too special. We couldn't hold off.

This case, along with others I've heard (this being my own) is the reason I see abstinence as BS.

No it was sarcasam. but did you know in a school of 250 kids In a very conservative area of Oregon called Tillamook county we are taught about the dangers of all sexual positions and acts.

Conservative != "religious right"

Intellgient people of all political stripes are aware that knowledge is power. Abstinence (from all) is the best method, but everyone will not hold to it - in fact, very few people will hold to total abstinence - and those people need to be aware of the risks/protections involved in their actions.

Abstinence-only education is akin to saying that we shouldn't teach kids how to use a fire extinguisher, because they simply shouldn't start fires in the first place.

People in India are supposed to be abstinent before marriage. Dating is frowned on. Unrealistic? I can't say.


I would call this oppression.
Everyone should know what risks you run when you have sex and then decide for themselves.

I have been urged to point out a major flaw in the opening of your argument:
"Sex is the basest and most carnal human instinct..."

There are several things a human being REQUIRES in order to survive, sex is not counted among them. Human beings are mammals, you see, and very few mammals have sex quite as often as human beings. Generally sex in nature is intended to produce offspring. This does not hold true for humans these days, because they are slaves to desire.
I think ALL animals would be getting laid year-round, like we do, if they were just as smart/intelligent as us.

Conservative != "religious right"

Intellgient people of all political stripes are aware that knowledge is power. Abstinence (from all) is the best method, but everyone will not hold to it - in fact, very few people will hold to total abstinence - and those people need to be aware of the risks/protections involved in their actions.

Abstinence-only education is akin to saying that we shouldn't teach kids how to use a fire extinguisher, because they simply shouldn't start fires in the first place.

? why did yo use my post that is what we were taught in Tillamook County not just absitence only but about it all. read

? why did yo use my post that is what we were taught in Tillamook County not just absitence only but about it all. read

You suggested in that post that I should be surprised that a conservative town is intelligent. I was pointing out that I am not.

Do what you will with this, I can't force you and I'm not about to try. But I really wish you'd think about it, because 1) God deserves your worship, and 2) you'd be a lot better off giving it to him. Someone once took the time to tell me, and I've never regreted the decision I made.

God's peace,
Michael

I appreciate you trying to express the way you feel in a peaceful manner, however I absoloutely cannot accept god as an actual existing entity because the concept to me is illogical, man-made, wishful thinking, rediculous, and quite inept.

A fabrication does not deserve my worship because I do not recognize it's existence in actuality. I am better off not praying to anybody because when something goes wrong I don't get on my knees and wish for it to be better. I get off my ass and do something about it.

Of all the religious examples I have seen in my life I have seen nothing but corruption and contradiction. My point being this: I do not worship any god or anything due to the fact that I have no belief that they are real and my life is just fine without such belief.

I think ALL animals would be getting laid year-round, like we do, if they were just as smart/intelligent as us.

You need to read the filler, too.

But... It seems more people have arrived to restart the whole thing--I never once mentioned whether or not I thought the abstinence only training was adequate, so its my time to bow out.

Of all the religious examples I have seen in my life I have seen nothing but corruption and contradiction.

I can't do anything about that :(
--All the good examples aren't mainstream.

Now as to the rest of what you said... My argument is simple: Try to imagine a world in which your consciousness does not exist. (...its a trick, because you can't. To actively imagine you must be conscious, and you can't imagine not being able to imagine.)

People in India are supposed to be abstinent before marriage. Dating is frowned on. Unrealistic? I can't say.

I've been deliberately abstinent before, and not for religious reasons.
Pre-marital sex is forbidden in most religions is it not? In Islam, dating is frowned upon too. Well I'm Indian so I guess I get it from both the national side and the religious side.

I agree that abstinence as birth control is a pretty sukky option. Sex is fun and way over repressed. My question is - at what age is lack of abstinence (ie sexual activity) acceptable as an option - and therefore at what age should other contraception and VD control be recommended? The age of concent in the US is 18 - but few people I know waited that long. If the age of introduction is not the age of concent, then should one or the other be adjusted? What age would be apropriate?

For me, the best birth control is having children... It pretty much leads to abstinence by default anyway.

Why? I lost my virginity a long time ago and I have never looked back. I have been with the same girl now for three years. We began doing it about one year into it. I have to say that it is the best stress releaver I have ever had. It is also a excellent cure for insomnia. It has improved our relationship and has made things quite fun. Out of highschool no one honestly cares if you are a virgin or not. For all those whom are against pre-marital sex and birth control...... stuff it.

That's all well and good to bring up what you would consider an exception, but what if something went wrong? What if you caught a disease from her? What if you had one? What if she became pregnant? What if your condom failed, or she forgot to take her pill, or a number of other things that could go wrong that could result in an unwanted pregnancy or disease?

Would your relationship be so fun and carefree if such things happened? Doubt it.

At least you're having fun. Sex is supposed to be a fun, enjoyable experience. Even Christians will tell you this (unless they are REALLY uptight). But they also tell you that sex can be a problem unless you're in a position to handle them without a problem (IE, pregnancy). Their rule on sex before marriage is actually pretty practical. Less likely to have a kid they can't support.

BTW, if virginity is not such a big deal, then why is it that when I begrudingly admit that i'm a virgin to anyone that they take some sort of pity on me at the least, and outright mock me at the worse? No big deal my ass...

I can't do anything about that :(
--All the good examples aren't mainstream.

Now as to the rest of what you said... My argument is simple: Try to imagine a world in which your consciousness does not exist. (...its a trick, because you can't. To actively imagine you must be conscious, and you can't imagine not being able to imagine.)


Yeah good old Descartes...

Yeah good old Descartes...

Weird, I don't even read philosophy.

That's all well and good to bring up what you would consider an exception, but what if something went wrong? What if you caught a disease from her? What if you had one? What if she became pregnant? What if your condom failed, or she forgot to take her pill, or a number of other things that could go wrong that could result in an unwanted pregnancy or disease?

No need to worry about a disease as we were both our first and only partners. Second, we use the pill, so if something does happen we will go for the abortion. It has been discussed already and we have agreed what will be done.

Would your relationship be so fun and carefree if such things happened? Doubt it.

See above.

At least you're having fun. Sex is supposed to be a fun, enjoyable experience. Even Christians will tell you this (unless they are REALLY uptight). But they also tell you that sex can be a problem unless you're in a position to handle them without a problem (IE, pregnancy). Their rule on sex before marriage is actually pretty practical. Less likely to have a kid they can't support.

What if some of us don't beleave in marrage? I see it as nothing more than a contract with the state.

BTW, if virginity is not such a big deal, then why is it that when I begrudingly admit that i'm a virgin to anyone that they take some sort of pity on me at the least, and outright mock me at the worse? No big deal my ass...

Personally, I honestly don't care if you are or aren't a virgin. I just get tired of people force feeding this " No sex till marrage" bullshit down my throat.

That's all well and good to bring up what you would consider an exception, but what if something went wrong? What if you caught a disease from her? What if you had one? What if she became pregnant? What if your condom failed, or she forgot to take her pill, or a number of other things that could go wrong that could result in an unwanted pregnancy or disease?

Would your relationship be so fun and carefree if such things happened? Doubt it.

No risk, no fun.
But that is not only something that is said...
Many unpleasant things may happen in life.
You may get involved in a car crash, you may become seriously ill (not only due to STDs),...
Nevertheless you do not completely avoiding driving by car and you dont only live in disinfected rooms etc., you just drive carefully (I hope) and dont eat bacteria directly ;-).
So is contraception instead of abstinence wrong?

I will leave know and have sex ;-)

I will leave know and have sex ;-)

Good idea! Have fun! :fluffle: ;)

Good idea! Have fun! :fluffle: ;)
I just thought maybe someone wanted to convince me not to. ;)

What the hell is wrong with abstinence training? Logically, it should work. See, this is how you logically break it down:

Sex occurs when a couple have sex.
Abstinence is the lack of having sex between couples.
If a couple practice abstinence, they will not have sex.


So for heaven's sake people, practice some restraint. I don't care if your balls turn blue and your pecker is on permanent overload, and your girlfriend is in endless heat. Show some self control for once in your life!

Well I guess the point is that the self control recquired ISN'T once in your life is it. The abstinence argument is based on the premise that people do not make mistakes. Lets investigate something shall we... we are a young high school couple, we have taken our school and parents advice and commited to abstinence, we have made a good choice and as we have been taught that we are beings of complete self control we do not need to have access to contraceptive methods everyone is happy... but... suddenly tragedy strikes! We engage in a single moment of unbridal passion now as this passion is unplanned we have not thought ahead and prepared for such an eventuality therefore we have unsafe sex. This is why a head in the sand abstinence approach is not a wise decision as it is reliant on us being perfect beings which we are not.

Now apart from that what is abstinence "training" anyway? This is not a rhetorical question I truly cant understand what purpose an abstinence program in schools serves? I am fairly sure everyone is aware how save 100% abstinence is thats not under debate so all but the dumbest people are aware that it is an option there is really no point in wasting rescources on it. Ultimately shouldn't the choice on type of sexual education be for parents? why not offer a contraceptive based education program that parents are allowed to opt to pull there children out of if there choice is to 'teach' abstinence? The only way you can help some one to choose abstinence is through moral support and that is best provided by familys and trusted peer groups anyway not by random 'experts' on the subject.

