NationStates Jolt Archive

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? I'm currently "abstaining", but more for a lack of desire than anything else.
And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:Then you try and find someone else that doesn't and use condoms.

If you don't want to abstain then you have sex. That's kinda how it works.

Abstinence makes the heart grow fungus.


1000th post.

Abstinence sucks.

/thread

Whilst sex is generally wildly over-rated, I don't think abstaining's a terribly exciting idea.

So, don't be good, but do be careful.

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

I have yet to see one conclusive study that shows that there are serious, legitimate reductions in pregnancy or STD transmission as a result of abstinence only education.

It's been shown pretty well time and again that the best method of prevention is honest, comprehensive education on birth control and std prevention methods, while at the same time stressing that abstinence is the only absolutely safe method.

And if someone doesn't want to abstain, then that someone...does not abstain, obviously. And in an education like that, the one who does not want to is woefully underprepared on how to deal with it in the safest way possible. The sad part is that school is supposed to prepare teenagers for life as adults, and the thing is...adults have sex. It is not reasonable to expect people to abstain in this day and age and schools really should deal with that, rather than ignoring reality.

Japan has the lowest teen pregnancy rate in teh developed world and the USA has the highest.

http://www.unicef.org/pon96/inbirth.htm

You'll notice in the list that there is a tendency for the less religious countries that encourage a broad and liberal view of sex and sexual education have lower teen pregnancy whilst countries that are more religious and scoially conservative and likely to encourage abstinence have higher pregnancy rates.

Genreally speaking. There are exceptions and fluctuations of course.

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:
Abstaining from sex can be responsible, but it's also possible to be sexually active and responsible. What is utterly irresponsible is failing to teach comprehensive sex ed, as if you can stop people from fucking if you simply neglect to teach them about sex.

Then you try and find someone else that doesn't and use condoms.

Err... not quite what I meant. Is the emotional drama really there?

Err... not quite what I meant. Is the emotional drama really there?

Depends how good you are ;)

Err... not quite what I meant. Is the emotional drama really there?

emotional drama of...having sex? That depends entirely on the two (or more, I suppose) people involved.

Depends how good you are ;)

or bad, as the case may be...

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

Abtinence sucks, that said, so does pregnancies and STDs.

If you don't want to have sex, don't.

If you do, make sure you know how to put a condom on, just in case your partner doesn't. Always use protection. Consider some sort of secondary contraceptive too, like going on the pill, or getting the needle.

And then come see me. ;) :fluffle:

Err... not quite what I meant. Is the emotional drama really there?

Some people are comfortable with having sex without a huge emotional investment, some people aren't.

Err... not quite what I meant. Is the emotional drama really there?How did you mean it then? Are you asking how someone that doesn't approve of abstinence deals with the situation at hand?

Abtinence sucks, that said, so does pregnancies and STDs.

If you don't want to have sex, don't.

If you do, make sure you know how to put a condom on, just in case your partner doesn't. Always use protection. Consider some sort of secondary contraceptive too, like going on the pill, or getting the needle.

And then come see me. ;) :fluffle:

Yeah, I've heard of every BC method out there, but I can't find any good information on them. :headbang:

Abstinence is the best way to avoid complications, which if you're a teenager you don't need. Though if you find someone willing I see no reason to abstain unless you're just not ready for sex, which you're probably not.

Just remember, it's all fun and games til baby makes three.

Yeah, I've heard of every BC method out there, but I can't find any good information on them. :headbang:

first quesiton, male or female? If male you got basically two options, the less drastic cover it up approach, or the more drastic and potentially non reversable surgical option.

As a female there are a whole lot more.

Abstinence is the best way to avoid complications, which if you're a teenager you don't need.That depends entirely on what kind of complications you mean. Losing your virginity at a late age has its own complications that it comes with.

first quesiton, male or female? If male you got basically two options, the less drastic cover it up approach, or the more drastic and potentially non reversable surgical option.

As a female there are a whole lot more.

Female. And I know about female condoms, pills, shots, IUDs, etc.

My girlfriend is currently abstinent and it's starting to annoy. We've been together for over a year and the most we've manage to do is french kiss. I kind of don't know what I want to do anymore. I love her and everything but, she just seems to have this phobia of sex.

Female. And I know about female condoms, pills, shots, IUDs, etc.

I would combine the pill and condom use. The pill is the most effective contraceptive and condoms are the only real option for preventing STIs. Abstinence is good when used in conjunction with proper education. And abstinence should be used up until the point where the individual feels they are ready and willing to no longer abstain.

My girlfriend is currently abstinent and it's starting to annoy. We've been together for over a year and the most we've manage to do is french kiss. I kind of don't know what I want to do anymore. I love her and everything but, she just seems to have this phobia of sex.

how old are you both?

My girlfriend is currently abstinent and it's starting to annoy. We've been together for over a year and the most we've manage to do is french kiss. I kind of don't know what I want to do anymore. I love her and everything but, she just seems to have this phobia of sex.

Tell her you're a demon in the sack.




Ifreann is not responsible for any break ups or injuries you may suffer as result of this post. This does affect your statutory rights, you now have none.

Yeah, I've heard of every BC method out there, but I can't find any good information on them. :headbang:

I'd check Wikipedia first, but that's my answer for everything...

Or go to Planned Parenthood, here's their page on birth control methods:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-4211.htm

Yeah, I've heard of every BC method out there, but I can't find any good information on them. :headbang:

From Auntie (http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_index.shtml) - pretty accurate and reliable, but a doctor will be able to give you more personal, and perhaps in-depth, information.

Grr! *Throws condoms filled with water at Soviet Haaregrad*

Here's an interesting sidebar: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502884

That depends entirely on what kind of complications you mean. Losing your virginity at a late age has its own complications that it comes with.

By complications I mean a disease or a phone call two weeks later with the "I'm late!" panic.

It's so much easier when you're gay.

My girlfriend is currently abstinent and it's starting to annoy. We've been together for over a year and the most we've manage to do is french kiss. I kind of don't know what I want to do anymore. I love her and everything but, she just seems to have this phobia of sex.

Yeah, I mean - I love my fiancee, and we don't HAVE to have sex; we can go for up to a month or so without being weird about it - but if she just doesn't WANT to for some odd reason, it makes me uncomfortable. I'm fine as long as it's available, but if she's all (excuse the pun) tight-lipped about it, then it'd make me anxious and wonder where this relationship was really going.

I would combine the pill and condom use. The pill is the most effective contraceptive and condoms are the only real option for preventing STIs. Abstinence is good when used in conjunction with proper education. And abstinence should be used up until the point where the individual feels they are ready and willing to no longer abstain.

Erm.... from what I've heard (even from the non-conservative sources) condom's don't work well against STD's, except HIV.

Erm.... from what I've heard (even from the non-conservative sources) condom's don't work well against STD's, except HIV.

O_o No, condoms prevent most if not all STD's.

Do you mean voluntary or involuntary abstinence?

O_o No, condoms prevent most if not all STD's.

Have a good source? Every site I've read says that they don't protect against genital warts or herpes or HPV... pretty much everything except HIV.

Do you mean voluntary or involuntary abstinence?

I was kind of talking voluntary....


ugh... now I fell dizzy (I didn't go to school today)

I was kind of talking voluntary....


ugh... now I fell dizzy (I didn't go to school today)

Stay home and have sex!

Erm.... from what I've heard (even from the non-conservative sources) condom's don't work well against STD's, except HIV.

I find it truly scary that whatever sources you are looking at would say such things.

Try

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/sexhealth/factsheets/SafeSex.shtml

condoms arent 100% protection. but they are by far the most effective. And they do protect against virtually all viral diseases and most bacterial infections

Stay home and have sex!

I'm abstaining till I know everything about protection, dammit. And I am staying home. :mad:

My girlfriend is currently abstinent and it's starting to annoy. We've been together for over a year and the most we've manage to do is french kiss. I kind of don't know what I want to do anymore. I love her and everything but, she just seems to have this phobia of sex.

Sounds like my ex. It took quite some time to do it and even then I would have to do everything. However, if you love her and want to be with her, keep working at it and one day you will do it!

Have a good source? Every site I've read says that they don't protect against genital warts or herpes or HPV... pretty much everything except HIV.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8399212/

We're both right, I suppose. I thought it was pretty effective against the clap, though.

I find it truly scary that whatever sources you are looking at would say such things.

Try

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/sexhealth/factsheets/SafeSex.shtmlly the most effective protection against STIs.

The link didn't work. :(

I was kind of talking voluntary....


ugh... now I fell dizzy (I didn't go to school today)
Ah, well. First of all - I hope you'll be better soon.

Secondly, then this topic ain't anything I can contribute to any further... ;)

Have a good source? Every site I've read says that they don't protect against genital warts or herpes or HPV... pretty much everything except HIV.

any std transmitted by bodily fluid is well blocked by condoms, including HIV, ghonorreah and clamydia

From Auntie (http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_index.shtml) - pretty accurate and reliable, but a doctor will be able to give you more personal, and perhaps in-depth, information.

Grr! *Throws condoms filled with water at Soviet Haaregrad*

*blasts gats* :mp5:

What can I say, I'm from the streets? :D

Have a good source? Every site I've read says that they don't protect against genital warts or herpes or HPV... pretty much everything except HIV.

Planned Parenting says:
And condoms reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted infections, including gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, chancroid, trichomoniasis, HPV, herpes, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Condoms can also protect against vaginitis caused by trichomoniasis or changes in the pH balance of the vagina that can be triggered by semen.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/condom.htm

The link didn't work. :(

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/sexhealth/factsheets/SafeSex.shtml

try that :)

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

I dont mind the education of abstinence in sex ed, as long as the education of safe sex accompanies it in just as much if not more detail and length. Abstinence isnt the answer since it is only natural for humans to want to have sex. Thus teaching young people how to have proper safe sex will be the best answer since it will reduce unwanted teen pregnancies and the spread of stds.

I do not believe in abstinence, but all the power to the people who can. Sex is good, just be safe about it. I plan on teaching my children about safe sex and not abstinence.

~Oni

*blasts gats* :mp5:

What can I say, I'm from the streets? :D



Planned Parenting says:
And condoms reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted infections, including gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, chancroid, trichomoniasis, HPV, herpes, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Condoms can also protect against vaginitis caused by trichomoniasis or changes in the pH balance of the vagina that can be triggered by semen.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/condom.htm

So they DO protect against more than AIDS.... I want to move to a different state.

And I don't feel any less dizzy. :(

Abstinence is the only REAL safe sex. Its the only proven way to stay 100% std/sti free and the best way to keep from getting pregnant. Even with safe sex methods, there is still a failure rate. With most condoms its 11%, might seem small, but if you are in that 11%, it s life altering experience. MY view on sex is this, unless you are mentally and economically ready to have a baby,then you shouldn't be having sex, as there is a chance of pregnancy occuring.

Just out of curiosity, where do people get the "failure rate of condoms is 11%" or more data from? All the sources I've seen list it as 2-3% per year.

Is it one of those "drink 8 glasses of water per day!" (ie. fabricated) well-known facts?

Just out of curiosity, where do people get the "failure rate of condoms is 11%" or more data from? All the sources I've seen list it as 2-3% per year.

Is it one of those "drink 8 glasses of water per day!" (ie. fabricated) well-known facts?

I actually got that from my professor on monday, from an FDA report on contraceptive measures.

Abstinence is the only REAL safe sex. Its the only proven way to stay 100% std/sti free and the best way to keep from getting pregnant. Even with safe sex methods, there is still a failure rate. With most condoms its 11%, might seem small, but if you are in that 11%, it s life altering experience. MY view on sex is this, unless you are mentally and economically ready to have a baby,then you shouldn't be having sex, as there is a chance of pregnancy occuring.

This is true. However since it is unrealistic to expect everyone to share those views or to abstain i would still STRONGLY endorse education regarding safe(r) sex methods.

This is true. However since it is unrealistic to expect everyone to share those views or to abstain i would still STRONGLY endorse education regarding safe(r) sex methods.

Right, i think safe sex should be taught, just because it will help someone out, but then again it should be known that it isn't the best way, and there is still a risk.

This is true. However since it is unrealistic to expect everyone to share those views or to abstain i would still STRONGLY endorse education regarding safe(r) sex methods.

ermm... 11%? don't you mean 1%... which isn't quite true either???

Abstinence is the only REAL safe sex.
Um, except for the fact that abstinence is not sex, of course. If it ain't sex, it ain't safe sex, either. So, abstinence courses do not teach safe sex.

