NationStates Jolt Archive

As I sit here watching I Love the 70's I see a commercial about a teen guy talking his girlfriend into having sex with him; then it shows him with a baby and how hard it can be.

Well this got me thinking..

If they're going at the unprepared parent aspect of the issue, then lets say they are tested and STD free.

Now lets make those teens both male, gay, and STD free.


Would it be correct to say that gay teen sex is safer than hetero teen sex?

From my understanding,

Hetero or Homo sex are both as risky/safe

and if they dont have STDs, then its completely safe,

jsut with the Homo one you dont get babies

As I sit here watching I Love the 70's I see a commercial about a teen guy talking his girlfriend into having sex with him; then it shows him with a baby and how hard it can be.

Well this got me thinking..

If they're going at the unprepared parent aspect of the issue, then lets say they are tested and STD free.

Now lets make those teens both male, gay, and STD free.


Would it be correct to say that gay teen sex is safer than hetero teen sex?

In terms of not getting pregnant...Yes?

In terms of not getting pregnant...Yes?
In those terms homo pwns hetero.

Interpersonal issues being assumed equal (they may be, or may not, but whatever), the fact that homosexual sex cannot result in pregnancy certainly does make it safer in that respect.

Of course, the assumption that it is safer can potentially lead to carelessness, and then you might get AIDS or something if you have too much unprotected homosexual sex, but whatever.

In essence, yes.

In those terms homo pwns hetero.
We always do. :)

We always do. :)
you cant reproduce

so...

FAIL!

you cant reproduce

so...

FAIL!
Yeah? Well.. drat.

This is why there are anti-sodomy laws. "What!? All the benefits, fewer risks?! No babies! Those bastards. If I can't have that, then neither can they. Anti-sodomy laws, now, goddamn it."

This is why there are anti-sodomy laws. "What!? All the benefits, fewer risks?! No babies! Those bastards. If I can't have that, then neither can they. Anti-sodomy laws, now, goddamn it."
Anti-sodomy laws make so much sense to me now!

As I sit here watching I Love the 70's I see a commercial about a teen guy talking his girlfriend into having sex with him; then it shows him with a baby and how hard it can be.

Well this got me thinking..

If they're going at the unprepared parent aspect of the issue, then lets say they are tested and STD free.

Now lets make those teens both male, gay, and STD free.

Would it be correct to say that gay teen sex is safer than hetero teen sex?
Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron

Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron

Not if they're well educated, know the risks, know how to best protect themselves, and apply their knowledge.

Then there's nothing wrong with it.

Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron

Eutrusca+intelligence = oxymoron

(kidding)

you cant reproduce

so...

FAIL!

Gays are sterile???? :eek:

What if there are two STD free teens that practice.....


Heterosexual Sodomy!

I win.

This is why there are anti-sodomy laws.

No there aren't.

No there aren't.

Really? So in every country in the world there are no anti sodomy laws?

Really? So in every country in the world there are no anti sodomy laws?

There aren't any other countries outside the US, silly. Only US wannabes and rogue nations. :p

There aren't any other countries outside the US, silly. Only US wannabes and rogue nations. :p
So there are four nations? (US, UK, America II, and Australia)

Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron
Not only is that a lie, but it's patently offensive to teens, many of whom are just as mature/intelligent as most adults (and in some cases, more so).

So there are four nations? (US, UK, America II, and Australia)

I'm considering recognising Luxembourg, but I haven't decided yet.

ANYWAY

To rephrase, there are no anti-sodomy laws in the various United States.

Teen Sex is the most unstoppable force on the planet. May as well teach them to be safe.

Not only is that a lie, but it's patently offensive to teens, many of whom are just as mature/intelligent as most adults (and in some cases, more so).

Capable of the act, of course. I wouldn't be too sure about the subsequent pregnancy and parenthood.

unprotected sex, let alone unprotected teen sex, gay or straight, has it's risks and concequences.

What if there are two STD free teens that practice.....


Heterosexual Sodomy!

I win.Yes, I was going to say that, that just because a heterosexual couple is having sex, it doesn't mean that it's coitus.

Teen Sex is the most unstoppable force on the planet. May as well teach them to be safe.

Exactly.

Educate them about the risks so they can make informed decisions.

Not if they're well educated, know the risks, know how to best protect themselves, and apply their knowledge.

Then there's nothing wrong with it.
Never said there was anything "wrong" with it, I just don't think that most teens are mature enough to handle it. And that's based on experience.

Not only is that a lie, but it's patently offensive to teens, many of whom are just as mature/intelligent as most adults (and in some cases, more so).

I agree, I'm 19 and I don't think there is anything dangerous or wrong about my actions. Just because teens are younger than 20 yr. olds doesn't mean that sex will be unsafe for us.

I think that teens are more cautious about their sexual life because we're surrounded by sex education in high school and in college.
I think that adults engage in higher risk sexual activity because they meet people randomly at bars/clubs/work. But in high school and college everything is much more personal, you know more about the person your having intercourse with.

Never said there was anyting "wrong" with it, I just don't think that most teens are mature enough to handle it. And that's based on experience.

You said that safe teen sex is an oxymoron. I demonstrated how teen sex can be perfectly safe.

I don't believe the maturity of the individuals involved has anything to do with how safe the sex is, providing what I said in my post is followed (as it is by many teens).

Psychological repercussions are a different matter, and aren't included in how safe the sex is.

In those terms homo pwns hetero.

Always have, always will.

Capable of the act, of course. I wouldn't be too sure about the subsequent pregnancy and parenthood.

I'm willing to wager that the percentage of STDs spread by adults is much higher than the percent spread by teens. And I'd bet that's true even if you account for the fact that teens make up a smaller section of the population.


I think you were referring to the incoherent, grammatically incorrect version of my post beforehand. But you're correct in saying teens are less able to deal with children; that's largely not because of their maturity level but rather because of their situation in life (in school, no financial needs). My point was that teens are often as or more knowledgeable than many adults because of the uniquely modern emphasis on sex ed in high schools and middle schools, and that it's offensive to assume that all teenagers are irresponsible drunkards.

Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron

As we all know condoms and birth control pills only work when you turn 20!

No, if done safely, it doesn't matter how old you are, teens are perfectly capable of having safe sex provided they take the same precautions anyone else does.

One could argue that teen sex is probably SAFER as, being younger, they've had on average less sexual partners and thus have less of a chance of having already caught an STD

As we all know condoms and birth control pills only work when you turn 20!

No, if done safely, it doesn't matter how old you are, teens are perfectly capable of having safe sex provided they take the same precautions anyone else does.

One could argue that teen sex is probably SAFER as, being younger, they've had on average less sexual partners and thus have less of a chance of having already caught an STD
I think we may have shut him up.

it's offensive to assume that all teenagers are irresponsible drunkards.

Bah ... youth is wasted on the wrong people.

If you're not an irresponsible drunkard at 17, then what's the point? :p

I think we may have shut him up.

No, no, you don't know Eut...

Bah ... youth is wasted on the wrong people.

If you're not an irresponsible drunkard at 17, then what's the point? :p
Or at 27. Or at 37. Or at...

Or at 27. Or at 37. Or at...

Exactly! Hooray!

Not only is that a lie, but it's patently offensive to teens, many of whom are just as mature/intelligent as most adults (and in some cases, more so).
It's neither a "lie" nor "offensive." Get over yourself.

Yes, of course, in that situation.

No, no, you don't know Eut...
LOL! :p

Exactly! Hooray!
Hooray Beer!

You said that safe teen sex is an oxymoron. I demonstrated how teen sex can be perfectly safe.


I hate to say this and be all preachy and shit but... ugh.... *puts on teacher voice*: No sex is perfectly safe there will always be risks. Abstinence is the only completely safe option.(according to my teachers(except maybe mastrubation?))

No I'm going into a corner to beat myself..

As we all know condoms and birth control pills only work when you turn 20!

No, if done safely, it doesn't matter how old you are, teens are perfectly capable of having safe sex provided they take the same precautions anyone else does.

One could argue that teen sex is probably SAFER as, being younger, they've had on average less sexual partners and thus have less of a chance of having already caught an STD
I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but sex is about far, far more than just avoiding STDs.