Alot of the abstinence argument has been based on the unreliability of contraceptive techniques. However, your statistics argue FOR contraceptive education not against. Contraceptive methods such as condoms and the pill are very very effective only IF used correctly. If used inproperly condoms have a tendency to break and the pill is an expensive placebo and what do you know the best way for people to use this techniques properly is if taught to by people with knowledge on correct use such as sex health proffessionals.

No one argues abstinence dosent prevent pregnancy. The topic is about the most effective use of education rescources to best prevent unwanted pregnancy.

actually abstinence is not bs though it is difficult in our current age of skin

if you trust and OBEY God in all things it is possibly to overcome lustful desires but that is the only way (I have proven this for a time)

Note that once you start (fooling around in any form) it is very difficult to stop but even then if you trust and obey God you can stop and not go mad though that obedience has to be constant

What kind of a pregnancy control method is abstinance? People have sex. Good christian girls and boys fuck and suck just like everybody else, they are just less open to using birth control. Sex is the basest and most carnal human instinct, and so much about relationships is built around sex. No one is immune. Anybody who even considers dating is going to be tempted to have sex, thus rendering abstinence obselete. So many good christian girls and boys that I know (including myself) have been exposed and have cracked to their desires. It is inevitable.

So now, why do we want to build a model for our sexual education based on something that is a total lie? People will have sex. Sure, abstinence would work if people were angels, but we're not. Even libertarianism is more logical than abstinence education, because at least it carries one vein of truth about humanity.

Abstinence could only work if people were not sexual beings. Even the best little boys and girls still look at pornography and fantasize about hard dicks and pink pussies. And if all of us are tempted, at the very least, a few of us will fail.

So now, on to my main idea. Abstinence, given how incredibly difficult it is to accomplish is not a viable birth control policy. Certainly, preventative birth control like condoms may advocate sexual activity, but at the very least, they prevent pregnancy, and pregnancy is the only way for people to have abortions.

So here is my idea for preventing abortions and unwanted pregnancy. Free and constantly available preventative birth control, that can be acquired from anywhere, at any time. It may end up being expensive to provide all this birth control, but at least if everyone is protected, then there will be no need for abortions. Now I hate abortion. I am still a christian and believe in the sanctity of life. What I see as the cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancy, not immoral sex. I think sex happens uncontrollably. It is no longer something that can be limited by good morals. It is beyond the church's control. So what I view as the cause of unwanted teenage and poverty pregnancy is a lack of preventative measures.

Abortions are caused because birth control isn't available, and for this, deaths of millions of babies a year are the fault of one group. Hard-line Christians, like what I used to be. By limiting birth control, you are creating the need to have abortions, and if you are too blinded by your ideology to see the travesty that it is causing, then you are the one responsible. If you truly want to save 3 million babies every year then do me a favor, make sure that they never get conceived. Make sure that they never get the chance to be born. Advocate birth control, not abstinence. Sure, you can have abstinence for yourself, if you want, but it doesn't work for those of you who aren't cloistered up in a Parish.


If you are a Christian I am Satan.

Abstenience works in conjuction with safe sex education. You can not teach just one, both need to be taught to be effective. To do otherwise is just asking for trouble, which is what we have no adays. I teach my kids that it is always better to wait. Sex brings an increase of diesease, pregnacy and ridicule from peers. For what else can you call it when a girl goes to school and they find out she is pregnant. If they can not wait then they need to use not only a condom but birth control pills. Fortunately my daughter is observant enough to see what goes on in her school and how the two girls were treated that did become pregnant. My son is still to young to be taught but when the time comes he will be taught the same way. The Government should not provide these things either. The Parents needed to take a stand and teach their kids the right and wrong way of life.

might i add there is no evidence to suggest codoms stop pregnancies or std's.. and plenty of evidence to suggest that education based around controception increases sexual activity.. as its BLATENTLY clear in society today.

again ill post this source : http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

showing a majority of women who have abortions Have used controception prior to the pregnancy... its seems ACcESS isn't the major issue.


funny how that works huh ?
I'm sorry... did you just say that there's no evidence to suggest co[n]doms stop pregnancies or std's? Huh, and here I am, thinking all along that that was their entire purpose. Condoms, when used correctly (thus the high failure rate among teenagers) protect against pregnancy and STDs over 99% of the time. Is abstinance a safer bet? Certainly. But surely, correct condom use should be taught as well, because not everyone is going to "listen to teacher".

if controception is stoping 99% of pregnancies.. explain these statistics then ??
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

especially this one

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

This represents 1% of women using contraception ??
Again, I apologize if this is a repeat, but:

Invidentia, you need to better understand your logic here, because it is misleading. Contraception does stop 98-99% of pregnancies (at least condoms do, different forms have different rates of success). Here are some things you are forgetting:
The percentage of women seeking abortions who use condoms does not equal the failure rate of condoms.
People who do not want to get pregnant tend to use condoms (thanks to comprehensive sex ed, in part). Therefore, when a few percent of condoms fail, the pregnancies are unwanted. Most women who do not have moral objections to abortion will get one if they get pregnant while using a condom (because they obviously didn't want a baby).
If you have millions of women having sex a few times a week, 1 or 2 % of the times they had sex, not the number of women is quite a lot. Keep in mind, it's not that only 1-2% of the women get pregnant... it's that 1-2% of the time someone uses it they get pregnant. If everyone had sex constantly with condoms, they'd eventually all get pregnant, even if condoms were 99.9999% effective.

I hope my explanation was adequate... I know exactly what I mean but for some reason right now I'm having trouble finding words. Basically, your statistic proves nothing, and you should think again about exactly what it means.

How? Easy... I told you how they did the study: They surveyed women (RANDOMLY). They determined the number that were pregnant, and probably asked whether or not they were using SOME MEANS of contraceptives at the time of conception.

I'm pretty sure this would qualify as a binomial experiment, because one woman being pregnant doesn't depend on another woman being pregnant.

So, with the survey, you can calculate the chance of getting pregnant while using contraceptives. Then you can apply this observed chance and say that women are "at risk" of getting pregnant because they are statistically inclined to be so.
Again sorry if repeat:
"some means of contraception" does not equal "condoms". Many other forms of contraception exist, and many are not nearly as effective. Many women are ignorant about such things, and think that coitus interruptus ("pulling out"), douching, the rhythm method, etc. will keep them from getting pregnant. Throws the results off. WAY off.

I certainly hope you're not implying that atheists, such as myself, are incapable of practicing abstinence. That would, however, be the type of thing I've grown to expect from Christians. I promised myself a few years ago - I was thirteen, I think - that I would not have sex until I was married. I'm sixteen now, and I've not broken that promise yet.


Nirimar, please believe me, that was not my intention. I merely meant that if I personally had not, I would have ended up down that road.

And no, I don't expect everyone to do this, but it seemed that he was saying that human beings, particularly guys, could not and would not control themselves, that eventually we would all fall and that that was the only way to make a relationship last longer than 2 weeks. I wasn't commenting about abstinence in school curriculum; I was just challenging this one premise.

I appreciate you trying to express the way you feel in a peaceful manner, however I absoloutely cannot accept god as an actual existing entity because the concept to me is illogical, man-made, wishful thinking, rediculous, and quite inept.

A fabrication does not deserve my worship because I do not recognize it's existence in actuality. I am better off not praying to anybody because when something goes wrong I don't get on my knees and wish for it to be better. I get off my ass and do something about it.

Of all the religious examples I have seen in my life I have seen nothing but corruption and contradiction. My point being this: I do not worship any god or anything due to the fact that I have no belief that they are real and my life is just fine without such belief.

Kejott, I would challenge you to think about something. If the existance of God (and particularly Jesus Christ as God the Son) could be proven to you, would you change you mind?
Now some people are surprised by the fact that the answer is 'no' to this question. All the arguments that they use are purely smokescreens in order to avoid having to face God and face our sinfulness.
Now, if the answer is 'yes', or at least 'maybe', I would challenge you to read a short book called "More than a Carpenter." It's by a guy named Josh MacDowell, and he was a hard core athiest that set out to disprove Christianity, but as he conducted his research (his bibliography to the more extensive "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is 40 pages long) he discovered that that the claims of the Gospel are undoubtable, and because of that he became a follower of Christ. He examines it as a lawyer would, and it's amazing. It's a short read, and if you can still doubt Christianity after reading it, than I would be very impressed. The book covers such arguments as the precision of the 50+ prophecies written 400+ years before Christ. The chance of Christ meeting all of them (he did, as reported by non-Christian historians) is 1 : 1x10^157! He examines different explanations for the empty tomb (a two ton stone rolled across with ROMAN soldiers guarding it!). He also covers the transmission of the manuscripts and their comparative reliability to other classical works (you're in for a surprise!)
I would honestly be willing to buy you a copy, but I doubt you want to give me your mailing address. It's only $4 anyway from a local Christian bookstore or from www.christianbook.com. Check it out, if you are willing to consider the arguments; it may change your life.