Its the only proven way to stay 100% std/sti free and the best way to keep from getting pregnant. Even with safe sex methods, there is still a failure rate. With most condoms its 11%, might seem small, but if you are in that 11%, it s life altering experience. MY view on sex is this, unless you are mentally and economically ready to have a baby,then you shouldn't be having sex, as there is a chance of pregnancy occuring.
The only proven way to stay 100% stress/high blood pressure/anxiety disorder free and the best way to avoid a murder conviction is never to talk to idiots -- yet go try to avoid them. Stupidity is everywhere these days, filling the world with unsupported assertions and illogical arguments.


As to the topic question: Is Abstinence Best?

It all depends on who your date is.

I think this debate demonstrates that, yes?

abstinence sucks, and is counterproductive (literally)

ermm... 11%? don't you mean 1%... which isn't quite true either???

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/babyguide2.pdf

it has the failure rates for all contraceptives

MY view on sex is this, unless you are mentally and economically ready to have a baby,then you shouldn't be having sex, as there is a chance of pregnancy occuring.
Interesting. This assumes a couple of things:

1) That all sex is heterosexual intercourse between fertile individuals.
2) That getting pregnant automatically means that one must have a baby.

Given that both of these are quite obviously false, I'd say you might need to adjust your view somewhat.

ermm... 11%? don't you mean 1%... which isn't quite true either???
Something I've heard is that the low failure-rate numbers are "ideal use" and the high ones are "actual use" (which contradicts the way I'd assume studies are undertaken; ie. you take a set of volunteer couples using contraceptive method x and, over the course of a year, measure how many suffer unintended pregnancies). If this is the case, then you can be closer to the 2-3% than the 11% by reading the instructions and following them religiously.

That goes for all contraceptives, of course; the pill, for instance, won't be effective if you miss it or if you suffer vomiting/diarrhoea within a certain time of taking it. So read the bumph.

Interesting. This assumes a couple of things:

1) That all sex is heterosexual intercourse between fertile individuals.
2) That getting pregnant automatically means that one must have a baby.

Given that both of these are quite obviously false, I'd say you might need to adjust your view somewhat.

Bravo. I salute you.:D

Um, except for the fact that abstinence is not sex, of course. If it ain't sex, it ain't safe sex, either. So, abstinence courses do not teach safe sex.


The only proven way to stay 100% stress/high blood pressure/anxiety disorder free and the best way to avoid a murder conviction is never to talk to idiots -- yet go try to avoid them. Stupidity is everywhere these days, filling the world with unsupported assertions and illogical arguments.


As to the topic question: Is Abstinence Best?

It all depends on who your date is.

I think this debate demonstrates that, yes?

But me talking to an idiot won't give me a baby nor AIDs.

But me talking to an idiot won't give me a baby nor AIDs.

You'd be suprosed what idiots can do.

Interesting. This assumes a couple of things:

1) That all sex is heterosexual intercourse between fertile individuals.
2) That getting pregnant automatically means that one must have a baby.

Given that both of these are quite obviously false, I'd say you might need to adjust your view somewhat.

Ok let me adjust it so it fits EVERYONE.

If you are not ready to get STI/STDs, get arrested for beastiality, get an abortion, face a miscarriage, get pregnant and have the baby, then you are not ready for sex. Better?

Bravo. I salute you.:D

*joins in* never thought I'll be saying this, but Bottle is wise (inanimate objects wiser that persons what is the world coming to? :eek: :D

Abstinence is the only REAL safe sex.
Abstinence is NO sex at all.
Safe sex would mean taking precautions to minimize risks.

Calling abstinence safe sex is like calling walking safe driving. It makes no sense whatsoever!

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

The fact is there is only one safe way. And it has no negatives.

On the other hand we have babies, abortions, disease..........

About one in 20 females on the pill will be pregnant in the first year. One in five using condoms will be pregnant the first year. 85% of those that use nothing will be pregnant.

And then there are the diseases, some of which have no cure.

Roll your eyes all you want. There's a chance you could get a disease that will insure you won't be rolling anything else. Or a baby that will insure you will have other action for the rest of your life.

But me talking to an idiot won't give me a baby nor AIDs.

No, but it can give you some of the symptoms of the last few stages of syphilis. *nod* :p

Ok let me adjust it so it fits EVERYONE.

If you are not ready to get STI/STDs, get arrested for beastiality, get an abortion, face a miscarriage, get pregnant and have the baby, then you are not ready for sex. Better?
Better, but still not so great (in my opinion).

I'm not ready to lose both my legs in a car crash. Does this mean I'm not ready to drive or ride in a car?

Ok let me adjust it so it fits EVERYONE.

If you are not ready to get STI/STDs, get arrested for beastiality, get an abortion, face a miscarriage, get pregnant and have the baby, then you are not ready for sex. Better?

And if you have a normal to high libido and know the correct way to use a condom then you're ready for sex if you want to do it. There is calculated risk in everything.

I also ride a motorbike. I know how to ride safely. However i am also aware of the fact that my chances in an accident are slim to nil to escape without injury. Aafter assessing the risks and assessing what i can do to minimise those risks i still choose to ride because the benefits for me far outweigh those risks.

The fact is there is only one safe way. And it has no negatives.

On the other hand we have babies, abortions, disease..........

About one in 20 females on the pill will be pregnant in the first year. One in five using condoms will be pregnant the first year. 85% of those that use nothing will be pregnant.

And then there are the diseases, some of which have no cure.

Roll your eyes all you want. There's a chance you could get a disease that will insure you won't be rolling anything else. Or a baby that will insure you will have other action for the rest of your life.

No negatives, except repressing all of your natural instincts and urges for an indefinite period of time, possibly leading to a given level of depression.

Also, cite your sources.

I'm fairly certain people who practice ACTUAL safe sex and don't suppress themselves are mentally healthier and happier than those that do otherwise.

Better, but still not so great (in my opinion).

I'm not ready to lose both my legs in a car crash. Does this mean I'm not ready to drive or ride in a car?

damn it. you beat me to my analogy. and put it far more succinctly

Ok let me adjust it so it fits EVERYONE.

If you are not ready to get STI/STDs, get arrested for beastiality, get an abortion, face a miscarriage, get pregnant and have the baby, then you are not ready for sex. Better?
... what?

I'm pretty sure no one is ever ready to get STDs. Unless you propose letting the human race die out, it's not really something you can do anything about.

The fact is there is only one safe way. And it has no negatives.

Um, except for the whole "never getting to have sex" thing. Some of us consider that a negative.

About one in 20 females on the pill will be pregnant in the first year. One in five using condoms will be pregnant the first year. 85% of those that use nothing will be pregnant. 1 in 20 = 5%. Condom failure rates are about 3%, provided that they're used right (which can come from comprehensive sex ed). The last statistic may be true.
Roll your eyes all you want. There's a chance you could get a disease that will insure you won't be rolling anything else. Or a baby that will insure you will have other action for the rest of your life. Who says I'm planning to quit abstinence in the near future? I'm just saying, some of it is BS.

Better, but still not so great (in my opinion).

I'm not ready to lose both my legs in a car crash. Does this mean I'm not ready to drive or ride in a car?

Whats the chances of losing both legs in a car wreck, vs having a baby/getting a disease. I think you will find the latter to be more probable, although when you drive, just due to stats, there should always be, in the back of your mind, the realization an accident can happen. And if you don't think you can face that accident, then no, don't drive. I am simply saying the only way to prevent these diseases or pregnancy is to not have sex at all. Abstinence is the most effective manner of staying STI/std and pregnant free. Ask any doctor, health teacher, etc and they will tell you the same.

Um, except for the whole "never getting to have sex" thing. Some of us consider that a negative.

I was thinking something along the lines of "No beer or sex makes TCoV go 'something'... "

Whats the chances of losing both legs in a car wreck, vs having a baby/getting a disease. I think you will find the latter to be more probable, although when you drive, just due to stats, there should always be, in the back of your mind, the realization an accident can happen. And if you don't think you can face that accident, then no, don't drive. I am simply saying the only way to prevent these diseases or pregnancy is to not have sex at all. Abstinence is the most effective manner of staying STI/std and pregnant free. Ask any doctor, health teacher, etc and they will tell you the same.

What is life without risk?

Um, except for the whole "never getting to have sex" thing. Some of us consider that a negative.

thats why monagamous relationships are a good thing, ie sleeping with only one person. Sleeping around with many people is what led to the rise of diseases and all that, right? So if you get with one person, who was abstinent as well, and then vow only to have sex with each other, then no worries.

Whats the chances of losing both legs in a car wreck, vs having a baby/getting a disease. I think you will find the latter to be more probable, although when you drive, just due to stats, there should always be, in the back of your mind, the realization an accident can happen. And if you don't think you can face that accident, then no, don't drive. I am simply saying the only way to prevent these diseases or pregnancy is to not have sex at all. Abstinence is the most effective manner of staying STI/std and pregnant free. Ask any doctor, health teacher, etc and they will tell you the same.
There are just as many car accidents in the USA as STDs, if not more. And what about cholestrol-related deaths - why not ask people to abstain from fatty foods whilst you're at it?

Ok let me adjust it so it fits EVERYONE.

If you are not ready to get STI/STDs, get arrested for beastiality, get an abortion, face a miscarriage, get pregnant and have the baby, then you are not ready for sex. Better?

That's assuming condoms don't exist. I have no clue what the bestiality comment is for, and few MARRIED couples are ready to face miscarriages. "If you are not ready to get pregnant and have the baby, don't have sex..." Are you from South Dakota, by any chance?

That's assuming condoms don't exist.

Condoms are not, and have never been, 100% effective. Many a child has been conceived through one. The sooner you learn that particular factoid the better.

"If you are not ready to get an abortion, don't have sex..." Are you from South Dakota, by any chance?

Um what? Reading is fundamental here. Read that statement again. You should not have sex until you are prepared for the ramifications of that action, including TERMINATING the pregnancy, something south dakota is trying to PREVENT.

There are just as many car accidents in the USA as STDs, if not more. And what about cholestrol-related deaths - why not ask people to abstain from fatty foods whilst you're at it?

Well why not? We know its potentially deadly, so why continue to do it. IMO people are stupid for not listening to the risks.

There are just as many car accidents in the USA as STDs, if not more. And what about cholestrol-related deaths - why not ask people to abstain from fatty foods whilst you're at it?
Data in a thread a while ago threw up the info that 40,000 people die on American roads in a year, so that's a lot more than die from, say, terrorism, but far fewer than contract STDs (How many die from STDs? No idea.).

I never really understood the "abortions are terrible" thing... Pregnant and don't want to be? Have an abortion. Problem solved. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:


roll your eyes all you want, Abstinence is the best method of protection and will make you a more responsible teen. Instead of worrying about STDs, pregnancy, contraception, and all the emotions attached you can give yourself time to mature and grow while you are still technically a kid. You also learn alot more about relationships and the person you are with when you abstain from sex.

but as a teen you naturally want to jump right in. I did, i was a complete hornball. Most teens are and relationships end up being dictated by sex or some sort of sexual activity.

oh and when people say wait to have sex because you want to make sure your first time is "special", take that as good advice. there is no time like your first time and losing your virginity clumsily on top of your car drunk is not special and you'll regret it. trust me i know.

That's assuming condoms don't exist. I have no clue what the bestiality comment is for, and few MARRIED couples are ready to face miscarriages. "If you are not ready to get an abortion, don't have sex..." Are you from South Dakota, by any chance?

What does location have to do with anything? IF you must know, i am from Illinois. But the point stands, if you are not ready to face or stand up to the consequences then don't partake in the action.

Condoms are not, and have never been, 100% effective. Many a child has been conceived through one. The sooner you learn that particular factoid the better.



Um what? Reading is fundamental here. Read that statement again. You should not have sex until you are prepared for the ramifications of that action, including TERMINATING the pregnancy, something south dakota is trying to PREVENT.

Fixed. :rolleyes:

Whats the chances of losing both legs in a car wreck, vs having a baby/getting a disease.

For a person who uses contraception and practices safe sex, the odds of being injured or killed in a car crash are many times the odds of their contracting an STD or having a baby.

Remember, in particular, that many sex acts carry zero risk of pregnancy.


I think you will find the latter to be more probable
According to the stats I can find, the odds of dying from STDs, childbirth, and pregnancy-related complications COMBINED are lower than the likelihood of dying in a car crash.


I am simply saying the only way to prevent these diseases or pregnancy is to not have sex at all.

Totally incorrect. A great many people have sex their whole lives and do not become pregnant or contract an STD. My parents have been doing it for over 30 years each. I have personally been having sex while preventing pregnancy and disease for many years.


Abstinence is the most effective manner of staying STI/std and pregnant free. Ask any doctor, health teacher, etc and they will tell you the same.
And not living anywhere near cars is the most effective manner of staying safe from car accidents. And never handling paper is the best way to avoid ever getting a paper cut. So?