I hate to say this and be all preachy and shit but... ugh.... *puts on teacher voice*: No sex is perfectly safe there will always be risks. Abstinence is the only completely safe option.(according to my teachers(except maybe mastrubation?))

No I'm going into a corner to beat myself..

If the girl is on the pill, a condom and a femidom are used, and neither partner has an STD then sex is perfectly safe. Well, 99.9% anyway.

It's neither a "lie" nor "offensive." Get over yourself.
Evidence>ad hominem. You've yet to provide any.

To see why it's a lie, read my above posts.

It's offensive because you make assumptions based on stereotypes about an entire subsection of a population that have little correspondence to reality.

Finally, even if you're right in most cases, you structurally can't win this argument. Your initial claim was that there is no such thing as safe teen sex. You'd have to prove that every instance of a teen couple having sexual relations was inherently dangerous. As there's no evidence about the specific behavior of every couple, there's no way for you to prove your argument.

Finally, "over myself?" Where did that come from?

I'm considering recognising Luxembourg, but I haven't decided yet.



Do it! They have 202 banks and it's the size of Oakland county.

I hate to say this and be all preachy and shit but... ugh.... *puts on teacher voice*: No sex is perfectly safe there will always be risks. Abstinence is the only completely safe option.(according to my teachers(except maybe mastrubation?))

No I'm going into a corner to beat myself..

I surprise myself by saying this.. but I agree with you.

All sex is risky, just varying degrees of.

No contraceptive is 100% effective, so the only way to be TOTALY safe, is to never have sex

...although durex has never let me down yet...and I actually cant take the pill. So I have to be prepared for any 'consequences' should my methods ever fail.

*shrug*

(except maybe mastrubation?))

No I'm going into a corner to beat myself..

Out of context...wait, fuck it. In context, that's hilarious.

If the girl is on the pill, a condom and a femidom are used, and neither partner has an STD then sex is perfectly safe.
Quite true; the problem is teens refuse to use them or don't take the necessary steps toward protection.

If the girl is on the pill, a condom and a femidom are used, and neither partner has an STD then sex is perfectly safe. Well, 99.9% anyway.

Still not perfect. I'm not saying avoid sex.... I'm just correcting.

Quite true; the problem is teens refuse to use them or don't take the necessary steps toward protection.

I know some who do.

To tar all teenagers with the same brush is to ignore the reality that there are some responsible teenagers who take precautions and enjoy sex safely.

Still not perfect. I'm not saying avoid sex.... I'm just correcting.

Whatever, mister pessimist.

To all intents and purposes, what I have said is perfectly safe.

Quite true; the problem is teens refuse to use them or don't take the necessary steps toward protection.

That's so not true. (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/fact_sheets/genfacts.asp)

I know some who do.

To tar all teenagers with the same brush is to ignore the reality that there are some responsible teenagers who take precautions and enjoy sex safely.
That's true; or they're like me and complete virgins going out with complete virgins...*sigh*. Parents.

That's so not true. (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/reading/fact_sheets/genfacts.asp)
"the last time they had sex"
they may not use contraceptives at all times

Whatever, mister pessimist.
Ms. Pessimist thank you.

To all intents and purposes, what I have said is perfectly safe.
perfect= 100/100
In your situation: 99.99/100 = not perfectly safe. Safe enough to fuck all you want but not perfectly safe.

I'm an annoying little fucker aren't I? (horrible pun intented)

Ms. Pessimist thank you.

Apologies :)


perfect= 100/100
In your situation: 99.99/100 = not perfectly safe. Safe enough to fuck all you want but not perfectly safe.

I still maintain that it can be called perfectly safe as the odds of failure are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

I'm an annoying little fucker aren't I? (horrible pun intented)

Yup :p

"the last time they had sex"
they may not use contraceptives at all times
Irrelevant. The sole point of that link was to prove your broad, general statement false. Plus, the last paragraph uses this research and more to find a general trend of increase in contraceptive use.

I still maintain that it can be called perfectly safe as the odds of failure are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

That depends on how often you have sex...

Irrelevant. The sole point of that link was to prove your broad, general statement false. Plus, the last paragraph uses this research and more to find a general trend of increase in contraceptive use.
I don't care, I'm never having sex anyway.

I don't care, I'm never having sex anyway.


Sucks for you. Although, I suppose not if taken literally...

That depends on how often you have sex...

*sigh*...

Sucks for you. Although, I suppose not if taken literally...
Who wants to? I don't need to have sex to feel good or cool...and if I'm going into medical school, it wouldn't be to good to get pregnant, would it?

:eek: So all of you are saying that telling teenagers about their bodies AND about contraceptives will PREVENT teen pregnancies?! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! WHY ARE YOU TEACHING THEM THIS BS?! :eek: YOU MINDLESS IDIOTS!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!




:rolleyes:

I still maintain that it can be called perfectly safe as the odds of failure are so small as to be statistically insignificant.


*whiny voice* But it's still not peeeeeeeeeeerfect.

That depends on how often you have sex...

I know I wish I were having enough sex for that to be statistically relevant...

Who wants to? I don't need to have sex to feel good or cool...and if I'm going into medical school, it wouldn't be to good to get pregnant, would it?
Beyond my jokes, sex is about a lot more than just feeling good. Plus, never is a harsh word.

Evidence>ad hominem. You've yet to provide any.

To see why it's a lie, read my above posts.

It's offensive because you make assumptions based on stereotypes about an entire subsection of a population that have little correspondence to reality.

Finally, even if you're right in most cases, you structurally can't win this argument. Your initial claim was that there is no such thing as safe teen sex. You'd have to prove that every instance of a teen couple having sexual relations was inherently dangerous. As there's no evidence about the specific behavior of every couple, there's no way for you to prove your argument.

Finally, "over myself?" Where did that come from?
Dude ... I helped raise five kids, who later became teenages, who are now responsible adults. I know some things about teenagers. Two of my grand children are now teenagers, and they come to me for advice before they even talk to their parents.

I have no intentions to be offensive. If you choose to take offense at a relatively innocuous remark made on an Internet forum by someone you don't know, that's your business. And I'm almost equally sure that if I started listing reasons why Safe Teenage Sex = oxymoron, you'd be just as eager to attack me as you are without those reasons.

Ergo, it's neither a lie nor offensive, at least in my own view. If you'd like to go to moderation and raise hell about it, feel free to do so. I couldn't give a rat's ass less.

I still maintain that it can be called perfectly safe as the odds of failure are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

and how do you think they get these statistics? take a few people, make them have sex and see how many times it takes before one of them gets pregnant or an std? these are tested in sterilised environments, hardly very accurate.

Beyond my jokes, sex is about a lot more than just feeling good. Plus, never is a harsh word.
I want to make a point to the world...so I don't want to have sex. Ever. If my boyfriend has a problem with that, and I've told him but I don't know how he feels, he can go masturbate to console himself.

I want to make a point to the world...so I don't want to have sex. Ever. If my boyfriend has a problem with that, and I've told him but I don't know how he feels, he can go masturbate to console himself.
Damn...

Dude ... I helped raise five kids, who later became teenages, who are now responsible adults. I know some things about teenagers. Two of my grand children are now teenagers, and they come to me for advice before they even talk to their parents.

I have no intentions to be offensive. If you choose to take offense and a relatively innocuous remark made on an Internet forum by someone you don't know, that's your business. And I'm almost equally sure that if I started listing reasons why Safe Teenage Sex = oxymoron, you'd be just as eager to attack me as you are without those reasons.

Ergo, it's neither a lie nor offensive, at least in my own view. If you'd like to go to moderation and raise hell about it, feel free to do so. I couldn't give a rat's ass less.


Wow, aren't we tetchy.

Again, none of that is argument. Further, I'm not "taking offense" and certainly have no intention of "going to moderation." And yes, I would "attack" you, because I think you're wrong. Saying something is offensive is a reason why that argument should be disqualified, at least in my book. I can see why you thought I meant it was one of those things that people go off and whine about in moderation, but not my intention. I'm just arguing with you. So fire away, if you've actually got rounds in your metaphorical rifle.

Damn...

My thoughts exactly..