If you are a Christian I am Satan.

Abstenience works in conjuction with safe sex education. You can not teach just one, both need to be taught to be effective. To do otherwise is just asking for trouble, which is what we have no adays. I teach my kids that it is always better to wait. Sex brings an increase of diesease, pregnacy and ridicule from peers. For what else can you call it when a girl goes to school and they find out she is pregnant. If they can not wait then they need to use not only a condom but birth control pills. Fortunately my daughter is observant enough to see what goes on in her school and how the two girls were treated that did become pregnant. My son is still to young to be taught but when the time comes he will be taught the same way. The Government should not provide these things either. The Parents needed to take a stand and teach their kids the right and wrong way of life.



I am, I'm just a progressive Communist Christian (we don't have to be atheists thank you) who has messed up a few times.

Kejott, I would challenge you to think about something. If the existance of God (and particularly Jesus Christ as God the Son) could be proven to you, would you change you mind?
Now some people are surprised by the fact that the answer is 'no' to this question. All the arguments that they use are purely smokescreens in order to avoid having to face God and face our sinfulness.
Now, if the answer is 'yes', or at least 'maybe', I would challenge you to read a short book called "More than a Carpenter." It's by a guy named Josh MacDowell, and he was a hard core athiest that set out to disprove Christianity, but as he conducted his research (his bibliography to the more extensive "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is 40 pages long) he discovered that that the claims of the Gospel are undoubtable, and because of that he became a follower of Christ. He examines it as a lawyer would, and it's amazing. It's a short read, and if you can still doubt Christianity after reading it, than I would be very impressed. The book covers such arguments as the precision of the 50+ prophecies written 400+ years before Christ. The chance of Christ meeting all of them (he did, as reported by non-Christian historians) is 1 : 1x10^157! He examines different explanations for the empty tomb (a two ton stone rolled across with ROMAN soldiers guarding it!). He also covers the transmission of the manuscripts and their comparative reliability to other classical works (you're in for a surprise!)
I would honestly be willing to buy you a copy, but I doubt you want to give me your mailing address. It's only $4 anyway from a local Christian bookstore or from www.christianbook.com. Check it out, if you are willing to consider the arguments; it may change your life.

If the existence of god could be proven of course I would change my mind, however I don't see how anyone can. Since you are a person of faith I'd like to ask you a few questions. What makes your religion correct? Are tribes in Africa and South America who have existed long before the bible was written and have never even seen one, and they worship the sun, stars, and moon. Are they going to hell? What doesn't make THEIR religion correct? And finally, what is wrong with not having a religion? I will read this book, however you should read a great one called "Critiques Of God".

What the hell is wrong with abstinence training? Logically, it should work. See, this is how you logically break it down:

Sex occurs when a couple have sex.
Abstinence is the lack of having sex between couples.
If a couple practice abstinence, they will not have sex.
Yes, this is true. If they actually practice abstinence. The logic is sound.

And it solves problems too:

STD's and Pregnancy can happen during sex.
Abstinence is the lack of having sex.
Therefore if you practice Abstinence, you will not get pregnant or contract an STD.
Unfortunately, the logic here is not sound. Your point is correct, or very nearly correct, but you need to reword. Better would be:
STD's and Pregnancy can happen only during sex
etc.etc.
The way you have written it, it looks like sex is only one of the ways... I'll put another thing into the form you just used:
You might sometimes break your leg when you slide into 3rd base.
People who never play baseball never slide into 3rd base.
People who never play baseball can never break their legs.

Obviously this is flawed, as you could break your leg skiing, or jumping, or many many other things.
Its so damn simple. Break it down logically and it works.

As for the human instinct argument... sure, we are humans. We have urges. Sometimes they are powerful. The urge to mate is no different...

TAKE A COLD SHOWER FOR SMEG'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should I feel sorry for people who can't exercise a little self control? The one thing that separates humans from the animals is that we have more control over our instincts. So what the hell is wrong with exercising a little bit of that control? Are people really that weak willed?!?!?!?! Geez, you'd think that the risk of an unwanted pregnancy or an STD would be enough, but NO! People make excuses, saying that it's natural, and it's hard to ignore. It's also natural for one to take a dump anywhere they wish, but do they do so? NO! They go to a damn toilet, no matter how much it hurts!

So for heaven's sake people, practice some restraint. I don't care if your balls turn blue and your pecker is on permanent overload, and your girlfriend is in endless heat. Show some self control for once in your life!
For one who started on a logical note, this last part is especially rant-a-riffic. Sexual urges are made to be difficult to ignore, especially if you are in a relationship with someone who you are very attracted to. This by no means means that you can't be abstinent, and if that's the choice you've made, it may very well change your life for the better. But I don't think you can bust someone else's balls (sorry) for not making that same decision.
I speak as a 16-year-old who isn't planning to have sex anytime soon. However, I'm not necessarily going to wait until marriage.

For one who started on a logical note, this last part is especially rant-a-riffic. Sexual urges are made to be difficult to ignore, especially if you are in a relationship with someone who you are very attracted to. This by no means means that you can't be abstinent, and if that's the choice you've made, it may very well change your life for the better. But I don't think you can bust someone else's balls (sorry) for not making that same decision.

Exactly. If they were easy to ignore, the species would likely not have been anywhere near as prolific. The sexual urge also helps build a bond between two people attracted to each other by the fact that they have that urge towards each other, and sex can serve as a very powerful motivator, to say the least.

Firstly, sex is not a carnal desire. It is something which is driven in by society today. Sex, in biological terms, is solely for reproduction, and so therefore sex cannot be an incstinct of a human being. The very nature of evolution disallows it as a carnal desire for pleasure, because nature could not possibly have forseen that humans, or any other mammals, would be able to have receptors that can indicate pleasure. Therefore, if there is anything biological in it, it is the desire to reproduce.
The desire to have sex is a phenomenon that comes with today's society, and has almost nothing to do with biology. It is portrayed in the media as the natural expression of love, and it probably is, but it has the effect on those who are exposed to the media to consider it as the ultimate pursuit of love, and so if they feel they are in love, chances are they will have sex, unless they choose not to. It is all about choice, however, which is why most sex ed programs teach birth control as well. Teaching abstinence is not a bad thing though. It is not birth control however, even if it does have the effect of resisting pregnancy and STD's.
Considering however, that in Canada, I have not heard of any schools that are not pro birth control, and there is about 100 000 abortions a year, there is no way that access to birth control and teaching about it in school will help. You want to stop abortions? In China and North Korea, you are only allowed to have one child, so good luck stopping abortion. Also, about 60% or so of the abortions in the United States are second times. Teaching birth control won't do a thing to stop abortions.

Firstly, sex is not a carnal desire. It is something which is driven in by society today. Sex, in biological terms, is solely for reproduction, and so therefore sex cannot be an incstinct of a human being. The very nature of evolution disallows it as a carnal desire for pleasure, because nature could not possibly have forseen that humans, or any other mammals, would be able to have receptors that can indicate pleasure. Therefore, if there is anything biological in it, it is the desire to reproduce.

This is one of the most idiotic things I have seen typed on this forum.

You know, I could just tell the creator that promiscuity leads to STDs, many of which are uncurable and don't reveal themselves immediately, but then, why should I?

I had a pretty liberal health teacher last term... he explained that if you can combine means of contraception (use condom AND pill) then you can really, really, really cut down chances of bad stuff. Throw in coitus interruptus (withdrawal) and you've cut down more than 70% of the negligible percent that was left.

I say that bc should be taught thoroughly (stopping short of actual diagrams/ pictures/ detailed instructions, of course), but abstinence should be very heavily emphasized, along with the risks of STDs, pregnancy, even with contraception. Seems pretty bulletproof to me, since it covers most of the controversial topics in sex ed today. Also give directions to the nearest Planned Paenthood type organisation for information or free contraception. But still emphasize abstinence. How's that sound?

Edit: I feel like adding that one in 5 americans-- 1 in 4 women-- has Genital Herpes, which has no symptoms most of the time, but is pretty nasty when it does. Learned this in the same health class. Also, a condom generally won't stop the spread of herpes much, since the herpes virus (meaning uncurable) can live in the general pubic area and inner thigh (and it can be spread from contact here), and they don't generally make condoms to cover all this.

You know, I could just tell the creator that promiscuity leads to STDs, many of which are uncurable and don't reveal themselves immediately, but then, why should I?


This discussion was one of Abstinence as a birth-control method.

What you fail to see is that sexual activity is something we simply do. I won't deny that sexual activity opens one up to STD's, but what I will say is that sexual activity is inevitable.

Besides, many of the students of abstinence-only educations are just as likely to engage in sexual activity, but are less likely to seek birth control, making them practice unsafe sex that also leads to STD's.

So, now that you have met the founder of this thread, what can you say?

I had a pretty liberal health teacher last term... he explained that if you can combine means of contraception (use condom AND pill) then you can really, really, really cut down chances of bad stuff. Throw in coitus interruptus (withdrawal) and you've cut down more than 70% of the negligible percent that was left.