Well why not? We know its potentially deadly, so why continue to do it. IMO people are stupid for not listening to the risks.
Not listening to the risks? Considering you'd have to abandon almost every food, forsake all forms of transportation, log off NS since it's bad for your health...
Statistics (i.e. my statistics I made up on the spot) have shown that people who curl up in a corner in their room, having the healthiest food brought to them by only their most trusted relatives, tend to be less likely to die of violent causes. I think this is a course we should all follow.

And Bottle jumps in and covers everything I actually said, several minutes before and much more clearly and intelligently. As usual. Damn you.

What does location have to do with anything? IF you must know, i am from Illinois. But the point stands, if you are not ready to face or stand up to the consequences then don't partake in the action.

If you're not ready to have a baby or risk STDs, USE A CONDOM.

If you're not ready to use birth control or other types of protection, don't have sex.

If you're not ready to be responsible about sexual health, don't have sex.

:rolleyes:

Data in a thread a while ago threw up the info that 40,000 people die on American roads in a year, so that's a lot more than die from, say, terrorism, but far fewer than contract STDs (How many die from STDs? No idea.).

I never really understood the "abortions are terrible" thing... Pregnant and don't want to be? Have an abortion. Problem solved. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.


Because that is life or potential growing inside the womb. Someone close to me had an abortion and it effected her greatly as well as those around her. Treating it as just another form of birth control would be a despicable act.

The fact is there is only one safe way. And it has no negatives.

On the other hand we have babies, abortions, disease..........

About one in 20 females on the pill will be pregnant in the first year. One in five using condoms will be pregnant the first year. 85% of those that use nothing will be pregnant.

And then there are the diseases, some of which have no cure.

Roll your eyes all you want. There's a chance you could get a disease that will insure you won't be rolling anything else. Or a baby that will insure you will have other action for the rest of your life.
Don't you think that teaching those numbers will help people more to make the choice not to have sex (yet) instead of teaching them only abstinence as a method and hushing up about the rest?
Whats the chances of losing both legs in a car wreck, vs having a baby/getting a disease. I think you will find the latter to be more probable, although when you drive, just due to stats, there should always be, in the back of your mind, the realization an accident can happen. And if you don't think you can face that accident, then no, don't drive. I am simply saying the only way to prevent these diseases or pregnancy is to not have sex at all. Abstinence is the most effective manner of staying STI/std and pregnant free. Ask any doctor, health teacher, etc and they will tell you the same.
You're comparing apples with oranges.
Besides, you forget that while you're not driving with the aim to have an accident but should be aware of the risks (like you said), while with having sex you are trying to minimize the risks of pregnancy/disease - while your body is simply meant to produce offspring.
Making people aware of the risks and educating them in ways of reducing them surely helps them more than not educating them in a responsible way and leaving them with the obscure principle of abstinence only.

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

Well, abstinence is the only thing that is 100%, but if you practice safe sex, you will be protected from most diseases and pregnancy.

Since you are female, I would recommend using the pill in addition to using condoms. Condoms can break or come off so you should have a backup. Condoms are 98% effective if they are used correctly, but 85% effective with normal use. Make sure that you store them correctly, that they aren't expired, open the package carefully, and you use lube if they don't come lubricated (and use the correct kind!). As for STIs, they are very good at protecting against most, with the exception HPV, genial warts and herpes. They do offer some protection against them but on the same level as other STIs because they can be passed by skin to skin contact.
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/9/2953_520.htm
http://health.ivillage.com/sexualhealth/sxsafe/0,,5jtt,00.html

The pill is great too if you have any acne problems like I did, it clears it up pretty well in most women. If you take the pill correctly is 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/9/2953_523.htm
http://redbook.ivillage.com/health/0,,9qrp173d,00.html

Well why not? We know its potentially deadly, so why continue to do it. IMO people are stupid for not listening to the risks.

Its stupid not take the risks seriously or to dismiss them.

But i'm in good health, have decent coordination, have done a defense driving couse, know how to use a condom so it wont break or spill, and remain lucid enough when intoxicated to stop when i've had enough.

So i will:
Eat fatty foods as part of a balanced diet
Drive, and ride, and walk, and jog, and fly in planes
Have sex
and Drink

Knowing the risks, minimising those risks where i can, and living a much richer life for it. It doesnt mean i have to be reckless, i just have to know my limits and be willing to accept the risks inherent in the actions i take.

I never really understood the "abortions are terrible" thing... Pregnant and don't want to be? Have an abortion. Problem solved. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.

You obviously then have little understanding of how emotionally mentally and physically traumatic the procedure is.

A great many people have sex their whole lives and do not become pregnant or contract an STD. My parents have been doing it for over 30 years each.

Excellent example, Bottle ;) :D

Edit (just spotted):
You obviously then have little understanding of how emotionally mentally and physically traumatic the procedure is.
Quite right, I don't (pretty much implicit in my post). But it is the solution to the problem at hand.

How many people really abstain?

Many


What if someone doesn't want to abstain?

Then that person doesn't abstain.

Is there some sort of clever trick question im missing here? I mean seriously!

thats why monagamous relationships are a good thing, ie sleeping with only one person.

Did you know that the fastest-growing demographic of new HIV patients is monogamous married women?

Did you know that women who are promiscuous but homosexual are LESS likely to contract STDs than monogamous heterosexual women?

Remaining faithful to your partner is not a contraceptive, nor will it necessarily protect you against STDs. A wedding band ain't a prophylactic.


Sleeping around with many people is what led to the rise of diseases and all that, right? So if you get with one person, who was abstinent as well, and then vow only to have sex with each other, then no worries.
Which is why married, monogamous women who have saved themselves for one person, who vowed to only have sex with them, are the fastest growing population of new AIDS infectees.

Hm...

You obviously then have little understanding of how emotionally mentally and physically traumatic the procedure is.

Physically traumatic? Abortion has a small chance of complications. Unless I'm reading it wrong and you're talking about what happens as a result of the emotional trauma...

What is life without risk?

Life is bad for your health - for the sake of your health, die now! You'll never get sick again!

oh and when people say wait to have sex because you want to make sure your first time is "special", take that as good advice. there is no time like your first time and losing your virginity clumsily on top of your car drunk is not special and you'll regret it. trust me i know.

Virginity is only special if you make it special. What makes the first of thousands more important then the 34th, with some you really, really cared about?

Data in a thread a while ago threw up the info that 40,000 people die on American roads in a year, so that's a lot more than die from, say, terrorism, but far fewer than contract STDs (How many die from STDs? No idea.).

I never really understood the "abortions are terrible" thing... Pregnant and don't want to be? Have an abortion. Problem solved. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.

That mind set just feels a little wrong. I mean its like saying "Poor and don't want to be? Rob a bank. Problem solved"

Excellent example, Bottle ;) :D
Everybody around here knows that I was grown in a pod in the basement. Durrr.

If you're not ready to have a baby or risk STDs, USE A CONDOM.


If you learn nothing else from your class and this board learn this. A condom is not always 100% effective. People have both conceived children, and contracted STDs with a condom.

That mind set just feels a little wrong. I mean its like saying "Poor and don't want to be? Rob a bank. Problem solved"
Yes, taking money that doesn't belong to you is morally equivalent to claiming control over your own reproductive organs. :rolleyes: At least you're open about admitting that a woman's body isn't her property, and that she is "stealing" something if she chooses to regard it as such.

You obviously then have little understanding of how emotionally mentally and physically traumatic the procedure is.
For some women, this is true. Other women feel relief and happiness after an abortion. Abortion procedures themselves aren't exactly fun, and some of them are pretty damn uncomfortable, but not all of them can be described as "physically traumatic."

Yes, many women experience trauma regarding their abortion. But don't forget that there are also many women who don't.

I have yet to see one conclusive study that shows that there are serious, legitimate reductions in pregnancy or STD transmission as a result of abstinence only education.

I've seen conclusive studys that show the exact opposite . . .

Physically traumatic? Abortion has a small chance of complications. Unless I'm reading it wrong and you're talking about what happens as a result of the emotional trauma...

I did not say complication, I said trauma. Abortion is typically an envasive medical procedure, and there is no such thing as an envasive medical procedure that doesn't cause some degree of bodily trauma.

Because that is life or potential growing inside the womb. Someone close to me had an abortion and it effected her greatly as well as those around her.

Some women are deeply effected by aborting their pregnancies. Others are not. People are different.


Treating it as just another form of birth control would be a despicable act.
Technically, it IS just another form of birth control. It is a means of controlling birth, isn't it?

I personally think that the abortion process would be a lot less traumatic without crowds of fundamentalist protestors screaming that women who get abortions are murderers who will burn in hell. But maybe that's just me.

oh and when people say wait to have sex because you want to make sure your first time is "special", take that as good advice. there is no time like your first time and losing your virginity clumsily on top of your car drunk is not special and you'll regret it. trust me i know.

Virginity is only special if you make it special. What makes the first of thousands more important then the 34th, with some you really, really cared about?

But me talking to an idiot won't give me a baby nor AIDs.
That's not what I've heard from every pregnant woman or woman getting treatment for an STD whom I've ever met. :p

For some women, this is true. Other women feel relief and happiness after an abortion. Abortion procedures themselves aren't exactly fun, and some of them are pretty damn uncomfortable, but not all of them can be described as "physically traumatic."

Yes, many women experience trauma regarding their abortion. But don't forget that there are also many women who don't.

True, however simply stating that "pregnant? no problem, have an abortion" as a catch all solution without considering all the angles to that solution is nearsighted at best. It's just not that easy from a practical standpoint to use that a blanket solution.

And I use the term trauma in a technical sense. Any medical procedure does cause a degree of bodily trauma, the severity of which varies.

Did you know that the fastest-growing demographic of new HIV patients is monogamous married women?

Did you know that women who are promiscuous but homosexual are LESS likely to contract STDs than monogamous heterosexual women?

Remaining faithful to your partner is not a contraceptive, nor will it necessarily protect you against STDs. A wedding band ain't a prophylactic.


Which is why married, monogamous women who have saved themselves for one person, who vowed to only have sex with them, are the fastest growing population of new AIDS infectees.

Hm...

I could have sworn tha black males age 18-24 were the highest risk. But then again its where you get your numbers from

I could have sworn tha black males age 18-24 were the highest risk. But then again its where you get your numbers from

Even if monogamous married women are the 2nd highest group it still kinda proves the point, no?

Ok let me adjust it so it fits EVERYONE.

If you are not ready to get STI/STDs, get arrested for beastiality, get an abortion, face a miscarriage, get pregnant and have the baby, then you are not ready for sex. Better?

Are you implying that anyone who has sex is likely to have sex with a sheep? Maybe instead of trying to speak for "everyone," you should stick to speaking for yourself. Don't try to tar us all with a brush you carry around with you.

I personally think that the abortion process would be a lot less traumatic without crowds of fundamentalist protestors screaming that women who get abortions are murderers who will burn in hell. But maybe that's just me.

But then again, thats a small number of people that actually do that. Do you know most groups stand out there and hand out flyers just to let the woman know of better alternatives.

I could have sworn tha black males age 18-24 were the highest risk. But then again its where you get your numbers from

highest risk does not equal fastest growing.

Highest risk means the demographic most likely to get HIV period. Fastest growing means the likelihood of someone in that demographic getting HIV is increasing each year faster than other demographics are.

The likelihood of a monogomous heterosexual woman contracting HIV is still relatively small compared to, again, young black males, but the risk is increasing each year faster than any other demographic.

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

Abstinance is best for those who choose it. It's just another form of birth control and safe sex. It's also the only one that is 100% sure in preventing pregnancy as well as transmittal of STD's.

but like drinking and swearing and sports, it's not for everyone.

Virginity is only special if you make it special. What makes the first of thousands more important then the 34th, with some you really, really cared about?


you always remember your first. hell, i can barely remember my second time, let alone my 34th time. It is the first time that sticks with you always.

Even if monogamous married women are the 2nd highest group it still kinda proves the point, no?

once again, difference between demographic with the highest risk, and demographic with the fastest growth of risk.

Technically, it IS just another form of birth control. It is a means of controlling birth, isn't it?
It all winds up the same in the end, yes. It's just more effort than if the pregnancy had been prevented by most other means. I think that's why I don't really see the "big deal".

Originally Posted by Persephone Skye
How many people really abstain?
Many

How many?

True, however simply stating that "pregnant? no problem, have an abortion" as a catch all solution without considering all the angles to that solution is nearsighted at best. It's just not that easy from a practical standpoint to use that a blanket solution.

I see. I can't argue with that. :)


And I use the term trauma in a technical sense. Any medical procedure does cause a degree of bodily trauma, the severity of which varies.
If you're going to define it that broadly, then you're going to have to consider that pregnancy and childbirth cause far greater physical trauma than any of the most common abortion procedures performed in the US. (I don't know stats for other countries, so I'm not going to vouch for them.)