Damn...
Yep...though we fluffle a lot to make up for it. ;)

I want to make a point to the world...so I don't want to have sex. Ever. If my boyfriend has a problem with that, and I've told him but I don't know how he feels, he can go masturbate to console himself.
That is certainly an opinion you're entitled to have. And given the very personal nature of that opinion, I have no right nor intention of judging you. I just wouldn't make the same choice, and I'm giving my reasons as to why.

Again, none of that is argument. Further, I'm not "taking offense" and certainly have no intention of "going to moderation." And yes, I would "attack" you, because I think you're wrong. Saying something is offensive is a reason why that argument should be disqualified, at least in my book. I can see why you thought I meant it was one of those things that people go off and whine about in moderation, but not my intention. I'm just arguing with you. So fire away, if you've actually got rounds in your metaphorical rifle.
Uh ... it's an allegorical rifle, not a metaphorical one. :)

You're welcome to think I'm wrong. That's your perogative. But as I indicated above, I'll take the word of someone who's been there and done that with alacratiy over the allegations of someone who hasn't.

*sigh*...

Hey, I'm just saying...


:p

Uh ... it's an allegorical rifle, not a metaphorical one. :)

You're welcome to think I'm wrong. That's your perogative. But as I indicated above, I'll take the word of someone who's been there and done that with alacratiy over the allegations of someone who hasn't.
No, that's definitely a metaphor. The gun was a metaphor for your thesis, and the bullets metaphors for warrants supporting the thesis.


How do you know I haven't?

Further, you still haven't presented a word to take.

No, that's definitely a metaphor. The gun was a metaphor for your thesis, and the bullets metaphors for warrants supporting the thesis.


How do you know I haven't?

Further, you still haven't presented a word to take.
So sue me.

Yep...though we fluffle a lot to make up for it. ;)
Fluffles do nothing to appease the raging hormones inside of me. Just speaking personally. :)

So sue me.

One day you will be sued for something...You will

:D

unprotected sex, let alone unprotected teen sex, gay or straight, has it's risks and concequences.

Yah, noted. But there's risk even *with* protection- you're kinda riskin broken hearts and emotional shtuff like that. For once the abstinence class in my State got somefink right. *runs around screaming "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"*:D

But since we're not speaking emotionally here... For hetro, there's risks of pregnancy, but not for homo, so yeah, homo is probably safer. *nod*

So sue me.

Sheesh, what does a guy have to do to get an argument around here...

Sheesh, what does a guy have to do to get an argument around here...

talk about religion....

One day you will be sued for something...You will

:D
In this suit-happy Country, I wouldn't take any bets that I won't! :)

talk about religion....
OMFG! RUN, mo-fo, RUN! :eek:

talk about religion....

Oh God... NO!!!!! :eek: :(

god...
*ducks and covers*

Whew... no religious dicussion/flamewar. :D

Why don't we just flame all the states that have made abstinence-class mandatory? :headbang: :upyours:

assuming no STD's (which is a huge assumption) and proper lubrication and technique I would suppose that anal sex is safter from the "no baby" standpoint.

However, STD's can pass through anal sex and can be very dangerous if not performed properly (I will save you all the details though;))

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but sex is about far, far more than just avoiding STDs.
It isn’t? I mean, I guess you have to watch out for pregnancy too, but that’s really just the most common STD. Best of all, there’s a 100% effective cure for it in abortion. Not really an issue for reasonable people.

As I sit here watching I Love the 70's I see a commercial about a teen guy talking his girlfriend into having sex with him; then it shows him with a baby and how hard it can be.

Well this got me thinking..

If they're going at the unprepared parent aspect of the issue, then lets say they are tested and STD free.

Now lets make those teens both male, gay, and STD free.


Would it be correct to say that gay teen sex is safer than hetero teen sex?
Based SOLELY on the issue of unwanted pregnancies (and sex is impossible to distill to that kind of singularity), yes.

This is why there are anti-sodomy laws. "What!? All the benefits, fewer risks?! No babies! Those bastards. If I can't have that, then neither can they. Anti-sodomy laws, now, goddamn it."
Uh...psst!

Straight couples can have anal sex, too! Even the women can tool up an ride.

*whiny voice* But it's still not peeeeeeeeeeerfect.
Nothing is.

Dude ... I helped raise five kids, who later became teenages, who are now responsible adults. I know some things about teenagers. Two of my grand children are now teenagers, and they come to me for advice before they even talk to their parents.

I have no intentions to be offensive. If you choose to take offense at a relatively innocuous remark made on an Internet forum by someone you don't know, that's your business. And I'm almost equally sure that if I started listing reasons why Safe Teenage Sex = oxymoron, you'd be just as eager to attack me as you are without those reasons.

Ergo, it's neither a lie nor offensive, at least in my own view. If you'd like to go to moderation and raise hell about it, feel free to do so. I couldn't give a rat's ass less.

*Vegas fanfare*

Ladies and gentlemen, our own NS General Bull In A China Shop, EUTRUSCA! Give 'im a big hand folks, he's here all week. Please tip your servers. Try the veal.

Nothing is.

...cheesecake?

Yah, noted. But there's risk even *with* protection- you're kinda riskin broken hearts and emotional shtuff like that. For once the abstinence class in my State got somefink right. *runs around screaming "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"*:D

But since we're not speaking emotionally here... For hetro, there's risks of pregnancy, but not for homo, so yeah, homo is probably safer. *nod*
The risk of heartbreak and "emotional stuff" can come from anywhere. Hell, acquire and care for a pet -- you're purchasing a small tragedy right there!

Heartbreak, misunderstandings and interpersonal drama are almost always avoidable if couples would do one simple thing.

COMMUNICATE.

Both Women and men have their issues here. I'm always appalled when I ask someone who's come to me for advice or an ear if they've talked to their boyfriend/girlfriend about any of their strife, and the answer is almost always "no". Or if it's "yes", they complain that the other person doesn't listen.

Folks, if you can't come to an understanding and talk to another person, you sure as hell don't need to be fucking them. Only when both involved are sure of where the other stands -- AND NOBODY'S LYING -- is there preparation that can successfully defend against emotional turmoil.

...cheesecake?
Calorically and cardiovascularly imperfect. And when it's made better in those regards, the initial taste/texture perfection is compromised.

Calorically and cardiovascularly imperfect. And when it's made better in those regards, the initial taste/texture perfection is compromised.

...watermelons?

You know why religious zealots and other uptight folks who want to control everything about sex and morality think sex is bad? Because sex with them always is.

...watermelons?
Seeds. Also messy.

Alright, alright, I get the point. Personally, I have never like the flavor or texture of ANY produce melon. See how I slipped the qualifier "produce" in there to avoid someone claiming I didn't like breasts via deliberate slang interpolation? After being a Generalite since April 2005, I finally learn.

So, watermelon. I must recuse myself from judging perfection there as I hate (produce) melons of all kinds. Anyone a watermelon fan who can attest to its perfection?

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but sex is about far, far more than just avoiding STDs.

Dude, I'm well into my 20s, and believe it or not, i've had sex once or twice.

The risks of pregnancy, as far as the physical are STDs, and pregnancy. You avoid both through proper birth control and STD prevention devices. The risk of these devices failing are the same whether you're 16, 26, or 46. The ONLY consideration I might be able to conceede is that at 16, most young women are far more fertile than say...at 36, thus SHOULD the birth control fail, the risk of pregnancy at that point is higher when you're younger. But still we're talking pretty small odds here.

Although sex is more than just an STD and pregnancy risk, those ARE the risks associated with it, and it's perfectly possible to minimize them when you're a teenager, equally as easy when you're older.

Where it gets tricker however is:

a) the emotional impact involved

and

b) what you do if those methods fail

HOWEVER neither of those fall within the realm of "safe sex"

Fluffles do nothing to appease the raging hormones inside of me. Just speaking personally. :)
I have no hormones. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You shall be assimilated.

I have no hormones. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You shall be assimilated.
Sonofabitch....

Sonofabitch....
Mua-ha-ha! *finds chainsaw*
Vrr...
Vrr..
Damn thing won't start!

It's neither a "lie" nor "offensive." Get over yourself.
Yes, it is a lie, and it is offensive to me.

No there aren't.