Of course, there are no absolutes. I knew a girl who was with her first partner (something like second time), on the pill, using a condom with spermicide, a diaphragm, and a sponge and she still got pregnant. =)

wow, that's unusual. I guess that just a few errors every now and then might happen to stack up. kinda sucks for her...

a new 8 year study shows that students who take "abstinence pledges" as promoted by the new school policies contract just as many STD's as other students. not only that but female students are 6 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO PERFORM ORAL SEX AND 4 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO PERFORM ANAL SEX
source:Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO

wow, that's unusual. I guess that just a few errors every now and then might happen to stack up. kinda sucks for her...

Nah, she loves her daughter to death. She had to go through some shit about it with the air force, she had just recently joined and then was pregnant, but other than that she's done fine as a single mom - with a beautiful little girl.

This is one of the most idiotic things I have seen typed on this forum.

Perhaps it is. But I was not speaking about the reasons for which we have sex. Undoubtedly, the reason for which people have sex is for pleasure, because pleasure is the result of sex. But it is not actually the biological purpose of sex. It cannot be biological because it serves no purpose to evolution, other than as an incentive to reproduce. It is not a biological drive to pursue sex for pleasure, but a choice made from the mind. Everything but the basic survival instinct of an animal is a product of the mind. Thus, pleasure, hatred, love, sadness, etc... are all, in reality, choices. Though sometimes it is not that easy to control them, they still are.

Firstly, sex is not a carnal desire. It is something which is driven in by society today. Sex, in biological terms, is solely for reproduction, and so therefore sex cannot be an incstinct of a human being. The very nature of evolution disallows it as a carnal desire for pleasure, because nature could not possibly have forseen that humans, or any other mammals, would be able to have receptors that can indicate pleasure. Therefore, if there is anything biological in it, it is the desire to reproduce.
The desire to have sex is a phenomenon that comes with today's society, and has almost nothing to do with biology. It is portrayed in the media as the natural expression of love, and it probably is, but it has the effect on those who are exposed to the media to consider it as the ultimate pursuit of love, and so if they feel they are in love, chances are they will have sex, unless they choose not to. It is all about choice, however, which is why most sex ed programs teach birth control as well. Teaching abstinence is not a bad thing though. It is not birth control however, even if it does have the effect of resisting pregnancy and STD's.
Considering however, that in Canada, I have not heard of any schools that are not pro birth control, and there is about 100 000 abortions a year, there is no way that access to birth control and teaching about it in school will help. You want to stop abortions? In China and North Korea, you are only allowed to have one child, so good luck stopping abortion. Also, about 60% or so of the abortions in the United States are second times. Teaching birth control won't do a thing to stop abortions.


Are you a Eunich? You certainly don't know what a "sex drive" is, or what happens when you get horny and can't orgasm. Sex is necessary, it hurts to not be able to come, you get blue balls, or you get congested. There is a societal glorifying of sex, but at the same time, internal pressures not to have it, for fear of being labeled a "skank" or something.

Here in the US, there 3 million abortions every year. The population of Canada is only about 1/7th the size of the US, yet we have 30 times more abortions! In Canada, they prevent abortions by giving people contraception! And by raising awareness of STD's, they discourage cultural promiscuity, something Americans haven't gotten around to yet.

Teaching birth control and making it available are GREAT ways to avoid Abortions.

Learn something before approaching the vast world of the Internet. You'll need to start playing hardball now kid. We don't throw it underhanded anymore.

Perhaps it is. But I was not speaking about the reasons for which we have sex. Undoubtedly, the reason for which people have sex is for pleasure, because pleasure is the result of sex. But it is not actually the biological purpose of sex. It cannot be biological because it serves no purpose to evolution, other than as an incentive to reproduce. It is not a biological drive to pursue sex for pleasure, but a choice made from the mind. Everything but the basic survival instinct of an animal is a product of the mind. Thus, pleasure, hatred, love, sadness, etc... are all, in reality, choices. Though sometimes it is not that easy to control them, they still are.

Ah, ok, you have clarified. THe way you typed in your last post, you stated that sex itself cannot be due to instinct, nor could the pleasure from it be due to evolution.

We "get horny" as it were because we are instinctually drawn to have sex. However, we are aware of our choices and make the *choice* to have sex for pleasure, even when we do not wish to reproduce.

Are you a Eunich? You certainly don't know what a "sex drive" is, or what happens when you get horny and can't orgasm. Sex is necessary, it hurts to not be able to come, you get blue balls, or you get congested.

Ever heard of masturbation?

heard a kinda funny quote once- "sex can wait- masturbate!"

Perhaps it is. But I was not speaking about the reasons for which we have sex. Undoubtedly, the reason for which people have sex is for pleasure, because pleasure is the result of sex. But it is not actually the biological purpose of sex. It cannot be biological because it serves no purpose to evolution, other than as an incentive to reproduce. It is not a biological drive to pursue sex for pleasure, but a choice made from the mind. Everything but the basic survival instinct of an animal is a product of the mind. Thus, pleasure, hatred, love, sadness, etc... are all, in reality, choices. Though sometimes it is not that easy to control them, they still are.
It's not necessarily as simple as that.
You said that for sex to be pleasurable serves no evolutionary purpose... but that's not true. The urge to have sex would lead to... guess what? ... more sex, thus more offspring and the species continues. Species who don't want to have sex won't, and thus die off after 1 generation. What you have left is, every species that reproduces sexually has some sort of biological "pleasure" to help along the mating process. Hormones and pheromones are also key players, thus accounting for the "mating season" phenomenon (especially in animals, but even in humans... have you ever seen the change that comes over young couples with the break of spring? I'm not just talking about sex, either.)
Sex has many purposes: stress management, pleasure, reproduction, intimacy, etc.... but the biological reason why all those good things happen, in essence the biological reason for it being pleasurable, is reproduction.

That said, we hardly listen to what our bodies "naturally" say to us anymore, so I'm all for sex, as long as it's protected, responsible, non-promiscuous, and not too early in life. Before/after marriage I could care less, but I think the concept of an age of consent is very necessary.

I agree. Expecting every person to have an iron will when it comes to 'the urge to merge' is shortsighted, and assumes that everyone knows what sex is about and what the risks to their body are. There are a lot of naive people in the world, and to demand the abstinence only policy fails to regard every man, woman, and foetus as a precious entity worthy of protection. A policy of harm minimisation, by offering people education about sex and risk factors, means that the burden of responsibility can be placed on their shoulders, and in good faith. An educated populus is a more powerful populus, and nowhere is this power more essential than in the context of heath.

A stupid, knocked-up, AIDS and crab-infested population is an economic disaster in terms of funding required for health and the socioeconomic support for teenage mums and the terminally ill. Harm minimisation in the form of adequate education and preventative measures can only be regarded as an investment in a nation's population. When governments start seeing citizens as their greatest resource, rather than their greatest burden, THEN maybe Abstinence Only policies of sex education will be recognised as the primitive, narrowminded concepts they really are.

Here in the US, there 3 million abortions every year. The population of Canada is only about 1/7th the size of the US, yet we have 30 times more abortions! In Canada, they prevent abortions by giving people contraception! And by raising awareness of STD's, they discourage cultural promiscuity, something Americans haven't gotten around to yet.


Three million? Do you really think so? Because according to real statistics, there are 1.3 million abortions in the US. (womensissues.about.com/cs/ abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm) And, you give Canada credit by saying its population is 1/7 that of the US, because it is much closer to 1/10. And the amount of abortion in Canada in 1995 was 110 000. So, basically, it has 10 x the population and maybe 12 x the abortion. Teaching birth control will not stop abortions. In the Netherlands (or one of those countries), they've been doing it for years, and now they are allowing parents to have the choice whether or not to kill their babies AFTER it is born if the baby has a disability. Approximately 8% of women who have abortions had never used contraception, and probably all of them knew what would happen if they didn't. Also, the urge to have sex is very prominent in society, and there is not really pressure of being labelled a 'skank'. In every prominent TV show that appeals to high school age kids, sex is an overpowering factor. Often, the belief that one must have sex in order to be in a relationship is pushed. Teaching birth control, if anything, promotes promiscuity.
Also, where do you get the idea that sex is necessary? Yes, if you cannot have sex there is something wrong with your body, but do you think that people who are celibate are unable to function? Sex is a natural process and something is wrong when it doesn't work, but that doesn't mean the biological purpose of sex is pleasure. The "sex drive" is more a physcological thing than it is a biological process, though females do give off hormones while menstruating that increases their sex drive. In the end, however, the biological purpose of sex is to reproduce. Pleasure is a pyschological reason, it is often the reason why somebody would choose to have sex, without procreation. But, there is no biological drive for sexual pleasure. It is, as I have previously said, in the mind.

Pleasure is a pyschological reason, it is often the reason why somebody would choose to have sex, without procreation. But, there is no biological drive for sexual pleasure. It is, as I have previously said, in the mind.
Ever had an mind-orgasm?

Teaching birth control, if anything, promotes promiscuity.


However, it also promotes using birth control. Let's simplify this temporarily into a black-and-white subject.