I did not say complication, I said trauma. Abortion is typically an envasive medical procedure, and there is no such thing as an envasive medical procedure that doesn't cause some degree of bodily trauma.
Abortion is less invasive than a caesarian section, yet thousands of American women undergo c-sections without hearing political debates about how bad it is for them (though perhaps they should).

Also, abortion causes less physical trauma and less lasting physical damage than pregnancy and birth. Pregnancy also has more recorded cases of psychological trauma as well. How many documented cases do we really have of post-partum depression and psychosis, as opposed to post-abortion depression or psychosis?

Abstinance is best for those who choose it. It's just another form of birth control and safe sex. It's also the only one that is 100% sure in preventing pregnancy as well as transmittal of STD's.

but like drinking and swearing and sports, it's not for everyone.
Abstinence is not another form of (safe) sex, because when you stay abstinent, you don't have sex...

you always remember your first. hell, i can barely remember my second time, let alone my 34th time. It is the first time that sticks with you always.
I feel sorry for you.

How many?

How would I know?

Even if monogamous married women are the 2nd highest group it still kinda proves the point, no?

I think the second highest group is latino men, then women of both latino and african descent.

How many?

42

How would I know?
If you don't have any data to back up an assertion, maybe you should avoid making that assertion.

You do not know how many people really abstain, therefore you have no basis for stating that "many" do so.

highest risk does not equal fastest growing.

Highest risk means the demographic most likely to get HIV period. Fastest growing means the likelihood of someone in that demographic getting HIV is increasing each year faster than other demographics are.

The likelihood of a monogomous heterosexual woman contracting HIV is still relatively small compared to, again, young black males, but the risk is increasing each year faster than any other demographic.


and if you look at those numbers, how many got it from their monagamous partner vs how many got Aids from outside sources, ie cheating?

Then again, i guess they wouldn't monagamous then..

42
No, no, that's the answer to a different question.

I'm currently "abstaining",


me too but not by choice ;)

Abortion is less invasive than a caesarian section, yet thousands of American women undergo c-sections without hearing political debates about how bad it is for them (though perhaps they should).

Also, abortion causes less physical trauma and less lasting physical damage than pregnancy and birth. Pregnancy also has more recorded cases of psychological trauma as well. How many documented cases do we really have of post-partum depression and psychosis, as opposed to post-abortion depression or psychosis?

I call BS, how many women are actually happy to go get an abortion? I'd say zero to none. No one is really elated after wards and throws a party. Now how many people are happy with having a child a hell of a lot more.

I think the second highest group is latino men, then women of both latino and african descent.

In reference to HIV spread in Cambodia

"Married, monogamous women now make up 42 per cent of new HIV infections in the country."

http://www.ifrc.org/docs/news/pr04/4304.asp

If you don't have any data to back up an assertion, maybe you should avoid making that assertion.

You do not know how many people really abstain, therefore you have no basis for stating that "many" do so.

So now even when people say things like many they have to back it up? :rolleyes:

So if I 'assert' that many people live in America, is that statement not true because I don't actually know how many people live in America?

I call BS, how many women are actually happy to go get an abortion? I'd say zero to none. No one is really elated after wards and throws a party. Now how many people are happy with having a child a hell of a lot more.
IMO, to use the car analogy, no one is elated after they drive a car and don't crash it. If you drive a car and do crash, then that is a big event.

and if you look at those numbers, how many got it from their monagamous partner vs how many got Aids from outside sources, ie cheating?

Then again, i guess they wouldn't monagamous then..

I'm sure until they find out differently from nasty test results they think their partners are monogamous too. Bottom line is that YOU may be monogamous but it still doesnt ensure you're not at risk.

I call BS, how many women are actually happy to go get an abortion? I'd say zero to none. No one is really elated after wards and throws a party. Now how many people are happy with having a child a hell of a lot more.

If you were faced by the choice of having an abortion or having your life destroyed by a child, then the abortion would leave you feeling pretty relieved, don't you think?

Many people are unhappy about having children, too.

I'm sure until they find out differently from nasty test results they think their partners are monogamous too. Bottom line is that YOU may be monogamous but it still doesnt ensure you're not at risk.

If i marry someone that is a virgin, and i am one as well, what risk do i face? If we are both monogamous, meaning only having one parter(not one partner at a time either), then i'd have no fear of disease.

I call BS, how many women are actually happy to go get an abortion? I'd say zero to none. No one is really elated after wards and throws a party. Now how many people are happy with having a child a hell of a lot more.
Who said anything about happiness when it works out okay? We were talking about physical effects. Common dangerous side-effects of pregnancy include blood pressure spikes with related increased risk of stroke, onset of adult diabetes, injury to kidneys and bladder, and conditions leading to later damage such as earlier onset of arthritis and osteoporosis. None of these negative side-effects will have any impact on whether the woman is happy to have a baby or not. The happier she is, the less likely she is to care about the risks, but that does not make the risks go away.

And her level of sincere happiness will also have no effect on whether she develops post-partum depression or psychosis, because those are physical brain disorders caused by hormonal problems associated with pregnancy. They have nothing to do with her attitude or expectations.

Abortion does not carry such risks. It carries other risks, but fewer of them, perhaps because abortions do not last 9 months.

I call BS, how many women are actually happy to go get an abortion? I'd say zero to none. No one is really elated after wards and throws a party. Now how many people are happy with having a child a hell of a lot more.
Women aren't usually happy to find themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy, any more than people are happy if they find themselves in a car accident. However, a lot of women are very happy that they are able to get a safe medical abortion, much like how many people are happy if they are able to get a safe medical blood transfusion after being in an accident.

In terms of comparing happiness between women who carry to term and women who have abortions, you need to remember a few things:

1) Over 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have at least one child. These women will, obviously, be familiar with the happiness of having a baby.
2) Women who have abortions are treated like shit by much of society. In contrast, motherhood is one of the few occupations that a woman can be pretty positive she will be praised for. You cannot ignore social context when you are looking at people's happiness.
3) It is currently pretty unacceptable to come out and say that you're happy you had an abortion. Hell, it's not really acceptable to even admit that you've HAD an abortion. Meanwhile, if you have a baby it is usually pretty unacceptable to admit that you are UNhappy. Women who aren't happy that they have a baby are demonized and often viewed as crazy or defective. This will have an impact on how people report their own feelings about having an abortion or having a baby.

If i marry someone that is a virgin, and i am one as well, what risk do i face? If we are both monogamous, meaning only having one parter(not one partner at a time either), then i'd have no fear of disease.
What does marriage have to do with it? The marriage doesn't automatically confer any special protection, so how is the sex you are having in that situation any different from the sex occuring between two unmarried people who were virgins when they got together?

According to you, ABSTAINING is the only way you can protect yourself. If you're fucking your wife/husband, you're not abstaining.

If i marry someone that is a virgin, and i am one as well, what risk do i face? If we are both monogamous, meaning only having one parter(not one partner at a time either), then i'd have no fear of disease.

My point is that if your ex-virgin spouse got to wondering what it was like with someone else and had a discreet rendezvous it would open you up to the possibility of disease. And since these people probably thought their partners were monogamous it wasnt any protection for them. Unless of course you plan to fit your future spouse with a GPS tracking device and to surgically attach a camera to their head so you can monitor them 24/7. Actually welding a camera to someones skull would probably be effective contraception. Thats too kinky even for me. :P

EDIT: And what Bottle said. Even if you are with your spouse only you're still at risk to unwanted pregnancy.

and if you look at those numbers, how many got it from their monagamous partner vs how many got Aids from outside sources, ie cheating?

Then again, i guess they wouldn't monagamous then..
The women in question were monogamous. They did exactly what you said they should do: they were virgins when they married, they exchanged vows of fidelity, and they remain faithful to their only sex partner. Yet they get an STD. So gee, I guess maybe that's not actually a 100% effective method of prevention, is it?

Also, this whole tangent ignore the issue of pregnancy. Your risk of an unplanned pregnancy is not altered by your marital status.

Abstinence is not another form of (safe) sex, because when you stay abstinent, you don't have sex...

and no sex is safe sex. :D

If you were faced by the choice of having an abortion or having your life destroyed by a child, then the abortion would leave you feeling pretty relieved, don't you think?

Many people are unhappy about having children, too.


Well i don't assume having a living thing inside of you killed off, is exactly the most satisfying thing. And i know many people are not happy with having babies, but many to most are.

So now even when people say things like many they have to back it up? :rolleyes:

So if I 'assert' that many people live in America, is that statement not true because I don't actually know how many people live in America?
If someone were to challenge you on the assertion that many people live in Africa, and you did not wish to be rude to them, then yes, you should be prepared to post a general statistic of how many people live in Africa. Such statistics can be found through google searches.

Of course, it would be stupid for someone to challenge whether many people live in Africa, for the same reason it would be stupid for someone to ask for proof that George Bush is the current US president. Such things are common knowledge. Common knowledge are facts that are so widely broadcast that any mildly aware person can be expected to know them.

However, abstinence figures are not common knowledge. Abstinence programs are new. Many claims are made for their results but little data is ever posted to back up those claims because there has not been time to conduct definitive studies. So all claims about abstinence education is subject to challenge, and if you are going to make claims, you'd better be prepared to defend them.

And if you are going to make vague claims, you should be prepared to be dismissed.

and no sex is safe sex. :DAnd no sex is bad sex. ;)

If someone were to challenge you on the assertion that many people live in Africa, and you did not wish to be rude to them, then yes, you should be prepared to post a general statistic of how many people live in Africa. Such statistics can be found through google searches.

Of course, it would be stupid for someone to challenge whether many people live in Africa, for the same reason it would be stupid for someone to ask for proof that George Bush is the current US president. Such things are common knowledge. Common knowledge are facts that are so widely broadcast that any mildly aware person can be expected to know them.

However, abstinence figures are not common knowledge. Abstinence programs are new. Many claims are made for their results but little data is ever posted to back up those claims because there has not been time to conduct definitive studies. So all claims about abstinence education is subject to challenge, and if you are going to make claims, you'd better be prepared to defend them.

And if you are going to make vague claims, you should be prepared to be dismissed.

Are you saying that people challenge the idea that many people in the world abstein?

Well i don't assume having a living thing inside of you killed off, is exactly the most satisfying thing. And i know many people are not happy with having babies, but many to most are.

That is your assumption. If you want to cling to it and ignore the fact that other people report different experiences, go right ahead, but don't expect to persuade anyone else on that basis.

Well i don't assume having a living thing inside of you killed off, is exactly the most satisfying thing.

Speaking as somebody who has helped remove a tapeworm, I can assure you that it is often very satisfying for somebody to have a living thing inside of them killed off.

If you were refering specifically to the termination of a pregnancy, then there are several things to remember:
1) Some abortions do not kill a fetus. A huge percentage of late-term abortions are performed to remove fetuses that are already dead or dying. Which would you prefer: to abort your pregnancy after finding out your fetus is dead, or to carry around the already-rotting corpse of your child inside you until you either miscarried or gave birth to it?
2) Pregnancy isn't just about the fetus. A woman can feel sad about the death of a fetus, but delighted about the fact that said fetus is no longer inside her body. I don't like the idea of a fetus dying, in and of itself, but if I found myself pregnant I would be overjoyed at the idea of having the pregnancy terminated.


And i know many people are not happy with having babies, but many to most are.
I don't think you really have any way of backing this up, since you really don't have any way of knowing who is and is not happy with their life choices. You also have no way of knowing if those people would be more or less happy if they'd aborted one or many of their pregnancies. You also don't know if those people HAVE had abortions that they just haven't told you about.

Remember, most abortions are performed on women who have kids. Over 40% of American women will have an abortion before the age of 45. Most of those women will have kids either before or after their abortion. So a women could very easily be both very happy she had an abortion and also very happy she had children.

Are you saying that people challenge the idea that many people in the world abstein?
Have you not been reading this thread? What do you think the question "How many people really abstain?" means?

Speaking as somebody who has helped remove a tapeworm, I can assure you that it is often very satisfying for somebody to have a living thing inside of them killed off.

I was going to ask if he'd ever taken antibiotics, but there you go being both faster and better than me. Dammit.

That is your assumption. If you want to cling to it and ignore the fact that other people report different experiences, go right ahead, but don't expect to persuade anyone else on that basis.

And you can continue to ignore the fact that the only to be safe 100% is to remain abstinate, but when you get a disease or something, don't cry about it. You were warned, you ignored the warning, and you face the consquences.

And you can continue to ignore the fact that the only to be safe 100% is to remain abstinate, but when you get a disease or something, don't cry about it. You were warned, you ignored the warning, and you face the consquences.
Right. And when you lose both legs in a car accident, don't cry about it. You knew there were risks, you knew there was a chance of losing both your legs in a car accident, so what the hell are you bitching about?