You lie, sodomy laws are governed by the states, and still apply in the U.S., except most states have repealed, the states that haven't and the penalty are as follows:


Alabama -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1 year/$2,000)
Florida -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (60 days/$500)
Idaho -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years to life)
Kansas -- Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Louisiana -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$2,000)
Michigan -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty =(15 years)
Mississippi -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years
Missouri -- Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1 year/$1,000)
North Carolina -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years/discretionary fine)
Oklahoma -- Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)
South Carolina -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$500)
Texas --Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = ($500)
Utah -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Virginia -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1-5 years)

Yeah...might want to check things out first.

Yeah...might want to check things out first.

Like Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)?

You lie, sodomy laws are governed by the states, and still apply in the U.S., except most states have repealed, the states that haven't and the penalty are as follows:


Alabama -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1 year/$2,000)
Florida -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (60 days/$500)
Idaho -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years to life)
Kansas -- Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Louisiana -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$2,000)
Michigan -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty =(15 years)
Mississippi -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years
Missouri -- Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1 year/$1,000)
North Carolina -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years/discretionary fine)
Oklahoma -- Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)
South Carolina -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$500)
Texas --Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = ($500)
Utah -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Virginia -- All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1-5 years)

Yeah...might want to check things out first.
I find it incredibly amusing to note that all of these states have a heavy Republican voter base, as well as a huge majority of Christians. Hmm...

On a side note, how often do they actually enforce these laws anymore anyway?

On a side note, how often do they actually enforce these laws anymore anyway?

Never. The Supreme Court invalidated them. See the link in my last post.

Never. The Supreme Court invalidated them. See the link in my last post.
Ah. Once again, SCOTUS does something right.

Having babies isn't unsafe...

Like Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)?

Lawrence v. Texas repeals most, but not all. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. However, the decesion only over turns laws which are based on Bowers v. Hardwick. Lawrence v. Texas by no means repeals all sodomy laws, and can't touch neutral sodomy laws (ones that give equal rights regardless of sexual prefrence)

Having babies isn't unsafe...
Yes, it really is. You see, babies have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere happens to be inside of a female human being. The process of growing a baby inside one's body, and then pushing it out through an openning the size of an apple, is a VERY serious process with many serious medical issues.

For the majority of human history, a large percentage of the population perished in childbirth. Even today, in the most technologically advanced nations in the world, pregnancy and childbirth can still be fatal.

And that doesn't even include all the dangers of being a teenager who has a baby. It is profoundly unsafe for young people to be procreating, as they are risking their future security and safety in doing so.

Now, this is not to say that nobody should have babies. There are plenty of reasons why having a baby can be worth all the risks and the dangers, just like there are plenty of very good reasons to drive a car even though there are many risks and dangers that one faces when driving. But the fact remains that, all other things being equal, an individual will be safer if she does NOT have a baby than if she does have one. From a medical standpoint, at least.

Interesting way to look at things. I guess in terms of pregnancy it's clearly quite different. I mean, in one homosexual sex it's impossible.

As I sit here watching I Love the 70's I see a commercial ...

Sorry. I watched TV in the seventies, and there's no way I'm taking this seriously.
No. fucking. way.

Sex is risky because ... you can get STD's.
And babies. Who grow up.
And relationships. Which end.
And ex-lovers. Who hate you.

Therefore, teens should have sex with animals.
Sheep for guys.
Horses for girls.

You know it makes sense.

Yeah? Well.. drat.

I like being able to reproduce. :rolleyes:

Dude ... I helped raise five kids, who later became teenages, who are now responsible adults. I know some things about teenagers. Two of my grand children are now teenagers, and they come to me for advice before they even talk to their parents.

All of which makes it particularly silly for you to say things like, "Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron." It shows how little respect you have for young people, and for the young people in your life.

Plenty of teens are quite capable of having safe sex. It's as stupid to say, "Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron" as it is to say "Safe Adult Sex = oxymoron." If you really want to be a positive influence in the lives of young people, take time off from your Grumpy Geezer Olympics training, and try listening for a change.


I have no intentions to be offensive. If you choose to take offense at a relatively innocuous remark made on an Internet forum by someone you don't know, that's your business.

Just like how a guy who says "Safe Black Sex = oxymoron" isn't intending to be offensive, and it's a black person's fault if they are offended by such a statement.


And I'm almost equally sure that if I started listing reasons why Safe Teenage Sex = oxymoron, you'd be just as eager to attack me as you are without those reasons.

So? Are you really saying that you can't be bothered to present reasoned discourse because people might still disagree with you if you do?

Ergo, it's neither a lie nor offensive, at least in my own view. If you'd like to go to moderation and raise hell about it, feel free to do so. I couldn't give a rat's ass less.
Your statement that "Safe Teen Sex = oxymoron" is false. Whether or not that constitutes a lie could be debated. Whether or not you "intended" it to be offensive is irrelevant.

As old and traveled as you are, you knew EXACTLY what kind of response you would get for posting that statement, and you decided to post it anyway. Then you decided to turn around and wag your finger at those who responded in exactly the way you knew they would. You are behaving at a level far lower than that of the young people you presume to criticize.

Sorry. I watched TV in the seventies, and there's no way I'm taking this seriously.
No. fucking. way.

Sex is risky because ... you can get STD's.
And babies. Who grow up.
And relationships. Which end.
And ex-lovers. Who hate you.

Therefore, teens should have sex with animals.
Sheep for guys.
Horses for girls.

You know it makes sense.But what happens when a man falls in love with his sheep and then someone cooks it? Wouldn't that be riskier than the fallout from a breakup between humans?

The risks of pregnancy, as far as the physical are STDs, and pregnancy. You avoid both through proper birth control and STD prevention devices.
I would like to point out that you don't avoid pregnancy and STD's through prevention devices, you only reduce your risk of them. That's why I don't like the term "safe sex" it should be "safer sex".

As I sit here watching I Love the 70's I see a commercial about a teen guy talking his girlfriend into having sex with him; then it shows him with a baby and how hard it can be.

Well this got me thinking..

If they're going at the unprepared parent aspect of the issue, then lets say they are tested and STD free.

Now lets make those teens both male, gay, and STD free.


Would it be correct to say that gay teen sex is safer than hetero teen sex?


An interesting point. If both were STD free and were not planning on cheating then yes gay sex would be safer than hetreosexual teen sex.

I would like to point out that you don't avoid pregnancy and STD's through prevention devices, you only reduce your risk of them. That's why I don't like the term "safe sex" it should be "safer sex".
And, thus, two teenage girls having sex together are practicing significantly "safer sex" than a man and a woman would be, since lesbian sex carries the lowest risk of pregnancy and STD transmission.

Which might explain why my mother kept trying to fix me up with girls when I was in high school...

Well, anal sex can be very unpleasant with people who are inexperienced. Remeber kids, theres no such thing as too much lube.

Well, anal sex can be very unpleasant with people who are inexperienced. Remeber kids, theres no such thing as too much lube.
Dude, ALL sex can be unpleasent for people who are inexperienced. Remember kids, there's no such thing as too much foreplay.

Lawrence v. Texas repeals most, but not all. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. However, the decesion only over turns laws which are based on Bowers v. Hardwick. Lawrence v. Texas by no means repeals all sodomy laws, and can't touch neutral sodomy laws (ones that give equal rights regardless of sexual prefrence)

Generally incorrect. lawrence made two arguments:

1) That sodomy laws that applied to homosexual but not heterosexual sodemy were invalid because of a failure in equal protection (can't target gays but not straight action)

2) that criminalizing sexual acts between adults was a violation of due process and privacy rights.

the vote was 6-3. 5 justices in favor voted for option 2, that all anti sodomy laws are illegal since they violate substantive due process rights to privacy.

Only O'Connor of the 6 voted in option 1. It was only HER opinion that stated that sexually neutral sodomy laws would be valid. Conventional legal scholarship all seems to agree that if any neutral sodomy laws were to be challenged then they'd be invalidated based on the 5 vote majority that they violate substantive due process.

The idea that it violates equal protection was merely Oconnor's concurrence, it was not the view of the 5 vote majority.

You lie, sodomy laws are governed by the states, and still apply in the U.S., except most states have repealed, the states that haven't and the penalty are as follows:

Texas --Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = ($500)

Yeah...might want to check things out first.


This one in particular amused me. You might want to check things out yourself, this was the SPECIFIC law that Lawrence v. Texas was about.