Possibility A: Abstinence-only education. You must factor in the imperfections of humanity here, as if we were perfect then this would work. We are not. Plus which, there is a lot of pressure on people to have sex. But, with abstinence being taught to the exclusion of all forms of birth control, none will know about condoms or anything else. I'm sure you can see why this is a bad thing.

Possibility B: Teaching about other methods of birth control. While this is likely to lead to more promiscuous teenagers, I guarantee they're more likely to use birth control if they know about it than if they don't.

Of course, the ideal option in my eyes is to make the parents teach kids about these matters. That way, no one would get offended at what's being taught in schools because it wouldn't be taught in schools. But that relies on all parents being responsible, and since this isn't a perfect world and humans also are imperfect, this is something that you cannot expect from them.


Side note: I understand that this doesn't have to be a matter of black and white. However, it helped my example to simplify it to that.

for all the talk... there is nothing said that supports the thread title... nor anything to contradict the fact that Abstinence works. every argument so far is that people now days are so sex-minded and sex starved that they really cannot control themselves... which is bull... if that were true, then Rape wouldn't be a crime since we as humans have no self control.

Birth Control and Protection are not 100% safe and reliable. the only 100% safe and reliable method is Abstinence. Lasting relationships can be built without sex. Humans can control their urges. and like everything else, Abstinence is a choice. if I CHOOSE to abstain from sex (and I have) that is my choice.

everything else is nitpicking and people arguing for the sake of arguing.

Birth Control and Protection are not 100% safe and reliable. the only 100% safe and reliable method is Abstinence. Lasting relationships can be built without sex. Humans can control their urges. and like everything else, Abstinence is a choice. if I CHOOSE to abstain from sex (and I have) that is my choice.

Most of the argument has been about the uselessness of abstinence-only education. How exactly to you make an educated choice if you aren't educated?

for all the talk... there is nothing said that supports the thread title... nor anything to contradict the fact that Abstinence works. every argument so far is that people now days are so sex-minded and sex starved that they really cannot control themselves... which is bull... if that were true, then Rape wouldn't be a crime since we as humans have no self control.

Birth Control and Protection are not 100% safe and reliable. the only 100% safe and reliable method is Abstinence. Lasting relationships can be built without sex. Humans can control their urges. and like everything else, Abstinence is a choice. if I CHOOSE to abstain from sex (and I have) that is my choice.

everything else is nitpicking and people arguing for the sake of arguing.
But I want to point out abisinance in of itself is not 100 percent protection against STD's
Nor (in very small percentages of cases) there is a potentioal for non intercourse pregnancy

Proponents of abstinance think it is the end all against std's and that is very incorrect
Oral transmission is massivly widespread

Most of the argument has been about the uselessness of abstinence-only education. How exactly to you make an educated choice if you aren't educated?
Very true. That and the myth that providing condoms somehow makes people have sex

for all the talk... there is nothing said that supports the thread title... nor anything to contradict the fact that Abstinence works. every argument so far is that people now days are so sex-minded and sex starved that they really cannot control themselves... which is bull... if that were true, then Rape wouldn't be a crime since we as humans have no self control.

Birth Control and Protection are not 100% safe and reliable. the only 100% safe and reliable method is Abstinence. Lasting relationships can be built without sex. Humans can control their urges. and like everything else, Abstinence is a choice. if I CHOOSE to abstain from sex (and I have) that is my choice.

everything else is nitpicking and people arguing for the sake of arguing.

About wether abstinence works or not: It has been stated several times that statistics show that adolenscents who have sworn a abstinence-oath often do not fulfil it. The problem is that in America Republicans try to stop funding independant studies and replace them by studies based on research conducted by "experts", whose only aim it is to prove that sex before marriage is evil.
And if you CHOOSE to abstain, that's ok, but the problem is that others CHOOSE to have sex and are not educated properly (do not know enough about contraception apart from the fact that it is not 100% effective).
And about the 100% efficiency: As I have posted before: We often take minor risks (and HIV/STDs are a minor risk if you use condoms and are not to promiscutive; and pregnancy is a minor risk as well if a woman is taking the pill) in order to improve out lifes.
E.g. we drive by car, fly with an aeroplane, climb up a ladder, although we could fall down etc.

And one question to about abstinence-oaths (They are not popular here in Germany and I did not yet learn about the content of one.):
Does one swear not to have sex or not to have sexual intercourse or does it depend?

And one question to about abstinence-oaths (They are not popular here in Germany and I did not yet learn about the content of one.):
Does one swear not to have sex or not to have sexual intercourse or does it depend?

That generally ends up being at the discretion of the oath-taker. Hence, the large numbers of "technical virgins" who have oral and anal sex, but not vaginal.

Birth Control and Protection are not 100% safe and reliable. the only 100% safe and reliable method is Abstinence. Lasting relationships can be built without sex. Humans can control their urges. and like everything else, Abstinence is a choice.


Must be nice to live in a perfect little world where the skies are always clear, accidents never happen, and humans are completely perfect. It saves you the pain of finding out that the real world is not perfect, it is not an ideal situation. Abstinence works better in theory than in practice. But the value of an idea is measured only by its practicality, not by how it would work ideally.

That generally ends up being at the discretion of the oath-taker. Hence, the large numbers of "technical virgins" who have oral and anal sex, but not vaginal.

And how is it supposed to be? (From the point of view of parents and teachers.) There may not be a clear answer to that, but what does the majority of them think?

So now, on to my main idea. Abstinence, given how incredibly difficult it is to accomplish is not a viable birth control policy. Certainly, preventative birth control like condoms may advocate sexual activity, but at the very least, they prevent pregnancy, and pregnancy is the only way for people to have abortions.

So here is my idea for preventing abortions and unwanted pregnancy. Free and constantly available preventative birth control, that can be acquired from anywhere, at any time. It may end up being expensive to provide all this birth control, but at least if everyone is protected, then there will be no need for abortions. Now I hate abortion. I am still a christian and believe in the sanctity of life. What I see as the cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancy, not immoral sex. I think sex happens uncontrollably. It is no longer something that can be limited by good morals. It is beyond the church's control. So what I view as the cause of unwanted teenage and poverty pregnancy is a lack of preventative measures.

Now you see, promoting abstininence can be completed, whilst also making birth contorl more available.

Of course they contradict each other, but not really... lol

Call it "Promoting waiting until you are in a serious relationship, and using appropriate birth control"

And how is it supposed to be? (From the point of view of parents and teachers.) There may not be a clear answer to that, but what does the majority of them think?

I would think that most parents and teachers that advocate it think that their kids won't even hold hands - as silly an assumption as that might be.

The best way to prevent STDs isn't avoiding sex; It's making sure your partner DOESN'T HAVE THEM.

STDs aren't magical little curses that spontaniously occur during sex; they're from prior exposure.

If your parnter(s) are all clean, and stay within a similar circle of clean people, guess what, no STDs, no matter how much sex you have.

Must be nice to live in a perfect little world where the skies are always clear, accidents never happen, and humans are completely perfect. It saves you the pain of finding out that the real world is not perfect, it is not an ideal situation. Abstinence works better in theory than in practice. But the value of an idea is measured only by its practicality, not by how it would work ideally.Speaking as one who abstained for 21+ years, coming from a family who abstained untill marriage, and their families abstained till marrage, who has siblings who abstained till marriage, and their spouses abstained till marriage, it's not that hard really. and no, I am not in any religious order or cult. and also I am not looking down on anyone. I am saving myself for that one special person that I will spend the rest of my life with. sure alot came close, but in the end, we're better off without sharing that horizontal time and remain friends.

It hasn't been proven yet that Abstinence does not work... sure it seems hard, but at least I am in control and not Mr. Happy. as for it being an Ideal Situation? at least my parents never had to worry about getting a call from some girls father accusing me of knocking someone up. nor did anyone I dated have to worry about past partners nor any deseases. and all my former Girlfriends and I still keep in contact and are on the best of terms.

so I left my world, how bout yours granted mine wasn't as nice as living in a world where people won't take responsiblity for their actions... finding any and every excuse to blame someone or something else... "we have urges... so therefore, it's not my choice that we have sex... we don't even choose when." Hey, drinking alcohol and smoking is safe... after all, all those adds and commercials say so too right... not your fault.. you have no control right? We all gotta eat... so Obesity isn't a problem either in your world too. must be really nice there.

have you tried it? have you tried abstaining from sex (note, sex not masturbastion.) telling your significant other that you want to make it special by waiting till you're married? if you don't put the theory to the test, then how can you say it's bullshit.

I've remained abstinent for my entire life, and I'm not making excuses for people. I'm simply pointing out that blind faith in the restraint of humans is... not indicative of intelligence. For those who DO avoid having sex, it does prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. The problem is getting people to keep their virginity. I don't intend to make excuses for people, but you have to consider that by simply telling people to not have sex you're effectively telling many (not all, but many) teenagers to go fuck whoever. After all, I'm sure you've seen many rebellious teenagers who do something just because they were told not to. My school was full of 'em. Plus, it's very common for people to think 'it won't happen to me'.