Right. And when you lose both legs in a car accident, don't cry about it. You knew there were risks, you knew there was a chance of losing both your legs in a car accident, so what the hell are you bitching about?

there's a fundamental difference here though. driving cars is a fundamental instinctual drive for the human animal. totally unlike sex, which is nothing but an icky perversion.

And you can continue to ignore the fact that the only to be safe 100% is to remain abstinate, but when you get a disease or something, don't cry about it. You were warned, you ignored the warning, and you face the consquences.
I happen to agree with Children of Vodka on this. Life is risk and the trick is to manage risk, not avoid it, because you can't avoid it. I manage the risks of sex by using birth control and being selective about my lovers and keeping medical treatment and abortion as back-up options just in case. That is my choice and you will never hear me crying about any of it. So far, everything has been going very well.

As for these supposed "warnings," you know, I do not consider the existence of risk to be an inherently bad thing, but there does come a point when other people continuously carrying on about warnings and consequences begins to sound threatening rather than helpful.

Right. And when you lose both legs in a car accident, don't cry about it. You knew there were risks, you knew there was a chance of losing both your legs in a car accident, so what the hell are you bitching about?

Thats why the teach us to be defensive drivers, because there is a risk, and I do know there is a risk, and accept the consequences.

Thats why the teach us to be defensive drivers, because there is a risk, and I do know there is a risk, and accept the consequences.

Thats why they teach us safe sex practices, because there is a risk, and I do know there is a risk, and accept the consequences.

there's a fundamental difference here though. driving cars is a fundamental instinctual drive for the human animal. totally unlike sex, which is nothing but an icky perversion.
Oooh, that one earns you a biiiiig cookie. :D

Thats why the teach us to be defensive drivers, because there is a risk, and I do know there is a risk, and accept the consequences.
Right, so if you are in an accident and lose your legs, you won't complain at all, right? And you certainly won't be HAPPY about it if you are granted access to medical treatment, right? You will simply lie bleeding on the pavement, and tell the EMTs, "No no, don't help me, I made this choice and I need to take responsibility for it."

Thats why the teach us to be defensive drivers, because there is a risk, and I do know there is a risk, and accept the consequences.

The conservative argument would be if they didn't teach us to drive, but instead gave us all cars then we'd not have accidents.


The failure rate for a condom, properly used is very small. I've never had one fail. It's the safest way to have sex in regard to STDs. If you're just concerned about pregnancy, I'd suggest oral or anal.

Thats why the teach us to be defensive drivers, because there is a risk, and I do know there is a risk, and accept the consequences.

Much like safer sex education.

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

My experiance is that people who wait until marriage are usually happier people, with a greater measure of inner peace (which is critical to a healthy relationship).

Also, all methods of birth control have a precentage chance of failure, so absinence (when niether part wants a pregnancy) is the most responsible choice.

Physical intimacy really isn't all they crack it up to be, and it causes a great deal of emotional pain when it is not treated respectfully.

Physical intimacy really isn't all they crack it up to be, and it causes a great deal of emotional pain when it is not treated respectfully.

Really? Physical Intamcy for me is fantastic. Maybe its all personal experience and opinion.

Thats why the teach us to be defensive drivers, because there is a risk, and I do know there is a risk, and accept the consequences.You mean like "Oh, you totalled my car with yours, and it was your fault. I guess I'll have to accept the consequences."?

Physical intimacy really isn't all they crack it up to be, and it causes a great deal of emotional pain when it is not treated respectfully.

Yet no emotional pain can compare to realizing you're a 28 year old virgin.

If sex isn't the nastiest most depraved and gloriously fulfilling thing you've ever done, you're not doing something quite right.

My experiance is that people who wait until marriage are usually happier people, with a greater measure of inner peace (which is critical to a healthy relationship).

In my experience, people are happiest when they make choices based on what is right for them as an individual. For some, this means waiting until they marry to have sex. For others, it doesn't. Regardless, the most unhappy people I know are people who made choices about their sex life based mostly on what other people wanted or expected of them.


Also, all methods of birth control have a precentage chance of failure, so absinence (when niether part wants a pregnancy) is the most responsible choice.

If the only issue is pregnancy (as your post suggests) then having gay sex is perfectly responsible. ;)


Physical intimacy really isn't all they crack it up to be, and it causes a great deal of emotional pain when it is not treated respectfully.
Depends on the "they" you're talking to. If you mean the religious nutters who imply that sex and sexual purity are the most important subjects in the universe, then I'd have to agree with you. If you're talking about the people who act like having sex soils you for the rest of your life, or the people who insist that sex must always be performed a certain way lest the Baby Jesus sob himself to death, then I agree with you.

Physical intimacy is whatever you and your partner(s) make of it. For some people, it's lousy. For others, it's wonderful. For most people it will be both, and everything in between, and sometimes all things at once.

If sex isn't the nastiest most depraved and gloriously fulfilling thing you've ever done, you're not doing something quite right.

I'll drink to that.

Erm.... from what I've heard (even from the non-conservative sources) condom's don't work well against STD's, except HIV.

the only one they are not good against is herpes because it can be taransmitted through skin to skin contact.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm

My experiance is that people who wait until marriage are usually happier people, with a greater measure of inner peace (which is critical to a healthy relationship).

Also, all methods of birth control have a precentage chance of failure, so absinence (when niether part wants a pregnancy) is the most responsible choice.

Physical intimacy really isn't all they crack it up to be, and it causes a great deal of emotional pain when it is not treated respectfully.

... AHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHA! HA HA HA!

Oh dear god you're a funny person. You gonna be here all week?

A: I know I'm damned happy that I had sex with my fiancee before asking her to marry me. Why would I be so happy? Well, let's see: I know I can live my life with just her, and my physical needs can be fully met with just her. I know that she's a sexy bitch and likes to be spanked from time to time. I know I can be sexually fulfilled for the rest of my life with this woman, and I have no regrets in asking her to be with me.

Just imagine if I asked her to marry me, married her, and found she couldn't even get me hard in the sack because she's a complete prude and doesn't even -enjoy- sex. I couldn't have asked her this ahead of time because she didn't know, because she's never HAD sex! Then I'd be FUCKED - not physically, unfortunately - because getting a divorce would defeat the purpose of waiting to have sex all this time!

B: Physical intimacy is CRUCIAL to ANY romantic relationship! If you can't realize that then I'll have to ask your future wife (or lack thereof) and get the story of how depressed she is that her husband can't turn her on. Way to go.

If sex isn't the nastiest most depraved and gloriously fulfilling thing you've ever done, you're not doing something quite right.Why? If its not that to someone, why would that be wrong?

I don't want to be forced to follow someone else's ideals when it comes to sex. So I apply that to others too. I don't see why someone that doesn't enjoy sex or wants to wait should be ridiculed or pressured into abandoning that lifestyle.

Why? If its not that to someone, why would that be wrong?

I don't want to be forced to follow someone else's ideals when it comes to sex. So I apply that to others too. I don't see why someone that doesn't enjoy sex or wants to wait should be ridiculed or pressured into abandoning that lifestyle.

Thats not quite what we're all getting at. You need to find someone sexually compatible as well as emotionally compatible. Whether that involves waiting until marriage and then having sex in the missionary position with the lights off or if it involves ****ing a **** with *** and **** oil while you ***** a ****** 4 times before **** *** ******a washing machine.

Why? If its not that to someone, why would that be wrong?

I don't want to be forced to follow someone else's ideals when it comes to sex. So I apply that to others too. I don't see why someone that doesn't enjoy sex or wants to wait should be ridiculed or pressured into abandoning that lifestyle.

Yeah. If you like not liking sex, then by all means, continue enjoying not enjoying it.

If you don't have any data to back up an assertion, maybe you should avoid making that assertion.

You do not know how many people really abstain, therefore you have no basis for stating that "many" do so.

That's silly. If he had stated anything about relative proportions (e.g. "more teenagers abstain than don't"), you'd have a reasonable argument, but he didn't. He just said "many," which is fairly unambiguously true. No one can possibly know exactly how many people have chosen for some portion of their life to abstain from sex, but I can safely assume that it is at least a figure large enough to constitute "many." To cite one figure I have heard, a survey a few years ago concluded that approximately 30% of all undergraduate college students do not have sex while at college. Now, whether they are deliberately abstaining or horribly unattractive or lying in case their parents see the survey, I can't know, but I can still conclude that at least some portion of the population of the world consciously chooses not to boink anyone at some point in their lives.

I find myself getting frustrated with both sides of this debate, since people seem to have trouble grasping the concept that different choices are right for different people. People who choose to have sex are not horrible icky sluts, and people who choose to abstain are not crazy repressed loonies. I chose to abstain from sexual activity in high school, because I didn't feel ready. I chose to stop abstaining in college, because I did feel ready. I wasn't crazy or horrible either time. If I had chosen to start getting nekkid with boys when I was 14, I wouldn't have been crazy or horrible. If I had chosen to wait until I was 45, I still wouldn't have been crazy or horrible. People should make the choices that are right for them, without idiots on both sides claiming that there's something horribly wrong with you if you dare to have sex before X point in your life or if you haven't had sex by X point in your life.

Saying that comprehensive sex education will make kids have sex is saying that decent drivers ed will make kids crash their parents' cars into trees.

Saying that comprehensive sex education will make kids have sex is saying that decent drivers ed will make kids crash their parents' cars into trees.

nah - saying that sex ed will make people have sex is more like saying that anatomy lessons will make people walk

nah - saying that sex ed will make people have sex is more like saying that anatomy lessons will make people walk

Saying that sex ed will make kids have sex is saying that teaching kids about the Trojan War will make them worship Greek Gods. :)

Saying that sex ed will make kids have sex is saying that teaching kids about the Trojan War will make them worship Greek Gods. :)
Does anyone else find it amusing that "Trojan" is a brand of condom?

nah - saying that sex ed will make people have sex is more like saying that anatomy lessons will make people walk

"Abstinence - 100% Effective Against Tripping"

Does anyone else find it amusing that "Trojan" is a brand of condom?

No, just you

Does anyone else find it amusing that "Trojan" is a brand of condom?

The Ancient Greeks were against birth control!!! :eek:

(it's also a high school mascot in one of my stories :p)

No, just you
Then I revel in my superior sense of humour! :p

It doesn't matter to me what other people do, but personally, life-long abstinence is the only thing that makes sense to me. I see no point in ever having sex.

It doesn't matter to me what other people do, but personally, life-long abstinence is the only thing that makes sense to me. I see no point in ever having sex.

Other than enjoying the bodily functions god gave you, and propagating the species, of course.

The problem with abstinence only education is that it leaves children woefully uneducated on what to do when they do have sex.

You are doing a horrid disservice to everyone unless you can guarantee that 100% of people going through abstinence only education will remain abstinent. When they do have sex (and many will) they will not have a condom, not know how to prevent pregnancies, know what to do to keep themselves protected, or even recognize the symptoms of a STD and get treated.

There have been many cases of kids who went through abstinence only ed who got pregnant or an STD because they simply were not prepared when they had sex. There are also many cases of people who, not knowing the symptoms, did not realize they had an STD for a long period of time, and were too scared to talk to their doctor about it.

Education is never a bad thing. Period.

There are very few people who will never have sex in their lives. These people are the only ones who do not need sex ed. Since there is no way to predict with 100% accuracy who these people are, it is better to make sure everyone knows about various methods of birth control and how to properly use a condom.

Other than enjoying the bodily functions god gave you, and propagating the species, of course.

Neither of those matter to me. They seem so unimportant.

That's silly. If he had stated anything about relative proportions (e.g. "more teenagers abstain than don't"), you'd have a reasonable argument, but he didn't. He just said "many," which is fairly unambiguously true. No one can possibly know exactly how many people have chosen for some portion of their life to abstain from sex, but I can safely assume that it is at least a figure large enough to constitute "many." To cite one figure I have heard, a survey a few years ago concluded that approximately 30% of all undergraduate college students do not have sex while at college. Now, whether they are deliberately abstaining or horribly unattractive or lying in case their parents see the survey, I can't know, but I can still conclude that at least some portion of the population of the world consciously chooses not to boink anyone at some point in their lives.
We had already gone into more detail about my objection. I do not believe that sex and health education programs should be promoted on unfounded assumptions. I have that issue with quite a lot of educational systems. Abstinence is the latest.

I find myself getting frustrated with both sides of this debate, since people seem to have trouble grasping the concept that different choices are right for different people.
Where do you get that from? Most people on both sides have been saying exactly that, in this thread. It's the "but" arguments that follow that initial statement that we are debating.