I would like to point out that you don't avoid pregnancy and STD's through prevention devices, you only reduce your risk of them. That's why I don't like the term "safe sex" it should be "safer sex".

Fair enough, but we're talking "safe sex" in the common use, not the literal one. If one wants to insist that there is no such thing as "safe teen sex" then technically the only true safe sex that is TRULY safe is two virgins, one of which is infertile, or two virgins of the same gender.

Moreover I take issue with the term "teen". I know its use in this context generally means 14, 15, 16, but when I was 19 and in college with a steady girlfriend, we used all standard precaution, as did most our age.

We generally mean "young teen" but lets not forget there are plenty of perfectly mature 18 and 19 year olds out there.

Dude, ALL sex can be unpleasent for people who are inexperienced. Remember kids, there's no such thing as too much foreplay.
quoted for truth

Fair enough, but we're talking "safe sex" in the common use, not the literal one. If one wants to insist that there is no such thing as "safe teen sex" then technically the only true safe sex that is TRULY safe is two virgins, one of which is infertile, or two virgins of the same gender.
true. I am not too worried about the term safe sex, but more about the people who say "if I wear a condom I avoid all risk" not only is it untrue, but it is dangerous to lead people to believe that, do you greatly reduce the risk? yes, but is it completely gone? no. people should know exactly what they are getting into.

true. I am not too worried about the term safe sex, but more about the people who say "if I wear a condom I avoid all risk" not only is it untrue, but it is dangerous to lead people to believe that, do you greatly reduce the risk? yes, but is it completely gone? no. people should know exactly what they are getting into.

which is why this shit should be taught in public school starting at age 14ish.

which is why this shit should be taught in public school starting at age 14ish.
14 is a little late, I say they should start covering it all when they do the "your body is changing" talk about 3rd grade. ;) it would transition nicely from "this is how babies are made" to "this is how you can reduce the risk"

which is why this shit should be taught in public school starting at age 14ish.
14?!?!?!! Sex ed should start by age 9, at the very latest. By 14, most kids have started puberty, a great many have already been dating, and (at least in my high school) roughly a quarter have already had sex.

14?!?!?!! Sex ed should start by age 9, at the very latest. By 14, most kids have started puberty, a great many have already been dating, and (at least in my high school) roughly a quarter have already had sex.

I dont mean general biology "this is how babies are made" but more specific "this is how you put a condom on" sort of stuff.

I think before 14 the effect may be lost on enough of the students to lose the purpose of the class, I think by that age they're old enough to understand the situation and what is being taught.

Fair enough, but we're talking "safe sex" in the common use, not the literal one. If one wants to insist that there is no such thing as "safe teen sex" then technically the only true safe sex that is TRULY safe is two virgins, one of which is infertile, or two virgins of the same gender.

Moreover I take issue with the term "teen". I know its use in this context generally means 14, 15, 16, but when I was 19 and in college with a steady girlfriend, we used all standard precaution, as did most our age.

We generally mean "young teen" but lets not forget there are plenty of perfectly mature 18 and 19 year olds out there.
and plenty of perfectly immature 19, 20, 21 year olds, etc.

I'm STD-Free! My sister was gonna make Tee-shirts gor those who are STD free.

Even if there are no dangers to one's health or concern about pregnancy, having sex is very emotional, especially when you do it the first time. I think kids should do it whenever they want, so long as they practice safety precautions, and are completely ready for it. To many teens are afraid to say "NO!" or to keep saying "no." Who cares what any other asshole thinks anyways? The ones who think less of you are the same ones who are more likely to end up parenting a child or contracting an STD, either that or to ostracize someone for having this happen, despite the fact that it is a direct result of action they encouraged.

Just wait till your ready. When your ready, wrap it up. Thats all i'm saying.

I dont mean general biology "this is how babies are made" but more specific "this is how you put a condom on" sort of stuff.

Right. And I think 9 years old is about the right time to start covering that. Leaving it until after kids have already started fucking is a bit silly, don't you think?


I think before 14 the effect may be lost on enough of the students to lose the purpose of the class, I think by that age they're old enough to understand the situation and what is being taught.
I think kids fuck before 14, so we'd probably better start educating them about fucking before 14.

It's like how we'd be pretty stupid to start teaching driver's ed to high school seniors. The idea should be to educate kids BEFORE they start having sex, just like we would want to teach them to drive BEFORE they are behind the wheel.

and plenty of perfectly immature 19, 20, 21 year olds, etc.



yes yes, there are mature 15 year olds and immature 40 year old, we all know the line, doesn't change law of averages.

however when we say "teen" we generally mean "child", I'm merely pointing out that in our society, 18 and 19 year olds, while technically still teenagers, ARE adults, and as a general sense, are far more likely to use protection than someone 14/15.

Right. And I think 9 years old is about the right time to start covering that. Leaving it until after kids have already started fucking is a bit silly, don't you think?

I think we're just in disagreement at what point that material can be presented in the most efficient mannor. I think 9 is too young, not for moralist reasons, but because I think it's too young for the import of what is being discussed to sink in. There's a lot of a difference between "this is how babies are made" and "this is how pregnancy can fuck up YOUR life". I don't think children at 9 are truly capable of understanding the serious possible ramifications of their acts, which is necessary for any sort of education of that nature to be effective

I may be able to go as low as 12, but below that i think is just too young to really learn the importance of what is being said.

I think we're just in disagreement at what point that material can be presented in the most efficient mannor. I think 9 is too young, not for moralist reasons, but because I think it's too young for the import of what is being discussed to sink in. There's a lot of a difference between "this is how babies are made" and "this is how pregnancy can fuck up YOUR life". I don't think children at 9 are truly capable of understanding the serious possible ramifications of their acts, which is necessary for any sort of education of that nature to be effective

I may be able to go as low as 12, but below that i think is just too young to really learn the importance of what is being said.
I saw a news story the other day about 9 and 10 year olds having oral sex, surely it's a good idea to point out to them that a condom would reduce the chance of STD, not that I like the idea of 9 year olds doing that, but if they are doing it, I really don't like the idea of 9 year old girls with gonorrhea.

I saw a news story the other day about 9 and 10 year olds having oral sex, surely it's a good idea to point out to them that a condom would reduce the chance of STD, not that I like the idea of 9 year olds doing that, but if they are doing it, I really don't like the idea of 9 year old girls with gonorrhea.

Yeah, but even if it's in the news, that's still really bloody uncommon. By 9 years a lot of kids still have stuffed animals and action figures. I still think it's too young for the material to be presented in a way where its importance would be appreciated by the audience.

12, maybe. Younger than that and it's too young to be overly effective.

Yeah, but even if it's in the news, that's still really bloody uncommon. By 9 years a lot of kids still have stuffed animals and action figures. I still think it's too young for the material to be presented in a way where its importance would be appreciated by the audience.

12, maybe. Younger than that and it's too young to be overly effective.
I would rather go over their heads early than to wait until it's too late.

It's not like a one time thing though, or it shoudln't be, "the talk" always annoys me, like you sit the kid down once, give them all the information you think they can handle about sex and then never speak of it again..... weird.

The risk of heartbreak and "emotional stuff" can come from anywhere. Hell, acquire and care for a pet -- you're purchasing a small tragedy right there!

Heartbreak, misunderstandings and interpersonal drama are almost always avoidable if couples would do one simple thing.

COMMUNICATE.

Both Women and men have their issues here. I'm always appalled when I ask someone who's come to me for advice or an ear if they've talked to their boyfriend/girlfriend about any of their strife, and the answer is almost always "no". Or if it's "yes", they complain that the other person doesn't listen.

Folks, if you can't come to an understanding and talk to another person, you sure as hell don't need to be fucking them. Only when both involved are sure of where the other stands -- AND NOBODY'S LYING -- is there preparation that can successfully defend against emotional turmoil.

Yeah, but with teens... communication with ANYONE is quite difficult.

But are you saying that abstinence class WASN'T right about something...?

*whew* no apocalyptic events then! WHOO HOO!

I think we're just in disagreement at what point that material can be presented in the most efficient mannor. I think 9 is too young, not for moralist reasons, but because I think it's too young for the import of what is being discussed to sink in.

Well, let me reassure you then: you're wrong.