I've remained abstinent for my entire life, and I'm not making excuses for people. I'm simply pointing out that blind faith in the restraint of humans is... not indicative of intelligence. For those who DO avoid having sex, it does prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. The problem is getting people to keep their virginity. I don't intend to make excuses for people, but you have to consider that by simply telling people to not have sex you're effectively telling many (not all, but many) teenagers to go fuck whoever. After all, I'm sure you've seen many rebellious teenagers who do something just because they were told not to. My school was full of 'em. Plus, it's very common for people to think 'it won't happen to me'.

You bring up some very good points. I however do not want to remain abstinent because quite frankly anyone here could die at any time, especially as the world increases in danger. I don't want to die and not experience all of gifts that life has. I could have easily been at The World Trade Center and parished with a life full of stress and anger without any sort of good memories short of simplistic, meaningless, and childish experiences up until a few months ago when my life JUST got interesting. I think there are times when you should just say "fuck restraint" and just go for it. Try to be as safe as possible but don't totally cut off access to what will make you happy.

Whenever an issues arises there are three types of people. The people who want to ban it or stop it entirely, the people who get out of control and do it without any self control, and the people who do it in moderation. I am one of those people who do things in moderation. Telling a teenager not to fuck is like telling Bush not to invade Iraq, oops too late he already did. In paralell to that teens have already fucked. Now if you want to remain a virgin until whatever time you wish, I salute you for being strong but I'd appreciate it if people don't get all in my face about the issue.

I've remained abstinent for my entire life, and I'm not making excuses for people. I'm simply pointing out that blind faith in the restraint of humans is... not indicative of intelligence. For those who DO avoid having sex, it does prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. The problem is getting people to keep their virginity. I don't intend to make excuses for people, but you have to consider that by simply telling people to not have sex you're effectively telling many (not all, but many) teenagers to go fuck whoever. After all, I'm sure you've seen many rebellious teenagers who do something just because they were told not to. My school was full of 'em. Plus, it's very common for people to think 'it won't happen to me'.Sorry didn't understand your viewpoint.

however, in today's world where Sex is everywhere, movies, Tv, Videogames, comics, especially in music and music videos... they are still getting the 'Go ahead, screw' message. Teaching Abstinence (note, not abstinence only) gives them another option to choose from. can you imagine the world and the health situation if Abstinence was 'cool'...

:rolleyes:

actually... for some reason... I can't... but anyway... if raised right (and alot are), Teens, (even the rebellious ones) will make the right choices if they have the information available to them.

Abstinence is not that hard. the point is to care about yourself and for your partner.

now, for those who like to take it to the extreme... kissing is ok... deep kissing... well I'll leave that up to you.

Birth Control and Protection are not 100% safe and reliable. the only 100% safe and reliable method is Abstinence.
castration..................................pwned...

All things in moderation. Moderation included.

I avoided sex (and dating, for that matter), until I was 20, and the woman I was falling in love with (and, during those two weeks, outright fell for) came to visit and changed my life.

I'm still not impressed with sex itself. She was bad in bed. I was worse.

But the sensation is nothing to the bonding of it. Seeing your lover's face light up. Hear them moan or scream, or just sigh with a smile. Feel their chest pounding, and their body convulsing.

I haven't had actual sex since the love of my life went back home. I've messed around with less direct methods, though I do have a threesome in the works.

I've learned that, for me, sexual contact is a good thing. It allows me to help people I care about forget everything else, and just -feel-, just -enjoy-. And I get to share it with them in the most intimate fashion.

I'm careful, and shall be careful. I also will make sure that anyone I'm with, if being careful doesn't work, will prevent the fetus from developing. I can't afford it, they can't afford it, and the possible child doesn't deserve to suffer that reality, should it manage to survive the rigors of growth.

But neither will I let some clumps of cells prevent me from getting that grin out of the ladies in my life. Either way, no child shall be born, so it's all moot. But I'll be sure there'll be some joy in the world, when I have the option.

castration..................................pwned...
Legs crossed...........................Pain.... lots of pain.... you HAD to bring that up didn't you... :p

Legs crossed...........................Pain.... lots of pain.... you HAD to bring that up didn't you... :p

Fun side-note: My favorite threat is:

"I'll rip your lower jaw off and castrate you with it."

:D

<snip>
have you tried it? have you tried abstaining from sex (note, sex not masturbastion.) telling your significant other that you want to make it special by waiting till you're married? if you don't put the theory to the test, then how can you say it's bullshit.

The argument is not that abstinence does not prevent pregnancy and STDs, it is not that it is impossible to be abstinent. It is (at least the way I see it) about the reality of the matter, which is that not everybody will make the same choice you have. The urges are strong, but they can be overcome, but only if you truly believe in abstaining until marriage. Abstinence-only sex-ed might convince a few people deeply enough that they will stick to it, but there are many others who will take the pledge because it sounds good at the time, but not really be committed to it.
Again, it's not that abstinence doesn't work. It's that abstinence-only education doesn't work.

About wether abstinence works or not: It has been stated several times that statistics show that adolenscents who have sworn a abstinence-oath often do not fulfil it. The problem is that in America Republicans try to stop funding independant studies and replace them by studies based on research conducted by "experts", whose only aim it is to prove that sex before marriage is evil.
And if you CHOOSE to abstain, that's ok, but the problem is that others CHOOSE to have sex and are not educated properly (do not know enough about contraception apart from the fact that it is not 100% effective).
And about the 100% efficiency: As I have posted before: We often take minor risks (and HIV/STDs are a minor risk if you use condoms and are not to promiscutive; and pregnancy is a minor risk as well if a woman is taking the pill) in order to improve out lifes.
E.g. we drive by car, fly with an aeroplane, climb up a ladder, although we could fall down etc.where is the Statistics from?

and two... if they don't fulfill the pledge, why is it then that Abstience fails... why not say its the resolve of those kids that failed or are Bullshit.

I bet you that while they abstained, it worked... no STD... No pregnancies...

and no where in the original post does he mention about Abstinence ONLY education... only that Abstinance fails because the people can't stick with Abstinence.

it's like saying Banks fail at saving money because I don't depost anything into my account. if you wanna save money, you gotta put it in and keep it in. just like abstinence... you wanna abstain.. then you Keep it in (your pants) and don't stick it in (another person/animal)

The argument is not that abstinence does not prevent pregnancy and STDs, it is not that it is impossible to be abstinent. It is (at least the way I see it) about the reality of the matter, which is that not everybody will make the same choice you have. The urges are strong, but they can be overcome, but only if you truly believe in abstaining until marriage. Abstinence-only sex-ed might convince a few people deeply enough that they will stick to it, but there are many others who will take the pledge because it sounds good at the time, but not really be committed to it.
Again, it's not that abstinence doesn't work. It's that abstinence-only education doesn't work.I agree with the abstinence only... but the Thread starter does not mention Abstinence only... just abstinance being Bull.

in my other posts, I don't mention Abstinence only. however, teaching abstinence isn't a bad thing. but like Dieting, kicking any habit... it is constant work. and if you have honest friends by your side... they can help you take temptation by the horn and beat it off...

ok... that could be worded differently... but you get the idea.

give the teen all the info you can... on Abstience, the dangers of promiscuous unprotected sex... of safe sex... and let them make the choice.

I agree with the abstinence only... but the Thread starter does not mention Abstinence only... just abstinance being Bull.

in my other posts, I don't mention Abstinence only. however, teaching abstinence isn't a bad thing. but like Dieting, kicking any habit... it is constant work. and if you have honest friends by your side... they can help you take temptation by the horn and beat it off...

ok... that could be worded differently... but you get the idea.

give the teen all the info you can... on Abstience, the dangers of promiscuous unprotected sex... of safe sex... and let them make the choice.
Sounds good to me. And, keep in mind, the thread starter is an infamous flamer, flamebaiter, and troll, so... :-\

The best way to prevent STDs isn't avoiding sex; It's making sure your partner DOESN'T HAVE THEM.

STDs aren't magical little curses that spontaniously occur during sex; they're from prior exposure.

If your parnter(s) are all clean, and stay within a similar circle of clean people, guess what, no STDs, no matter how much sex you have.

This is the first wise post I've seen in this entire thread.

This is the first wise post I've seen in this entire thread.
::is mock offended::
yeah, it's a good post.

This is the first wise post I've seen in this entire thread.

If only I had abstained from that typo.

:(

If the existence of god could be proven of course I would change my mind, however I don't see how anyone can. Since you are a person of faith I'd like to ask you a few questions. What makes your religion correct? Are tribes in Africa and South America who have existed long before the bible was written and have never even seen one, and they worship the sun, stars, and moon. Are they going to hell? What doesn't make THEIR religion correct? And finally, what is wrong with not having a religion? I will read this book, however you should read a great one called "Critiques Of God".

Kejott, I promise that I will read your book. Who is the author. Also, I made a mistake about the author I mentioned. It's McDowell, not MacDowell.

I'll make an edit when I wade through the rest of these posts.