People who choose to have sex are not horrible icky sluts, and people who choose to abstain are not crazy repressed loonies. I chose to abstain from sexual activity in high school, because I didn't feel ready. I chose to stop abstaining in college, because I did feel ready. I wasn't crazy or horrible either time. If I had chosen to start getting nekkid with boys when I was 14, I wouldn't have been crazy or horrible. If I had chosen to wait until I was 45, I still wouldn't have been crazy or horrible. People should make the choices that are right for them, without idiots on both sides claiming that there's something horribly wrong with you if you dare to have sex before X point in your life or if you haven't had sex by X point in your life.
I'm happy that you felt free to make the choices that were right for you. What does that have abstinence programs in schools? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that was the original topic of the thread. It does seem to be wandering a bit though.

It doesn't matter to me what other people do, but personally, life-long abstinence is the only thing that makes sense to me. I see no point in ever having sex.

So you see no point in enjoying yourself and having a strong emotional connection with another human being?

The problem with abstinence only education is that it leaves children woefully uneducated on what to do when they do have sex.

You are doing a horrid disservice to everyone unless you can guarantee that 100% of people going through abstinence only education will remain abstinent. When they do have sex (and many will) they will not have a condom, not know how to prevent pregnancies, know what to do to keep themselves protected, or even recognize the symptoms of a STD and get treated.

There have been many cases of kids who went through abstinence only ed who got pregnant or an STD because they simply were not prepared when they had sex. There are also many cases of people who, not knowing the symptoms, did not realize they had an STD for a long period of time, and were too scared to talk to their doctor about it.

Education is never a bad thing. Period.

There are very few people who will never have sex in their lives. These people are the only ones who do not need sex ed. Since there is no way to predict with 100% accuracy who these people are, it is better to make sure everyone knows about various methods of birth control and how to properly use a condom.can you show statistics where the number of teen pregancy and cases involving STD who went through Abstinance Only outnumber those who went through sex ed who still got Pregnant or infected with STD?

Abstinence ONLY is wrong, but it should be taught as a method to avoiding STD as well as unwanted pregnancies.

alot of the Abstinence Education laws don't say teach Abstinence ONLY, but to teach ways and methods to postpone sex until marriage.

And no sex is bad sex. ;)

I dunno about that... some might preferre Bad Sex to no sex. :p

Russian woman "I want you to make love to me badly."
Notch Johnson "I can make love to you badly."
Son of the Beach

can you show statistics where the number of teen pregancy and cases involving STD who went through Abstinance Only outnumber those who went through sex ed who still got Pregnant or infected with STD?

Abstinence ONLY is wrong, but it should be taught as a method to avoiding STD as well as unwanted pregnancies.

alot of the Abstinence Education laws don't say teach Abstinence ONLY, but to teach ways and methods to postpone sex until marriage.
But that last statement is still part of what many people find objectionable about it. Why should schools be teaching other people's teenage children to plan their lives around marriage? Why should marriage enter into the question of how to be sexually responsible? Why should a public education system assume that people are either going to get married or stay celibate their whole lives?

I would have no problem with sex education programs that acknowledged abstinence as a personal choice that is equally valid with other choices, but I would have very serious problems with a public school program that was telling my child not to have sex until marriage in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Not only would that be unacceptably presumptuous of the school, but, as has already been shown in this thread, it would be factually wrong information to give the kids.

We had already gone into more detail about my objection. I do not believe that sex and health education programs should be promoted on unfounded assumptions. I have that issue with quite a lot of educational systems. Abstinence is the latest.

And on that, I'm fully in agreement with you, and I definitely think that abstinence-only education is stupid as heck.

Where do you get that from? Most people on both sides have been saying exactly that, in this thread. It's the "but" arguments that follow that initial statement that we are debating.

I'd rather not go reread the whole thread, but several people have claimed things like "responsible teens wait to have sex" or "there's nothing worse than being a 28-year-old virgin."

I'm happy that you felt free to make the choices that were right for you. What does that have abstinence programs in schools? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that was the original topic of the thread. It does seem to be wandering a bit though.

That was indeed an original topic of the thread, and it has indeed drifted, but the person you responded to in re: "many" people abstaining didn't seem to me to be trying to justify abstinence-only education, but only to answer a question posed in the OP - "how many people really abstain?" One can certainly say that many people do so without believing that those who don't should be kept ignorant. :)

And on that, I'm fully in agreement with you, and I definitely think that abstinence-only education is stupid as heck.



I'd rather not go reread the whole thread, but several people have claimed things like "responsible teens wait to have sex" or "there's nothing worse than being a 28-year-old virgin."
Well, I have read the whole thread, and on average, it's been pretty reasonable so far.

That was indeed an original topic of the thread, and it has indeed drifted, but the person you responded to in re: "many" people abstaining didn't seem to me to be trying to justify abstinence-only education, but only to answer a question posed in the OP - "how many people really abstain?" One can certainly say that many people do so without believing that those who don't should be kept ignorant. :)
On the surface it would seem that way, I agree. However, I saw the original "How many?" question, in the context of the person's original post, as a legitimate question regarding how realistic abstinence programs are and, by extension, how worthwhile they are. In that context, the "Many" answer struck me as dismissive.

So you see no point in enjoying yourself and having a strong emotional connection with another human being?

I can enjoy my life without ever having sex.

I wouldn't mind an emotional connection with someone, as long as there was no sex or kissing or anything like that involved. I don't want to ever get married, either, because I don't want to ever have sex, and it probably wouldn't be fair to another person or to myself to marry someone when I don't ever intend to have sex.

before you can say something, you have to balance it.

But that last statement is still part of what many people find objectionable about it. Why should schools be teaching other people's teenage children to plan their lives around marriage? Why should marriage enter into the question of how to be sexually responsible? Why should a public education system assume that people are either going to get married or stay celibate their whole lives?it's not. Sexually responsiblitiy isn't just "wear a condom", "Take the pill", "ask your doctor about other forms of protection," but it's also being more selective with whom you sleep with. Waiting till Marriage (traditional or Same Sex) is the best and easily definable goal. after that, you and your partner tends to be restricted to one person.

Just like saying you can be 21 to drink. that's not saying that everyone under 21 is immature, it just a definable mark where the majority of the people tend to be more mature than those immature of the same age.

Abstinence education also teaches how to enjoy your GF/BF's company without the need to shed one's clothes.

I would have no problem with sex education programs that acknowledged abstinence as a personal choice that is equally valid with other choices, but I would have very serious problems with a public school program that was telling my child not to have sex until marriage in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs.by that same mode of thinking, other forms of education is telling people "go ahead and have sex, you cannot control yourself..."
both views are narrow and miss the point of both forms of education.

on the other hand, abstinence education teaches control, it teaches people to look for alternatives to sex. Teaching someone how to control one's self desires isn't always a bad thing. ;)

Not only would that be unacceptably presumptuous of the school, but, as has already been shown in this thread, it would be factually wrong information to give the kids.abstinance ONLY is wrong, but teaching Abstinence (along side other safe sex practices) is not wrong information.

I can enjoy my life without ever having sex.

I wouldn't mind an emotional connection with someone, as long as there was no sex or kissing or anything like that involved. I don't want to ever get married, either, because I don't want to ever have sex, and it probably wouldn't be fair to another person or to myself to marry someone when I don't ever intend to have sex.

Asexual, rare but not unheard of.

I feel sorry for you.

???

Your brain is not wired properly.

Physical intimacy really isn't all they crack it up to be, and it causes a great deal of emotional pain when it is not treated respectfully.


Maybe you're just not doing it right. I've always considered sex an absolutely necessary part of life and enjoy it more and more the older I get.

Asexual, rare but not unheard of.

That's what I've been wondering about lately, but today my psychology teacher told me that people who aren't attracted to anyone probably have hormone imbalances or something like that. I don't feel like there's anything wrong with me, though.

Well, I have read the whole thread, and on average, it's been pretty reasonable so far.

I think it's been fairly reasonable on average, too, but the stray obnoxious comments irked me. I suspect I'm also particularly sensitive to it at the moment as a friend of mine was talking to me just a few days ago about how sex-related peer pressure has negatively affected her life.

On the surface it would seem that way, I agree. However, I saw the original "How many?" question, in the context of the person's original post, as a legitimate question regarding how realistic abstinence programs are and, by extension, how worthwhile they are. In that context, the "Many" answer struck me as dismissive.

Sounds like it's just an issue of interpretation, then - we read the comment very differently. I suppose that comes with debating on the internet. :)

Abortion is less invasive than a caesarian section, yet thousands of American women undergo c-sections without hearing political debates about how bad it is for them (though perhaps they should).

Also, abortion causes less physical trauma and less lasting physical damage than pregnancy and birth. Pregnancy also has more recorded cases of psychological trauma as well. How many documented cases do we really have of post-partum depression and psychosis, as opposed to post-abortion depression or psychosis?


A C-section helps a woman give birth to a living child, an abortion prevents and arguably takes that life from the child. Just a small little difference you seemed to overlook.

Asexual, rare but not unheard of.

It seems strangly common on this forum

That's what I've been wondering about lately, but today my psychology teacher told me that people who aren't attracted to anyone probably have hormone imbalances or something like that. I don't feel like there's anything wrong with me, though.

Yeah well there are people who say the same thing about gays. You mean you never intend to have sex? What about masturbating? I'm quite curious.

Asexual, rare but not unheard of. Wierd, is what I call it. At any rate, a friend of mine is taking a child developement course (basically a "How to be a Mommy and not scar your child for life" course). The very first week they had a demonstration of how to use a condom. I found this a little too funny... until i realized that there are people who actually need help in this area. Believe me, watching them practice made me realize how much a newbie protecting themselves (or another) was like me pulling on my socks at 4am: Inside out and akward.

Yeah well there are people who say the same thing about gays. You mean you never intend to have sex? What about masturbating? I'm quite curious.

I don't ever want to have sex, because it just seems frightening, gross, pointless, and incomprehensible to me.

I'm not really sure what that other thing you mentioned is, but I don't think I want to do that, either.

It seems strangly common on this forumWouldn't it be more likely for people who don't chase after boys/girls to waste their time on the internet instead?

Wouldn't it be more likely for people who don't chase after boys/girls to waste their time on the internet instead?

True but noone else has said they're asexual on any of the other forums I go on

I don't ever want to have sex, because it just seems frightening, gross, pointless, and incomprehensible to me.

I'm not really sure what that other thing you mentioned is, but I don't think I want to do that, either.

OK with that last comment you have GOT to be kidding me...

And for "frightening"...most asexuality expresses itself at simple non desire. If you actually feel frightened at the thought of intercourse then that may be the cause of some larger deeper seated psychological issue...

and even though asexuality seems unusually common here, I wonder how much of it is that, and how much of it is teen "screw all relationships, I cut myself to stop the main!" emo whininess

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

You have to remember that the PTA religiously reads these books for things like these. I've taken a foreign language class where the teacher constantly bitched about how we got these crappy books because the school wouldent allow her to choose the good book because there was not a black kid on the front cover. So there are a lot of politics that go into this.

I don't abstain.

Last week I started health class, and so far it's sucked balls because on every other page of the first chapter I've read "abstinence from sexual activity will make you a responsible teen" or some other BS like that.

I've rolled my eyes at all of it (after all, it is North Carolina :rolleyes:). However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain? And what if someone doesn't want to abstain?:headbang:

POLL! POLL! POLL! POLL!

I do abstain, its what is right for me. I am not ready to deal with it and should some thing go wrong I am not at a point where I could support a possible child and emotionaly I am not sure I could go through with eather an abortion or a pregnecy. Bacsicaly I know that with where I am in my life at the moment I am not ready to have sex. Some kids my age are and if they want to that is their choice, personaly I have chosen to abstain untill I am married, again that may nto work for some people but it workd for me. Hey i have made it this far in my life with out sex i know that waiting a few more years,if I even choses to get married at all, is not going to be a big deal.

OK with that last comment you have GOT to be kidding me...

And for "frightening"...most asexuality expresses itself at simple non desire. If you actually feel frightened at the thought of intercourse then that may be the cause of some larger deeper seated psychological issue...

and even though asexuality seems unusually common here, I wonder how much of it is that, and how much of it is teen "screw all relationships, I cut myself to stop the main!" emo whininess

I'm not kidding. I know the dictionary definition, but I don't understand it.

That's why I was wondering whether or not I am really asexual, but I don't feel like I have a problem.

I'm not kidding. I know the dictionary definition, but I don't understand it.


May I ask what exactly you don't understand? I admit, I'm curious.

I don't ever want to have sex, because it just seems frightening, gross, pointless, and incomprehensible to me.
How old are you?

If you see sex as frightening, you seriously need some counseling.

If sex is just something you don’t enjoy, but you are attracted to members of the opposite sex (or same sex, or both, or sheep, or whatever) then you likely have a negligible libido (see a doctor).

If you have no interest in sex or physical contact, nor are you attracted to anyone, but do not see anything wrong with such interaction, then you are probably asexual (either pre-pubescent or never properly developed).