I knew this stuff before I was in intermediate school (which starts at 4th grade). I remember, because 4th grade is when sex ed started in my district, and I already knew all the stuff they were talking about.

I'm pretty average in intelligence, and nobody will ever accuse me of being particularly mature. I simply had parents who recognized that children are perfectly capable of understanding the basics about sex, contraception, and procreation, so long as the material is presented clearly and calmly. (And, hopefully, with a bit of humor.)


There's a lot of a difference between "this is how babies are made" and "this is how pregnancy can fuck up YOUR life". I don't think children at 9 are truly capable of understanding the serious possible ramifications of their acts, which is necessary for any sort of education of that nature to be effective

They may not be able to fully grasp the ramifications, no. But they're certainly not too young to start hearing about it. It can take a long time for people to internalize messages about safe sex and responsible conduct, and the amount of time it takes will NOT decrease if you start teaching them later in life. No reason not to let them start thinking about it BEFORE they're having sex.


I may be able to go as low as 12, but below that i think is just too young to really learn the importance of what is being said.
Again, let me reassure you: you're wrong. Most 12 year olds are more than capable of understanding these lessons, though they obviously don't have full adult judgment yet. They aren't going to be able to fully grasp the significance of these lessons for a while, but that doesn't make the lessons any less critical. Particularly since most young people don't grasp the full siginficance of such lessons until years after they've started having sex.

Not only is that a lie, but it's patently offensive to teens, many of whom are just as mature/intelligent as most adults (and in some cases, more so).

I've ran into some pretty stupid teenagers in my life. And explain the teen pregnancy rate always going up. It's horrible here in Oklahoma along with the divorce rate. The reason why is that most teenagers I think don't have any experience with safe sex and misuse contraceptives.

I even know stupid teen girls who want children at like 16. If that's the case, then that's their own stupidity and I'll probably be paying for their baby food anyway. My tax dollars at work...

I've ran into some pretty stupid teenagers in my life.

I've run into some pretty stupid adults. What's your point?


And explain the teen pregnancy rate always going up.

Increases in teen pregnancy rates are found when sex ed is gutted, when sexual health care is gutted, and when puritanical ideology about sex is promoted.

One of the most reliable ways to reduce teen pregnancy rates is to increase comprehensive sex ed.

Which is kind of a no-brainer, right? I mean, if you took away driver's ed classes and had random people driving cars without any instruction whatsoever, you'd probably expect there to be a few more accidents, right? But if you teach people how to be safe drivers, you'd expect that there might be fewer accidents, seeing as how more people would have a better idea of how to drive safely, right?


It's horrible here in Oklahoma along with the divorce rate. The reason why is that most teenagers I think don't have any experience with safe sex and misuse contraceptives.

Right. Which has nothing to do with the kids being stupid, and everything to do with the adults being total idiots by refusing to educate their children.


I even know stupid teen girls who want children at like 16. If that's the case, then that's their own stupidity and I'll probably be paying for their baby food anyway. My tax dollars at work...
The problem is that they're not stupid at all. They are living in a situation in which they perceive very little gain for themselves through any other path in life. They see having a baby as the best way to ensure a good life for themselves, and they don't feel they have anything to lose by getting pregnant. That makes their decision perfectly reasonable, from their point of view.

If you feel (as I do) that they DO stand to lose a lot by getting pregnant at 16, then what you should be trying to do is educate them and show them all the wonderful things they can do BESIDES being baby machines. You should fight against the traditionalists who will tell these girls that their only purpose in life is to breed and clean a house for their man. You should help show them the many different futures that they can pursue, so that they will have a reason to work toward something instead of making babies they can't support.

Calling them stupid won't save you a dime. Helping them out can.

I've ran into some pretty stupid teenagers in my life. And explain the teen pregnancy rate always going up. It's horrible here in Oklahoma along with the divorce rate. The reason why is that most teenagers I think don't have any experience with safe sex and misuse contraceptives.

I even know stupid teen girls who want children at like 16. If that's the case, then that's their own stupidity and I'll probably be paying for their baby food anyway. My tax dollars at work...
WHOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! another OKie!!!!!

okay, anyway, the sex ed here sucks a big one, yeah, and about the divorce rate? kids get pregnant forced to get married with no education about healthy relationships, spend a few years in a bad marriage, get divorced, get married again, another bad marriage (no money or relationship skills still) pop out a few more kids, get divorced, get married again, ect.

btw where are you from in OK? just curious.....

The problem is that they're not stupid at all. They are living in a situation in which they perceive very little gain for themselves through any other path in life. They see having a baby as the best way to ensure a good life for themselves, and they don't feel they have anything to lose by getting pregnant. That makes their decision perfectly reasonable, from their point of view.

That's ridiculous. They may not have anything to lose by getting pregnant, but the family and the child do if the mother is too immature to raise it b/c the burden then falls on her mother and father to help raise their grandchild b/c the girl was ignorant and naive to begin with.

Increases in teen pregnancy rates are found when sex ed is gutted, when sexual health care is gutted, and when puritanical ideology about sex is promoted.

O rly... It's b/c of sex ed that kids know more about sex than the last generation and tend to misuse that knowledge. Teen pregnancy was taboo and rarely heard of when my grandparents and even my parents were growing up.

If you feel (as I do) that they DO stand to lose a lot by getting pregnant at 16, then what you should be trying to do is educate them and show them all the wonderful things they can do BESIDES being baby machines.

You just contradicted yourself buddy. Where do you really stand on teen pregnancy?

they don't feel they have anything to lose by getting pregnant. That makes their decision perfectly reasonable, from their point of view.

That's ridiculous. They may not have anything to lose by getting pregnant, but the family and the child do if the mother is too immature to raise it b/c the burden then falls on her mother and father to help raise their grandchild b/c the girl was ignorant and naive to begin with.

But that's what I'm saying...these girls don't see that they have anything to lose. They don't see any better future for themselves. THEY DON'T THINK THEY CAN DO ANY BETTER.

They are told that their purpose in life is to breed. That's it. They aren't given any vision of a better life. They are often told, point blank, that it is wrong for them to pursue a life that includes anything other than being a Mommy.

So why wait? They have nothing else to look forward to. They have no reason to try for anything better, because they are told they can have nothing better.


O rly... It's b/c of sex ed that kids know more about sex than the last generation and tend to misuse that knowledge.

The data do not support your assertion. Increasing comprehensive sex ed has been shown, time and time again, to decrease rates of teen pregnancies and teen STD infection.


Teen pregnancy was taboo and rarely heard of when my grandparents and even my parents were growing up.

And yet it still existed. It's just that nobody talked about it. The girls who got knocked up were sent away to have the baby, or pressured into illegal unsafe abortions, or quickly married off to "legitimize" the baby.


You just contradicted yourself buddy. Where do you really stand on teen pregnancy?
I didn't contradict myself at all. I said that for these young women, they feel they have nothing to lose by getting pregnant. For many of them, being a mother will increase their standing in their community in a way that nothing else will do. For many of them, they feel they have no chance at a future beyond motherhood, because they are taught that women are made to produce babies and submit to menfolk. And a great many of them are RIGHT. They live in cultures where women and girls are utterly devalued. They have no hope of any future for themselves, aside from being baby-making housebots.

I happen to think it would be better for young women to feel that they can build better futures than that. I happen to believe that young women should learn that baby-making is only one of the millions of things they can choose to do with their lives. I happen to hate societies in which women's value is measured by how many kiddies she pumps out. This is why I fight traditionalism tooth and nail.

It's silly and useless to call girls "stupid" when they make choices that are perfectly rational given their societal context. What you should do, instead, is help to change that context, and help the young women to see that it is changed.

It's silly and useless to call girls "stupid" when they make choices that are perfectly rational given their societal context. What you should do, instead, is help to change that context, and help the young women to see that it is changed.

I said teenagers are stupid. That means both guys and girls. I used the 16 year old girl as a personal experience example.

They are told that their purpose in life is to breed. That's it. They aren't given any vision of a better life. They are often told, point blank, that it is wrong for them to pursue a life that includes anything other than being a Mommy.

We are going to differ on this in some ways. I agree with you on this to a point. Women should perceive a career of their own. Sex should always be secondary and it is not necessary imo other than reprodruction. However I think there are limitations on what the career should be.