Okay, I waded through the rest and didn't really see any that I needed to answer. You ask how anyone could prove that God exists. In the book, McDowell writes that you can't prove the resurrection from a scientific point of view, because science has to be testable, repeatable, observable, etc. What you can do is prove it in a lawyerly point of view. Historical records, witnesses, reliability and verifiability of the facts, examination of all of the possibilities. Really and truly, he makes points that I find impossible to contend with regarding a number of different subjects, and when you piece all of them together, the only conclusion (that he and myself can come to) is that there must be a God and his name must be Jesus. I'm glad you'll read the book, and I'll try to find the one you recommended. Perhaps when we finish we can communicate our thoughts and see if either of us has changed our minds. My email is mhvaughan@hotmail.com.

I wish you the best in your search for truth!
God's peace,
Michael

Sorry, I forgot your last questions. I'll do my best to answer them. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." His words, not mine. Now, how that applies to Africa, I don't have all the answers. The Bible claims to tell the story from the beginning of time, and so all the descendents of Adam and Eve would have some knowledge (to a point). God makes himself known in a lot of different ways. I've heard stories of a shamen seeing a vision in which Christ explained the Gospel to him and the entire village was saved. Years later missionaries came in and discovered a tribe full of Christians. I know that God is concerned about the Africans. He wants all to be saved. I also know that he's commanded all Christians to go and spread the Gospel. That's what I'm going to do with my life, and many have done the same before me. I would have been there this summer if my parents hadn't vetoed the idea (so I'll be in Ukraine instead). Many have been to Africa and many Africans have now heard the story of Christ. Of those who didn't hear it, I can't try to guess because I just don't know.

The question then becomes, why should one have religion at all, or what's wrong with their religions. IF the God of the Bible is God, he's made it very clear that there is only one way to him. All of the other religions of the world focus on what one must DO to attain salvation/enlightenment/nirvana/etc. The God of Christianity realized that we cannot do this. He demands absolute perfection in order to reside in Heaven, and we screwed that up a long time ago. So in mercy, he offers us salvation based on what he has already DONE. To say that we need to do something besides believe and accept negates the whole reason that Christ died on a cross and separated himself from the Trinity. If we can make it on our own, he didn't need to die. Because God is God, he is all about himself. The Westminster shorter catechism reads, "Q: What is the chief end of man? A: The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him (something)." The same is true of God. God's chief end is to glory and enjoy himself. Because if God isn't all about himself, if he gives glory to anything other than himself, then I would be interested to see what he worshiped. I would question whether he was truly the ultimate thing. So he's all about himself, everything is about him, he's ultimately just and demands perfection and all of our glory. Mankind's fall resulted in our trying to take some of that glory, and we marred everything. We cannot be near God because we are unholy. So that's why God, being infinitely merciful, decided to spare us the consequences of our decision and take all that justice out on himself. If there is another way, then Christianity is not a way at all. And if God is really the God of Christianity, than it would seem that he would deserve all the worship and glory and honor that we could possibly give him and that he could work through us to bring to himself. So if he's the real God, then having no religion is obviously not going to be the way to go.

So then you have to make a decision: is Christianity a way (making it THE way) or not? You can examine all the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, for the historicity of the Gospel story, for the stunning evidence of the prophecies that foretold Christ's birth, life, and death. I've mentioned earlier that the prophecies themselves have a chance of 1 : 1x10^157 of being met in a person, and the majority of these prophecies were out of Christ's control. The book I mentioned gives some of the details, but the larger New Evidence gives them all, and it's amazing. Christ had to be born of a certain tribe, in a certain era of time. He had to be born in Bethlehem and he had to start his ministry in Galilee. It had to occur before the destruction of the temple (70 AD). He had to ride in on a donkey. He had to die on "a tree". His hands, feet, and side had to be pierced, and none of his bones were to be broken (Commonly, the legs were broken of those that died on crosses. Jesus was an exception--his side was pierced). His undergarment was not torn and his clothes were divided by lot. The Jewish holidays were all fulfilled in him, the passover especially. The Gospel is based on the fact that Christ became the high priest of Israel that could make intercession between them and God. He was "pierced for our transgressions". Isaiah 6 or 9 reads something like, To us a son will be born, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. This is just a short list.

It just seems too much to be coincidence, and there's more. Read the Carpenter book, and I think you'll be amazed.

If you want to hear more, I could talk for a good 45 minutes on how Christ has changed my life, personally and irrevocably. Before I was a Christian I didn't care about others, I was constantly worried about stuff, I was not happy or at peace. I struggled with all sorts of sins. I was not a social person AT ALL. I was pessimistic, fearful, and really arrogant. Within a very short time of my giving my heart to Christ, all of that changed. It was an amazing transformation, and it didn't even happen because I was trying to conform to Christianity--I didn't know anything about Christianity! I have an amazing sense of peace in any situation now. I'm able to rejoice in anything, and I can tell you for sure that I have never regretted my decision. He's done amazing things in my life. I know it sounds weird and cliche, but I can talk to him, and HE TALKS BACK! I'm able to have a relationship with God as a Savior, but much more than that he's my Hero, my Captain. God is my Father and Jesus is my Lover, and the relationship that we share is as intimate as any marriage. He promised that if we came to him, he would give us life, and it would be as full as possible, and mine has been! It's that knowledge I have, and the desire to just do what makes him happy that makes me want to tell others this amazing thing that someone once told me about.

Wow...Are there really so many people that abstain from sex? I've never met a person that is "abstaining", but on NS there seem to be plenty.

There are plenty of every kind of person imaginable on NS... although the group of people without the ability to use a computer are sadly underrepresented :(

ok woah woah woah, this went from someone ranting about not getting enough, to you recruiting cultists for the church, stfu :headbang:

ok woah woah woah, this went from someone ranting about not getting enough, to you recruiting cultists for the church, stfu :headbang:
1. Actually, it isn't about "not getting enough". Read the thread.
2. I dislike it immensely when puppets jump on and flame the hell out of people... if you're going to do something as juvenile as that, at least have the courage to do it with your own nation.

ok woah woah woah, this went from someone ranting about not getting enough, to you recruiting cultists for the church, stfu :headbang:

Igashites, Christianity was brought up during the post, and then Kejott (and others) began to talk about religion. It naturally followed that I would try to answer. I wouldn't call it recruiting, but yeah, I guess it is in a way. I don't see why you have a problem with it, though. If you'd like to explain or give me a reason why I shouldn't speak up, I'd like to hear it and I'll do my best to answer it.

Actually, abstinence isn't *complete* BS. My fiance and I are following it pretty good (in my belief). We have never had sexual intercourse. Sexual encounters, yes, but no intercourse. It probably doesn't count as complete abstinence, but it does keep the possibility of PBS (Premature Baby Syndrome) from occurring. Neither of us have had parters other than ourselves, so what we do together is theoretically clean.

However, I would think that complete abstinence, unless someone grew up an extremely sheltered life, is not possible. And, if someone did grow up extremely sheltered, 1. easy to break that and 2. could cause emotional/sexual problems later. Probably the best way to deal with this "problem" is to simply educate. Explain the consequences of unprotected sex. Make it clear that no one is immune from STDs and that babies are not only a big responsibility, but very expensive. It should be explained with great concern that just about any sexual encounter has the chance of yielding a child. Telling a child simply not to do something doesn't stop them unless they know why they should not. Even then, it can't always be stopped. Humans will be human. Everyone is going to take chances and make mistakes. It is what defines us as "intelligent" beings.

By the way, if anyone has used the "liberals/conservatives are behind this!" argument, they're full of it. No one has to be liberal or conservative to be a complete idiot. I've seen stupidity from both sides. And for the record, I don't blame anyone about the lack of sexual education. It's still a taboo topic among some and the ones who do talk about it usually polarize. I'm only providing a possible solution. Judge it as you wish.

Abstinence kind of makes me sad. I can see the sense of it, I can understand the logic, but I simply find myself unable to accept it. Sex, good sex, is... well.. it's a sacrament. And even mediocre sex is a fun way to pass an afternoon. And when approached sensibly and intelligently, it's really rather safe.

I find it remarkable that a society that distributes, with minimal restrictions, devices to make metal move at extremely fast speeds and kill thousands of people a year (you've heard of the automobile?) has this incredible fear of human sexuality. Done right, it's not bad, it's not dirty, it's not shameful, it's not dangerous. It has its risks, but hell, so does eating. We teach our kids at a very early age not to put things that will make them sick into their mouths, but... I'm not going to finish the comparison, but I think you see where I'm going with it.

For the inevitable personal example, I am, some of you might say, promiscuous. I've had sex with people I'm madly in love with, with friends, with acquaintances, with near-strangers. And while generally speaking the former is better than the latter, I'll also say that I've had incredible sex with someone who's last name I never learnt, and I've had (repeatedly, over the years) really lousy sex with someone I care deeply for. This doesn't mean I care any less for him, merely that we're sexually incompatible.

That's the first point. Sometimes, for whatever reason, people just don't work out, sexually. More often, it takes time, a few tries, maybe even several tries, to make it work. I'd be reluctant to devote myself, monogamously, to someone I've never been in bed with. If marriage is something you take seriously, as I do and as I suspect the abstinence crowd does, you want to make it work, right? You'd never dream of marrying someone you've never, say, eaten a meal with, or who's parents you've never met, right? Why would you choose to roll the dice with one of the most important aspects of a healthy marriage?