Basically if your view of sex is like golf – some enjoy it but it just isn’t for me – then you’re not too bad off. Some hormonal imbalance or other medical problem could be killing your libido.

By the way, sex IS gross. It is disgusting, slimy, icky, etc… if you do it right :D

How old are you?

If you see sex as frightening, you seriously need some counseling.

If sex is just something you don’t enjoy, but you are attracted to members of the opposite sex (or same sex, or both, or sheep, or whatever) then you likely have a negligible libido (see a doctor).

If you have no interest in sex or physical contact, nor are you attracted to anyone, but do not see anything wrong with such interaction, then you are probably asexual (either pre-pubescent or never properly developed).

Basically if your view of sex is like golf – some enjoy it but it just isn’t for me – then you’re not too bad off. Some hormonal imbalance or other medical problem could be killing your libido.

By the way, sex IS gross. It is disgusting, slimy, icky, etc… if you do it right :D

16.

I see it as frightening and I'm not really attracted to anyone, which is why I'm not sure. And I don't want to have sex if it's gross.

May I ask what exactly you don't understand? I admit, I'm curious.

I don't really know. I just don't understand it.

???

Your brain is not wired properly.

You don't feel sad for that person, that out of 34 of their sexual experiences, only the first one was memorable? I think that's tragic.

I see it as frightening and I'm not really attracted to anyone, which is why I'm not sure. And I don't want to have sex if it's gross.

Heh. Don't worry about it being gross. If you ever meet someone who you feel you actually do want to have sex with, I promise you you won't really mind the "gross" aspect.

I don't really know. I just don't understand it.

Well, presumably you know of things that physically feel nice - a backrub, a warm bath, a comfy bed, whatever. Masturbation is really not much different - it's simply something that a lot of people find feels very nice.

it's not. Sexually responsiblitiy isn't just "wear a condom", "Take the pill", "ask your doctor about other forms of protection," but it's also being more selective with whom you sleep with. Waiting till Marriage (traditional or Same Sex) is the best and easily definable goal. after that, you and your partner tends to be restricted to one person.
Piffle. And also beside the point.

My objection was to a school system deciding that celibacy followed by marriage is the route MY child's life is going to take. Excuse me, but it's MY child, not the school board's. And it's MY CHILD'S life, not the school board's. I find it just as objectionable for the school board to be promoting their version of a "responsible" sex life to my child as a fundamentalist parent might feel about the school board promoting a sex lifestyle that they disapprove of. Who the hell does this school board think it is?

MY CHILD will decide, as she or he grows up, when and whether to have sex, AND when and whether to get married, and MY CHILD will decide whether those decisions are related or separate. The school board will NOT make those decisions for MY child, and as a parent, I would follow up that explanation to my child's school principal with the question, "Is that understood?" in a very stern tone of voice.

The school's job is to give a proper layperson's education in the science of sex, the health concerns of sex, and to some extent the social context of sex. It is NOT the school's job to plan my child's wedding, let alone wedding night, thank you very much.

Just like saying you can be 21 to drink. that's not saying that everyone under 21 is immature, it just a definable mark where the majority of the people tend to be more mature than those immature of the same age.
Just what are you imagining here? An Ozzie & Harriet world where every American boy and girl is a virgin until they get married at age 19-20?

What about people who don't get married until age 30, or 35, or 40? Are they expected to be virgins, too, because -- what? Marriage is a benchmark life-passage that signals that you are mature enough for sex, so obviously, if you don't get married you must not be mature enough yet?

What the hell does marriage have to do with sex anyway? Where does this crazy connection come from in some people's minds?

Abstinence education also teaches how to enjoy your GF/BF's company without the need to shed one's clothes.
That's another thing the school board does not need to be teaching my child. Fundamentalists get all bent out of shape at the idea of schools teaching children about birth control. Are they aware that people like you want them to be teaching the kids how to dry hump each other?

by that same mode of thinking, other forms of education is telling people "go ahead and have sex, you cannot control yourself..."
both views are narrow and miss the point of both forms of education.
I cannot vouch for every single school district in the country -- we all know US education sucks crap -- but that is not how my school taught sex ed.

on the other hand, abstinence education teaches control, it teaches people to look for alternatives to sex. Teaching someone how to control one's self desires isn't always a bad thing. ;)
More extremely private things that are the job of the parent to teach, not the school. What kind of a world do you want to live in? You are scaring me.

abstinance ONLY is wrong, but teaching Abstinence (along side other safe sex practices) is not wrong information.
How it transmits wrong informatioin has already been covered in this thread.

A C-section helps a woman give birth to a living child, an abortion prevents and arguably takes that life from the child. Just a small little difference you seemed to overlook.
No, it's a small difference I ignored because I was talking about the effects of various procedures and conditions on a woman's body.

If you want to start another abortion debate, please do so in another thread.

16.

I see it as frightening and I'm not really attracted to anyone, which is why I'm not sure. And I don't want to have sex if it's gross.



I don't really know. I just don't understand it.

16? You're fine. Don't worry about it. I gave up my virginity when I was 16, and many of my friends did, too, but just as many didn't until they were older. There's plenty of room for variation here.

As for finding it gross, well, if you think about it when your body isn't ready to want it, yes, it can seem gross. But when your body is responding sexually to the people around you, then it stops seeming so gross. Your feelings are probably just a signal that you're not ready yet. Go with your feelings. Don't do anything you don't want to do.

I started dating at 15 and had sex at 16, but only because I met a boy I wanted to do it with. The first few boys I went out with, I didn't feel that way about. I waited until I felt the urge, and the experience was great. Some of my friends did it because they felt pressured -- either peer pressure or the pressure to be "normal" (yes, even the ones who waited until they were older still felt pressured). They did not enjoy their first sex experiences because they weren't ready for them. I feel terrible for them because some of them had a hard time getting over early sex experiences that were bad.

Remember, sex is a good thing. It is one of life's greatest pleasures and blessings. It's supposed to make us feel good, not bad. When it is right, it feels right, so if it feels wrong, don't do it.

How old are you?

If you see sex as frightening, you seriously need some counseling.

If sex is just something you don’t enjoy, but you are attracted to members of the opposite sex (or same sex, or both, or sheep, or whatever) then you likely have a negligible libido (see a doctor).

If you have no interest in sex or physical contact, nor are you attracted to anyone, but do not see anything wrong with such interaction, then you are probably asexual (either pre-pubescent or never properly developed).

Basically if your view of sex is like golf – some enjoy it but it just isn’t for me – then you’re not too bad off. Some hormonal imbalance or other medical problem could be killing your libido.

By the way, sex IS gross. It is disgusting, slimy, icky, etc… if you do it right :D
Don't scare the kid. :p

At 16, I think it's still too early to make any prognosis. The hormones are still sorting themselves out.

And I don't think it's all that unusual for virgins to think sex is scary. I've even known horny virgins who were a little afraid of it before their first go round. Now, if our young friend is consumed with anxiety or near panic attacks at the idea of having sex, that's a whole different thing.

I abstain, but not on purpose.


I belive in teaching kids all about sex, not just about abstinence. It's important to point out that all sex carries some risk, but teens do a lot better if they know the real risks, and know all options for risk prevention. No matter what, some teens ARE going to have sex. Who do you think would be better off: the absitence-taught teens who believe the only risk is the wrath of their elders, should they be discovered; or the fully taught students who believe the greatest risk is pregnancy/stds, and therefore go to the nurse for a condom, even if it means an adult will find out?

16? You're fine. Don't worry about it. I gave up my virginity when I was 16, and many of my friends did, too, but just as many didn't until they were older. There's plenty of room for variation here.

As for finding it gross, well, if you think about it when your body isn't ready to want it, yes, it can seem gross. But when your body is responding sexually to the people around you, then it stops seeming so gross. Your feelings are probably just a signal that you're not ready yet. Go with your feelings. Don't do anything you don't want to do.

I started dating at 15 and had sex at 16, but only because I met a boy I wanted to do it with. The first few boys I went out with, I didn't feel that way about. I waited until I felt the urge, and the experience was great. Some of my friends did it because they felt pressured -- either peer pressure or the pressure to be "normal" (yes, even the ones who waited until they were older still felt pressured). They did not enjoy their first sex experiences because they weren't ready for them. I feel terrible for them because some of them had a hard time getting over early sex experiences that were bad.

Remember, sex is a good thing. It is one of life's greatest pleasures and blessings. It's supposed to make us feel good, not bad. When it is right, it feels right, so if it feels wrong, don't do it.

It just seems wrong somehow. And I've never been on a date before. I'm not really attracted to anyone, and no one seems to be attracted to me, either.

Heh. Don't worry about it being gross. If you ever meet someone who you feel you actually do want to have sex with, I promise you you won't really mind the "gross" aspect.



Well, presumably you know of things that physically feel nice - a backrub, a warm bath, a comfy bed, whatever. Masturbation is really not much different - it's simply something that a lot of people find feels very nice.

It just that it seems really different from those things.

It just seems wrong somehow. And I've never been on a date before. I'm not really attracted to anyone, and no one seems to be attracted to me, either.



It just that it seems really different from those things.
The bottom line is this: If the thought of it haunts you, bothers you all the time, interferes with your ability to sleep, makes you afraid to be around people, then see a doctor because that is not normal.

If you just don't like it, don't like thinking about it, and don't want to do it, but still can have friends and enjoy things that aren't about sex, don't worry about it. Nothing abnormal there. Just go with your gut on this.

If you're in that place where you're kind of on the cusp between not wanting sex but thinking that maybe it's time you started wanting sex, between not being attracted to anyone but feeling like maybe you wished someone was attracted to you, and in general just wondering if there's something wrong with you even though you don't feel like there is, don't worry about that, either. It's part of the sexual maturation process. It's a lousy place to be in life, and the phase is stronger or lasts longer for some people than for others, but it really is just a phase.

The bottom line is this: If the thought of it haunts you, bothers you all the time, interferes with your ability to sleep, makes you afraid to be around people, then see a doctor because that is not normal.

If you just don't like it, don't like thinking about it, and don't want to do it, but still can have friends and enjoy things that aren't about sex, don't worry about it. Nothing abnormal there. Just go with your gut on this.

If you're in that place where you're kind of on the cusp between not wanting sex but thinking that maybe it's time you started wanting sex, between not being attracted to anyone but feeling like maybe you wished someone was attracted to you, and in general just wondering if there's something wrong with you even though you don't feel like there is, don't worry about that, either. It's part of the sexual maturation process. It's a lousy place to be in life, and the phase is stronger or lasts longer for some people than for others, but it really is just a phase.

I'm just not entirely sure where I am between the second two. It bothers me when something reminds me of it, but otherwise it's fine. And I used to have a problem with being around people at all, but I saw a therapist and eventually got over it.

Piffle. And also beside the point.

My objection was to a school system deciding that celibacy followed by marriage is the route MY child's life is going to take. Excuse me, but it's MY child, not the school board's. And it's MY CHILD'S life, not the school board's. I find it just as objectionable for the school board to be promoting their version of a "responsible" sex life to my child as a fundamentalist parent might feel about the school board promoting a sex lifestyle that they disapprove of. Who the hell does this school board think it is?please... schools are supposed to be areas for learning, and yes, Abstinance is ONE method of prevention of STD and Pregnancy. so why not teach it? because YOU think it shouldn't be taught becaus of YOUR principals and YOUR morals?

MY CHILD will decide, as she or he grows up, when and whether to have sex, AND when and whether to get married, and MY CHILD will decide whether those decisions are related or separate. The school board will NOT make those decisions for MY child, and as a parent, I would follow up that explanation to my child's school principal with the question, "Is that understood?" in a very stern tone of voice.So just tell your child not to sign that contract that says he/she will do whatever the schoolboard tells him/her... oh wait... THERE IS NO SUCH CONTRACT... so there really is NOTHING binding him or her to obey whatever the school board tells her to... guess what... AFTER 18, they don't have to listen to YOU TOO. so if YOUR CHILD decides that Abstinence is for him/her... who are YOU to tell her she's WRONG!.

The school's job is to give a proper layperson's education in the science of sex, the health concerns of sex, and to some extent the social context of sex. It is NOT the school's job to plan my child's wedding, let alone wedding night, thank you very much.oh please, where does it state that 1) any school board will plan weddings for your child.
2) that Abstinence will be the ONLY thing taught in schools.
3) That the children will only LEARN ONE form of safe sex and are BOUND to follow those rules.
4) that they must apply EVERY SINGLE IOTA of INFORMATION leared in school in life.

unless you can provide all four points, you're just being paranoid.

Just what are you imagining here? An Ozzie & Harriet world where every American boy and girl is a virgin until they get married at age 19-20?no. I'm Imagining a nation where every one can choose how to live and are responsible enough to take the consiquences of their actions.