Professions like teaching, nursing, etc. are fine. However I don't believe women should be in management positions or the military b/c of their emotional biological issues once a month. That gets in the way of professionalism and business.

Oh one more thing I forgot to mention. When it comes to teen sex, I am definitely "pro-choice". They "chose" to have sex and so they have to accept the responsibilities and consequences of their action. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Parents putting "baby making mentalities" into their daughters is a bullshit excuse that does not apply in this "girl-power" era. That may have been the case with pre-feminism, but it does not apply today whatsoever.

I even know stupid teen girls who want children at like 16. If that's the case, then that's their own stupidity and I'll probably be paying for their baby food anyway. My tax dollars at work...


The problem is that they're not stupid at all. They are living in a situation in which they perceive very little gain for themselves through any other path in life. They see having a baby as the best way to ensure a good life for themselves, and they don't feel they have anything to lose by getting pregnant. That makes their decision perfectly reasonable, from their point of view.

Only if they are in that situation. A girl in my class who came from a perfectly good family (middle class) with okay marks wanted to have a kid "when she was still a teenager" because her mom had her kid of young and she wanted her kids to have a "cool" mother. Luckily she's never had a boyfriend and she's sixteen already so I don't think she'll have a chance to fuck up her life...

If you feel (as I do) that they DO stand to lose a lot by getting pregnant at 16, then what you should be trying to do is educate them and show them all the wonderful things they can do BESIDES being baby machines. You should fight against the traditionalists who will tell these girls that their only purpose in life is to breed and clean a house for their man. You should help show them the many different futures that they can pursue, so that they will have a reason to work toward something instead of making babies they can't support.

Actually I was talking to her about this while we were watching a video in healthclass about the "Dangers Of Sex". 1/2 of it was a 17 and 18 year old who had a baby and where talking about how much of their time went into the baby and what not and the other 1/2 was some guy with AIDS. Some people are just idiots.

Calling them stupid won't save you a dime. Helping them out can.

some of them are just stupid and other then hope for the best your not going to be able to do anything to get past that.

However I don't believe women should be in management positions or the military b/c of their emotional biological issues once a month. That gets in the way of professionalism and business.


What? I'm a female and I have great control over my "emotional biological issues". If your going to say that about women you may as well say "I don't believe men should be in management positions or the military because of their testosteron. That gets in the way of professionalism and business

Only if they are in that situation. A girl in my class who came from a perfectly good family (middle class) with okay marks wanted to have a kid "when she was still a teenager" because her mom had her kid of young and she wanted her kids to have a "cool" mother. Luckily she's never had a boyfriend and she's sixteen already so I don't think she'll have a chance to fuck up her life...

I'm not claiming that there are no stupid teenagers in the world. There are. Plenty. What I'm saying is that it is pointless to assume that ALL teen girls who get pregnant do so because they are stupid. It's also pointless to say, "Some teenagers are stupid and do stupid things! Therefore, let's just call all teens stupid, and let them suffer for their stupidity!"


some of them are just stupid and other then hope for the best your not going to be able to do anything to get past that.
Sure. I still don't see why this means that we should stop trying to help people and, instead, just call them all stupid.

Yes, some stupid people have babies for deeply stupid reasons. Many of those stupid people are teenagers. At the same time, there are many people who have babies for stupid reasons, even though they aren't stupid people.

Yes, there are teen girls who get pregnant for no reason other than that they are clueless or selfish or stupid. But the pure fact is that the overwhelming majority of teen girls who get pregnant are NOT stupid. If you decide you're going to assume they're stupid from the get-go, you stand exactly zero chance of ever helping them. You insults are simply for your own benefit, to make YOU feel superior or whatever, and will not accomplish a goddam thing.

If you actually care about teenagers, or the babies they are having, then you wouldn't waste time making idiotic and counter-productive generalizations that get in the way of productive efforts. If, on the other hand, you are just pissed off and want to fling nasty names around, then I submit that you probably should hold off on throwing stones until you move out of your glass house.

What? I'm a female and I have great control over my "emotional biological issues". If your going to say that about women you may as well say "I don't believe men should be in management positions or the military because of their testosteron. That gets in the way of professionalism and business
Particularly considering that research has shown men to have emotional swings of even greater magnitude than women (on average). Men actually experience "PMS" of their own, but their hormonal cycle causes this to occur every couple of days instead of once each month.

So, if "PMS" is to be the reason for keeping women out of positions of authority, then I guess men have to be kept even further away from such positions. And, behold, we shall have a glorious society led by children!

Oh one more thing I forgot to mention. When it comes to teen sex, I am definitely "pro-choice". They "chose" to have sex and so they have to accept the responsibilities and consequences of their action.

Sure. And this is why, again, it is so important to have good sex ed, and good access to reproductive health care (including abortion). A responsible teen needs to be able to care for themselves before, during, and after sex, and this includes knowing about all their options so they can make the most imformed and reasonable decision possible.


They have nobody to blame but themselves. Parents putting "baby making mentalities" into their daughters is a bullshit excuse that does not apply in this "girl-power" era. That may have been the case with pre-feminism, but it does not apply today whatsoever.
Sadly, it applies today as much as ever. We haven't come as far as you seem to think. :( I wish we had!

I've skimmed through barely any of this thread, but I saw ideas on when sex ed. should be taught.

I think it would be best for the kid to learn about puberty, and then a few weeks later, sex ed.

Let them get to learn and understand what's going on with their bodies and minds, then ease them into learning what they should expect and reasons why they should either wait - or protect themselves.

Teach them equaly between abstinence and protection.

Let them choose.


Seems proper, right?

EDIT: I am in no way supporting the idea of waiting for marriage. Just waiting till they're more mature.

Yes, there are teen girls who get pregnant for no reason other than that they are clueless or selfish or stupid. But the pure fact is that the overwhelming majority of teen girls who get pregnant are NOT stupid. If you decide you're going to assume they're stupid from the get-go, you stand exactly zero chance of ever helping them. You insults are simply for your own benefit, to make YOU feel superior or whatever, and will not accomplish a goddam thing.

If you actually care about teenagers, or the babies they are having, then you wouldn't waste time making idiotic and counter-productive generalizations that get in the way of productive efforts. If, on the other hand, you are just pissed off and want to fling nasty names around, then I submit that you probably should hold off on throwing stones until you move out of your glass house.

I wasn't insulting that one girl not all of them. I really haven't gotten a chance to rant about it yet and I figure NSG as a good a place as any. I realise there are other reasons. I wasn't generalising and if I was, it was my wording, I should have edited I'm sorry. That was aimed at that one girl and yes my insults were for my own benifit of letting a little steam out. Now I'll leave before I insult any one else. (plus I have nothing more to say other then: A soceity run by children? Bean?)

Safe teen sex encourages teen sex! Down with safe sex!

I wasn't insulting that one girl not all of them. I really haven't gotten a chance to rant about it yet and I figure NSG as a good a place as any. I realise there are other reasons. I wasn't generalising and if I was, it was my wording, I should have edited I'm sorry. That was aimed at that one girl and yes my insults were for my own benifit of letting a little steam out.

Oooh, I should apologize as well...my use of "you" was intended to sound more general than "you, in particular." Sorry about that! I wasn't trying to sound as hostile toward ya as I did. :P


(plus I have nothing more to say other then: A soceity run by children? Bean?)
Hey, they're making the Ender's Game movie, aren't they? I think we're being primed to embrace our toddler overlords!

Hey, they're making the Ender's Game movie, aren't they? I think we're being primed to embrace our toddler overlords!

What?! No!!!! Leave it as it is! (I may have lied about leaving this thread)

Safe teen sex encourages teen sex! Down with safe sex!

:rolleyes: That's how the Republicans think. :headbang:

Particularly considering that research has shown men to have emotional swings of even greater magnitude than women (on average). Men actually experience "PMS" of their own, but their hormonal cycle causes this to occur every couple of days instead of once each month.

So, if "PMS" is to be the reason for keeping women out of positions of authority, then I guess men have to be kept even further away from such positions. And, behold, we shall have a glorious society led by children!
...because we all know children aren't prone to sudden changes of mood;)

:rolleyes: That's how the Republicans think. :headbang:
No, that's how fundamentalists think. They're not mutually exclusive by any means.