Skills are another factor. As an individual of moderate experience, I suffer through substantially fewer subpar sessions these days, having figured out a few tricks. Sex is an important life skill, and one I would say is rather more important to my own health and well-being that the ability to pilot a high-speed chunk of metal. Yet we have special driver-training schools, and minimal sex education. The abstinence-only lobby would change that to no sex education whatsoever. I'd think you'd wanna at least cover the basics, if for no other reason than to avoid some of the more ridiculous mistakes, which at the very least can really ruin the atmosphere that first magical night after the wedding :P

Some people have been saying very sensible things about sex-ed, and then turning around and saying that, mind you, you can't go so far as to pull out diagrams or give helpful hints. And maybe I'd agree with that, in the context of public schools. Teachers have it tough enough as it is. But I disagree that these are things that children shouldn't know. Better the parents than pornography, better either than the schoolyard (at least porn will have a modicum of accuracy...) But I'd prefer to have a bunch of teenagers who actually know how to protect themselves running around having safe, enjoyable sex. The alternative being teenagers who don't know their arses from their elbows fucking like bunnies anyhow, except that bunnies probably manage to enjoy themselves, and generally don't come down with a bushel of unpleasant diseases in the process.

Yes, teaching self-control is a good idea, but teaching kids how to deal with this stuff is equally, if not more, important, no? Give 'em instructions on birth control, give 'em the talk on oral sex, on anal sex, on dominance and submission, on masturbation, on STDs, on emotions, on pregnancy, on pornography, on commitment. Teach 'em all how to put on a condom, and teach 'em all how to choose a dildo (materials, shapes and sizes, etc.) And send 'em out into the world as fully-functional human beings, rather than big children who don't understand things but do them anyways.

Blah, I start out trying to post something simple and quick and it turns into an essay length rant, and I've still got more to say. But we'll leave it at this for now.

Condoms are 100% efficiant at preventing pregnancy and can protect against most STI's... if used properly.

Just as abstinance is 100% efficiant if used properly.

The ineffeciency in condoms comes when it's not put on properly (i.e. backwards, or with air trapped inside) or when a condom breaks (though, it's very hard to do this, if you've ever tried) and this can be solved with lubrication (water based, if using a latex condom). Both problems can be solved with education and practicing on a banana. (or cucumber or whatever)

The inefficancy with abstenance is when you're not abstinant. And seeing as you've already had the edcuation there's nothing you can do about that. You can't improve abstinance through practising it. And seeing as the abstinance program doesn't mention anything about STI's, protection etc. you're pretty screwed if you mess up.

Oh, not to mention the fact that the abstinance program is completely homophobic. No sex before marriage? Well what if you can't marry? Celibacy for life I guess.

~Archasmadehispoint...

Oh, not to mention the fact that the abstinance program is completely homophobic. No sex before marriage? Well what if you can't marry? Celibacy for life I guess.
You bet it is. Even though many advocates of abstinence don't say it, it does argue against homosexuality, which is unfortunate for those who are homosexual. Those, I see no choice for. If homosexuals are going to enjoy each other sexually, they're going to have to do it out of wedlock. When they can marry, then people can argue abstinence to them.

Even then, I think abstinence is going the way of the Dodo. Times change and so do cultures. I still see problems with minors (people under 16 or 18) having sex since there is the fact that they will have healthier sex lives if they wait a few years more for their sexual organs to develop fully and completely. However, after that, who's right is it to dictate who others have sex with? Does a third party have the right to tell you that you can't have sex? I can see parents desiring their children not to have sex, but it's becoming harder and harder by the day to tell them not to. If parent's can't obstain until marriage, why should their children be forced to?

Now then, in any case, both sides have good arguments. Since keeping the children from doing each other (at least at an adult age) is near impossible, educating is just about the best we can do without causing chaos. Let everyone know just what happens before, during, and after sex. Give them knowledge. Knowledge is power when used properly. If the people having sex before (or even during) marriage, they will make their decisions with much more caution and care. If they deem the precautions necessary, they'll make them. If they don't, they'll find out soon enough why they should have done them. As my mom and dad are finding out, parents cannot fully immunize their children against the bad things they experienced.

Either way, educating people is better than just saying 'no'. How good of a decision can you make without knowing anything or knowing very little of sex when it presents itself? How much better do you think that decision could be with full knowledge of the situation?

Condoms are 100% efficiant at preventing pregnancy and can protect against most STI's... if used properly.

Even if used completley properly, condoms have a chance of failure.

Even if used completley properly, condoms have a chance of failure.

Some stats on that:
If you have sex for one year (average: 2-3 times a week) always applying a condom in the correct way, the chance of getting pregnant is about 3%.

Some stats on that:
If you have sex for one year (average: 2-3 times a week) always applying a condom in the correct way, the chance of getting pregnant is about 3%.

Of course, add in the pill which is about 99% effective if taken properly and you reduce that quite a bit. =)

Of course, add in the pill which is about 99% effective if taken properly and you reduce that quite a bit. =)

According to statistics I have got lying in front of (from the "Stern", German (reliable) magazine) it is even 99.9%; 99% only if considering mistakes (during / in / ...; dunno what is corrcet, please tell me) application.

Of course, add in the pill which is about 99% effective if taken properly and you reduce that quite a bit. =)


According to statistics I have got lying in front of (from the "Stern", German (reliable) magazine) it is even 99.9%; 99% only if considering mistakes (during / in / ...; dunno what is corrcet, please tell me) application.

Evil bastard that I am, I love this study:

Virginity Pledgers More Likely to Engage in Risky Sexual Behavior
Including Oral and Anal Sex

New York, NY - A study released in the March 18, 2005 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health by Hannah Brückner of Yale University and Peter Bearman of Columbia University shows that young people who took "virginity pledges," public promises to remain virgins until marriage, are nonetheless at risk of engaging in unsafe sexual practices.

"The research found that "pledgers" have the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged. Not only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, increasing possibility of transmission.

Furthermore researchers concluded that some pledgers engaged in alternative sexual behaviors in order to preserve their virginity. In fact, among those who had not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers are more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. The research shows that among virgins, male and female pledgers are six time more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.

"This research confirms what we have known for a long time," said Bill Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS). "Teens, regardless of whether they have a taken a virginity pledge, are engaging in behaviors that put them at risk for STDs and unintended pregnancy. It is vitally important that we provide all teens with the information and skills they need to protect themselves," Smith continued.

"Virginity pledges are the cornerstone of many federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Since 1982, the U.S. government has spent over a billion dollars on unproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Of that billion, $620 million dollars has been spent in just the last seven years. Under the leadership of President Bush there has been a continued expansion of investment in these programs with $168 million allocated in Fiscal Year 2005 alone. Now the President is seeking an all-time high of $206 million in his proposed Fiscal Year 2006 budget. These programs are prohibited from discussing contraceptives except in the context of failure rates and have never been proven effective.

"Not only do virginity pledges not work to keep our young people safe, they are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception, and medical treatment," said Smith. "Enough is enough. It is time for lawmakers to stop pushing their ideological agenda at the expense of young people and fund comprehensive and medically accurate sexuality education programs that work," Smith continued.

- # # # -

To view the report, go to: http://www.jahonline.org/ or http://www.iserp.Columbia.edu

http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0094.html

According to statistics I have got lying in front of (from the "Stern", German (reliable) magazine) it is even 99.9%; 99% only if considering mistakes (during / in / ...; dunno what is corrcet, please tell me) application.

I've seen that before as well I think - I was trying to be conservative. Very few women actually take the pill at *exactly* the same time every day and all sorts of things can affect hormones above and beyond it.

One way or another, if both are in use, the chances of pregnancy are miniscule (but not impossible).

Abstinence works... there was only 1 reported case of a virgin getting pregnant and even today, there are people doubting that case.

of course, I'm leaving out Artificial Insemmination and alien abduction.

I'm going to read the rest of this thread shortly, but I thought I'd stick an oar in. Ive no diea where the conversation has evolved to, so apologies if it's no longer along these lines.

Failure rates of properly used condoms are very low. Failure rates of condoms in practical use (i.e. often misused so they slip off, or or even including "left on the bedside cabinet until too late", sometimes) are higher, and these are the figures used by those who want to justify absitence.

Yet, strangely, those who want to justify an abstinence-only situation deal with the "proper use failure rate" of abstinence, and not its "misapplied use failure rate" which includes heavy-petting going too far and emotions getting too high. I would argue strongly that if you include those who were going to use condoms and didn't in one set of figures, you've got to include those those who weren't going to go all the way but did... Instead, those who go over the line are removed from the 'used abstinence' sample and placed into the 'not abstinent' one... And yet burst condoms, slipped-off condoms, incorrectly taken pills, various other forms of contraception that were attempted and failed are counted as failures along with the true (and unfortunate) failures of the relevant technique properly applied....

I disagree. I was taught abstinence, and I learned in the same program all about preventative ways. As if abstinence weren't enough, though...That's "Abstinence plus".
Your bog-standard Abstinence education that most people know about (and, indeed, is all that some people know about) says "Just say no" and leaves all the other stuff out, under the impression that this would encourage the kids to try it anyway...