...because we all know children aren't prone to sudden changes of mood;)
Ahh, but their mood swings cannot be directly attributed to fluctuations in sex hormones! Therefore, they are far more rational beings!

Ahh, but their mood swings cannot be directly attributed to fluctuations in sex hormones! Therefore, they are far more rational beings!
No, you're quite mistaken. Their mood swings are due to unconscious conflicts over their sexual attraction to their parents, and as such they are prone to being deeply disturbed. And if you disagree with me, you're just embarrassed about your incestuous urges.

Maybe we should have a society run by eunuchs and post-menopausal women...

No, you're quite mistaken. Their mood swings are due to unconscious conflicts over their sexual attraction to their parents, and as such they are prone to being deeply disturbed. And if you disagree with me, you're just embarrassed about your incestuous urges.

You know, I think you're right. I read something about that theory, and it was written by an Austrian coke addict...so you KNOW it must be true!


Maybe we should have a society run by eunuchs and post-menopausal women...
As a future post-menopausal woman, I fully support this plan.

You know, I think you're right. I read something about that theory, and it was written by an Austrian coke addict...so you KNOW it must be true!
Not only that, he used the cocaine to treat his depression... yes, I think I'll definitely be taking psychological advice from a guy who call cigars phallic symbols and then smokes 20 a day until he dies of mouth cancer. Yes, that is a stable, clear-thinking mind.

As a future post-menopausal woman, I fully support this plan.
Hmm... I have no plans on being a eunuch. This is a problem. I don't really want a sex change, either. Maybe I'll just be really stoned all the time so that my mood is a generally contented daze...

No, that's how fundamentalists think. They're not mutually exclusive by any means.

Yeah... But who is the Republican Party run by?:eek: :headbang:

Actually I was talking to her about this while we were watching a video in healthclass about the "Dangers Of Sex". 1/2 of it was a 17 and 18 year old who had a baby and where talking about how much of their time went into the baby and what not and the other 1/2 was some guy with AIDS. Some people are just idiots.

Oh my God... I've seen videos similar to that, in health class. All they do is sit there and tell you that sex WILL ruin your life no matter what, protection or no, or even how to use the protection properly. They say if you DO have sex regardless of whether contraceptives were used, you're going to get gonorhea, get pregnant, have the baby, and become a total welfare case all because you lost your virginity as a teen.

And then they go on to say that condoms DON'T work at all, and that dating started when teens first had access to cars, and that sexually active teens break up because they had sex, and for no other reason than that. :headbang:

Oh my God... I've seen videos similar to that, in health class. All they do is sit there and tell you that sex WILL ruin your life no matter what, protection or no, or even how to use the protection properly. They say if you DO have sex regardless of whether contraceptives were used, you're going to get gonorhea, get pregnant, have the baby, and become a total welfare case all because you lost your virginity as a teen.

And then they go on to say that condoms DON'T work at all, and that dating started when teens first had access to cars, and that sexually active teens break up because they had sex, and for no other reason than that. :headbang:I don't know about anybody else, but I always feel like having a ton of premarital sex after I watch movies like that.

I don't know about anybody else, but I always feel like having a ton of premarital sex after I watch movies like that.

And smoke pot and vote democrat*nods*

And smoke pot and vote democrat*nods*
In my high school, there was a tradition called "Blue Bake Day."

See, once a year there would be this giant assembly where a bunch of cops would come explain to us how smoking pot would ruin our lives. They'd literally waste an entire school day putting on skits and doing dance routines (DANCE ROUTINES!!) about how pot is bad, and we would all be locked in the gym and forced to pay attention.

In response to this disgusting waste of time, the tradition of the Blue Bake was established. Following the bullshit assembly, the student body would head to a pre-arranged location and get stoned out of their minds on the best weed anybody could find. All freshmen were allowed to smoke for free, too, in order to encourage as many minors as possible to embrace a life of delinquency.

My graduating class contributed our own little addition to Blue Bake Day, by getting everybody to wear their official D.A.R.E t-shirts to school the following day. :)

In my high school, there was a tradition called "Blue Bake Day."

See, once a year there would be this giant assembly where a bunch of cops would come explain to us how smoking pot would ruin our lives. They'd literally waste an entire school day putting on skits and doing dance routines (DANCE ROUTINES!!) about how pot is bad, and we would all be locked in the gym and forced to pay attention.

In response to this disgusting waste of time, the tradition of the Blue Bake was established. Following the bullshit assembly, the student body would head to a pre-arranged location and get stoned out of their minds on the best weed anybody could find. All freshmen were allowed to smoke for free, too, in order to encourage as many minors as possible to embrace a life of delinquency.

My graduating class contributed our own little addition to Blue Bake Day, by getting everybody to wear their official D.A.R.E t-shirts to school the following day. :)

This was part of my initial reason, like Athrais, for becoming a Democrat. The Democrats are so cool and they will let us do whatever we, NO MATTER WHAT OUR PARENTS SAY!!!

A political party that supports us and let's us have fun!

We should be able to freely develop without having to worry about money! A better world is possible. Support Jon Tester and Jim Webb!

In my high school, there was a tradition called "Blue Bake Day."

See, once a year there would be this giant assembly where a bunch of cops would come explain to us how smoking pot would ruin our lives. They'd literally waste an entire school day putting on skits and doing dance routines (DANCE ROUTINES!!) about how pot is bad, and we would all be locked in the gym and forced to pay attention.

In response to this disgusting waste of time, the tradition of the Blue Bake was established. Following the bullshit assembly, the student body would head to a pre-arranged location and get stoned out of their minds on the best weed anybody could find. All freshmen were allowed to smoke for free, too, in order to encourage as many minors as possible to embrace a life of delinquency.

My graduating class contributed our own little addition to Blue Bake Day, by getting everybody to wear their official D.A.R.E t-shirts to school the following day. :)

That is so cool. I wish my school had been like that. We had the pot smoking, but no dancing policemen.

I don't know about anybody else, but I always feel like having a ton of premarital sex after I watch movies like that.

:D ;) That's bad. :p

This was part of my initial reason, like Athrais, for becoming a Democrat. The Democrats are so cool and they will let us do whatever we, NO MATTER WHAT OUR PARENTS SAY!!!

A political party that supports us and let's us have fun!

We should be able to freely develop without having to worry about money! A better world is possible. Support Jon Tester and Jim Webb!
That's so not true. I'm a Democrat, but really, you shouldn't be appealing to them for help when it comes to issues that end in "NO MATTER WHAT OUR PARENTS SAY!"

1. Democrats are against the legalization of pot, or at best, it's not an issue that they would pass legislation on if in control of congress.

2. Same goes for the 21 drinking age.

3. You can't vote. Your parents can. Who do the Democrats want to appeal to? Ah.

4. A Democrat, Joe Lieberman, was responsible for many of the "decency" crackdowns on media, because kids obviously can't see people get killed without killing someone.

5. Show me, anywhere, evidence that a Democrat has run on a "teen rebellion! YAY!" platform.

That is so cool. I wish my school had been like that. We had the pot smoking, but no dancing policemen.
The funny thing is, I've never really liked pot that much. I don't mind it, and every now and again a smoke can be very nice, but I honestly don't think I would have smoked pot in high school if it wasn't for those stupid cops. The condescending, paternalistic bullshit they shoved at us was so insulting that I wanted to make sure I did absolutely everything they told us NOT to do...I didn't want to run any chance of turning into the kind of person that those jackasses wanted me to be.

In some ways, the same has applied to sex. I know that one of the main reasons I first rejected most "traditional" rules about dating and sex is because I didn't want to be anything like the kind of people who follow them.

Gay teen sex is safer in terms of pregnancy, but straight teen sex is less likely to get you beat to death. Neither is emotionally safe.

Gay teen sex is safer in terms of pregnancy, but straight teen sex is less likely to get you beat to death. Neither is emotionally safe.

That's an... Interesting way of looking at it. :p

That's an... Interesting way of looking at it. :p

That is me
Interesting Ilie
Responding with glee
And ignoring the trolls.

I don't know about anybody else, but I always feel like having a ton of premarital sex after I watch movies like that.
Come on, you always "feel like having a ton of premarital sex", don't use the video as an excuse! ;)