What about people who don't get married until age 30, or 35, or 40? Are they expected to be virgins, too, because -- what? Marriage is a benchmark life-passage that signals that you are mature enough for sex, so obviously, if you don't get married you must not be mature enough yet? Some people don't get married at all... some only have One Partner without marriage being in the equation, some wait till they know who they want... some go hopping from one bed to another, some will lay anything that breathes, others will find that they have to make the hard choices before they're ready.

so what's your point.

What the hell does marriage have to do with sex anyway? Where does this crazy connection come from in some people's minds?Seeing that you're focused on Marriage... nothing. Abstinence tends to be to wait till marrage, but Marriage isn't always the final goal.


That's another thing the school board does not need to be teaching my child. Fundamentalists get all bent out of shape at the idea of schools teaching children about birth control. Are they aware that people like you want them to be teaching the kids how to dry hump each other?NOW we get tot he Problem... you think Abstinence = Christian Fundies... news flash... it doesn't.


I cannot vouch for every single school district in the country -- we all know US education sucks crap -- but that is not how my school taught sex ed.well, my school taught abstinence AS WELL AS safe sex practices. and so we could make better informed choices as to what we want.

oh and no, there were no christian/religous/fundie claptrap in those lessions either.

More extremely private things that are the job of the parent to teach, not the school. What kind of a world do you want to live in? You are scaring me.well, if more parents were doing their jobs...


How it transmits wrong informatioin has already been covered in this thread. :rolleyes:
those were ABSTINENCE ONLY lessions that people were covering. Not abstinence as an option.

well, my school taught abstinence AS WELL AS safe sex practices. and so we could make better informed choices as to what we want.


So did my school. They just taught that abstinence is the only way that's 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs.

Seriously, what is teaching abstinence? The only thing that could be described as teaching abstinance in my sex ed would have been one sentence.

Seriously, what is teaching abstinence? The only thing that could be described as teaching abstinance in my sex ed would have been one sentence.

Pretty much all of the contraceptive methods in my sex ed class were described in one or two sentences, basically just describing how effective it is and what it is.

Yeah, I've heard of every BC method out there, but I can't find any good information on them. :headbang:

Oh, just wikipedia it. They'll tell you just about anything you need to know. Sometimes more.

Did you know that the fastest-growing demographic of new HIV patients is monogamous married women?

Did you know that women who are promiscuous but homosexual are LESS likely to contract STDs than monogamous heterosexual women?

Remaining faithful to your partner is not a contraceptive, nor will it necessarily protect you against STDs. A wedding band ain't a prophylactic.


Which is why married, monogamous women who have saved themselves for one person, who vowed to only have sex with them, are the fastest growing population of new AIDS infectees.

Hm...

It's because most "monogamous" married women arent so :P j/k but its true for quite a few...

Pretty much all of the contraceptive methods in my sex ed class were described in one or two sentences, basically just describing how effective it is and what it is.
Condoms ftw
Not having sex some times in the month ftl, etc.

Hurrah for sex ed.

I think abstinence was made up by wicked old men and woman. Let's face it, What do Ann Coulter, Katherine Harris, Pat Robertson, and GWB all have in common? They didn't get ANY in high school.

I think abstinence was made up by wicked old men and woman. Let's face it, What do Ann Coulter, Katherine Harris, Pat Robertson, and GWB all have in common? They didn't get ANY in high school.
GWB may have with some of his crack-whore chums he had at the time.

So did my school. They just taught that abstinence is the only way that's 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs.well... isn't it?

even a combination of Condoms, pills, ... etc still leaves a what... 1%, less than 1%...

were there any cases of anyone getting pregnant or std's by abstaining...


I can only think of ONE case where a woman got pregnant, and she claims it was an act of GOD!... :D

please... schools are supposed to be areas for learning, and yes, Abstinance is ONE method of prevention of STD and Pregnancy. so why not teach it? because YOU think it shouldn't be taught becaus of YOUR principals and YOUR morals?

So just tell your child not to sign that contract that says he/she will do whatever the schoolboard tells him/her... oh wait... THERE IS NO SUCH CONTRACT... so there really is NOTHING binding him or her to obey whatever the school board tells her to... guess what... AFTER 18, they don't have to listen to YOU TOO. so if YOUR CHILD decides that Abstinence is for him/her... who are YOU to tell her she's WRONG!.

oh please, where does it state that 1) any school board will plan weddings for your child.
2) that Abstinence will be the ONLY thing taught in schools.
3) That the children will only LEARN ONE form of safe sex and are BOUND to follow those rules.
4) that they must apply EVERY SINGLE IOTA of INFORMATION leared in school in life.

unless you can provide all four points, you're just being paranoid.

no. I'm Imagining a nation where every one can choose how to live and are responsible enough to take the consiquences of their actions.

Some people don't get married at all... some only have One Partner without marriage being in the equation, some wait till they know who they want... some go hopping from one bed to another, some will lay anything that breathes, others will find that they have to make the hard choices before they're ready.

so what's your point.

Seeing that you're focused on Marriage... nothing. Abstinence tends to be to wait till marrage, but Marriage isn't always the final goal.


NOW we get tot he Problem... you think Abstinence = Christian Fundies... news flash... it doesn't.


well, my school taught abstinence AS WELL AS safe sex practices. and so we could make better informed choices as to what we want.

oh and no, there were no christian/religous/fundie claptrap in those lessions either.

well, if more parents were doing their jobs...


:rolleyes:
those were ABSTINENCE ONLY lessions that people were covering. Not abstinence as an option.
You either missed the point of my whole post, or you disagree with it but decided to ignore it rather than address it.

I object to schools teaching "morals." I do want them to teach facts -- i.e. the biology of sex and human reproduction (science), basic info about pregnancy, birth control, and STDs (health), information about the development of sexual mores in history, culture, and politics (social studies), and I have no problem with schools offering moderated peer counseling or discussion groups for children to air private concerns they may not be ready to discuss with adults.

But I DO NOT want schools teaching someone's version of a "responsible" sexual lifestyle. It is not the school's place to promote marriage any more than it is their place to promote homosexuality.

Teaching morals is the job of the parents, not the schools. If you have a problem with the idea that some parents might not do that, tough. It is still not the school's place to do it.

As for the relative worth of abstinence teaching -- I have already said this, but I'll say it again if I have to. I do not object to sex ed programs that include abstinence as a valid choice. But to promote abstinence as a safe sex method is disingenuous at best. "Just say no" does not answer any questions and does not give any information. And at the worst, programs that teach abstinence actually promote abstinence as a better choice, a more responsible choice, which is nothing more than the promotion of a particular moral system. Which brings us right back to my original objection.

You either missed the point of my whole post, or you disagree with it but decided to ignore it rather than address it.

I object to schools teaching "morals." I do want them to teach facts -- i.e. the biology of sex and human reproduction (science), basic info about pregnancy, birth control, and STDs (health), information about the development of sexual mores in history, culture, and politics (social studies), and I have no problem with schools offering moderated peer counseling or discussion groups for children to air private concerns they may not be ready to discuss with adults.

But I DO NOT want schools teaching someone's version of a "responsible" sexual lifestyle. It is not the school's place to promote marriage any more than it is their place to promote homosexuality.ok, but isn't Abstinence also a from of birth control and preventive measure for STD? isn't the choice to wait also an OPTION that a student can choose to take? Abstinence isn't just about morales, its also a way to prevent pregancies as well as STD. If a woman or man chooses to wait till they consider themselves successfull in thier chosen field also taking the Abstinence method? you're so focused on "Marriage" that you are failing to see Abstinence as a viable choice for the prevention of unwanted pregancy and STD.

Teaching morals is the job of the parents, not the schools. If you have a problem with the idea that some parents might not do that, tough. It is still not the school's place to do it.

As for the relative worth of abstinence teaching -- I have already said this, but I'll say it again if I have to. I do not object to sex ed programs that include abstinence as a valid choice. But to promote abstinence as a safe sex method is disingenuous at best. "Just say no" does not answer any questions and does not give any information. And at the worst, programs that teach abstinence actually promote abstinence as a better choice, a more responsible choice, which is nothing more than the promotion of a particular moral system. Which brings us right back to my original objection.then we agree. for I said I am for abstinence being taught as long as it's not the ONLY thing taught.

ok, but isn't Abstinence also a from of birth control and preventive measure for STD? isn't the choice to wait also an OPTION that a student can choose to take? Abstinence isn't just about morales, its also a way to prevent pregancies as well as STD. If a woman or man chooses to wait till they consider themselves successfull in thier chosen field also taking the Abstinence method? you're so focused on "Marriage" that you are failing to see Abstinence as a viable choice for the prevention of unwanted pregancy and STD.
And you are so focused on painting me as short-sighted that you are just ignoring the many times I have stated that abstinence IS a valid choice, using those exact words.

My only caveat is that I do not want it promoted as a BETTER choice than responsible non-abstinence. Is that distinction so hard to grasp?

then we agree. for I said I am for abstinence being taught as long as it's not the ONLY thing taught.
Yet you keep telling me that I'm wrong about something...

Whatever.

And you are so focused on painting me as short-sighted that you are just ignoring the many times I have stated that abstinence IS a valid choice, using those exact words.was not my intention. Apologies.

My only caveat is that I do not want it promoted as a BETTER choice than responsible non-abstinence. Is that distinction so hard to grasp? it's better that it's 100% failproof. but like everything else, it's not for everyone.

Yet you keep telling me that I'm wrong about something...

Whatever.I think it's because you seemed to be equating Abstinence with the need to get Married. while Marriage is the more popular point in time, it's not the ONLY point in time to end abstinence. nowhere in my posts did I say that Abstinence till marriage was the ONLY thing that will be taught in reguards to Abstinence, nor did I state that Marriage was the ONLY point that will end abstinence.

I'll just chalk it up to a mutual misunderstanding.

Does "my bitch won't put out" count as abstinence?

was not my intention. Apologies.
Accepted.

it's better that it's 100% failproof. but like everything else, it's not for everyone.
But it's not 100% failproof (btw, the word is either foolproof or failsafe). Nothing is. That is why I say that abstinence teaching gives bad information. The fact is, there are several things that can break a personal plan of abstinence -- a lapse of the discipline required to keep it up; marriage (bugbear of this conversation); and everybody's least favorite -- rape, which has been known, on rare occasions, to affect even cloistered nuns. Also, AIDS is not the only kind of STD and there actually are some that can be transmitted by means other than unprotected sex. When REAL information about disease is given to kids, it will undermine the message that abstinence will keep them safe 100% of the time.

Anything which claims to work 100% of the time is presenting false information. Kids have to understand this, even if they do choose to abstain from sex. Like I said long ago, life is about risk management, not risk avoidance.

I think it's because you seemed to be equating Abstinence with the need to get Married. while Marriage is the more popular point in time, it's not the ONLY point in time to end abstinence. nowhere in my posts did I say that Abstinence till marriage was the ONLY thing that will be taught in reguards to Abstinence, nor did I state that Marriage was the ONLY point that will end abstinence.
I was not equating abstinence with marriage. I was objecting to your mention of marriage in and of itself. You made specific mention of encouraging kids to abstain from sex until marriage. I was first objecting promoting abstinence as intrinsically better than safe sex, and I was also objecting to the idea of promoting a married lifestyle to other people's children.

I'll just chalk it up to a mutual misunderstanding.
Wise.

Does "my bitch won't put out" count as abstinence?

Naw... that counts as 'women are smarter than you'. :p

it's better that it's 100% failproof. but like everything else, it's not for everyone.


They said that about chasity belts.

It has a high failure rate. People for some reason like sex.

The problem is the fact it is starting to be taught as the solution instead of an option.

But it's not 100% failproof (btw, the word is either foolproof or failsafe). Nothing is. That is why I say that abstinence teaching gives bad information. The fact is, there are several things that can break a personal plan of abstinence -- a lapse of the discipline required to keep it up; marriage (bugbear of this conversation); and everybody's least favorite -- rape, which has been known, on rare occasions, to affect even cloistered nuns. Also, AIDS is not the only kind of STD and there actually are some that can be transmitted by means other than unprotected sex. When REAL information about disease is given to kids, it will undermine the message that abstinence will keep them safe 100% of the time.rape is the excption to all the rules. education about safe sex also fails if the raper forces his/her victim without reguard for safe sex.

now, all the ways a person will loose their resolve is not a failure of Abstinence, but the person's resolve. you cannot blame that on abstince itself. just like if a couple decides to forgo a condom, it's not the education of Safe Sex that is at fault but the choices the couple makes.

and yes, I do know that there are diseases that are transmitted by other means besides sex. however, for those that ARE transmitted by Sex, Abstinence will prove 100% effective against them. you can only expect a condom to stop only the diseases from spreading through Sexual Contact. the same with Abstinence.

Anything which claims to work 100% of the time is presenting false information. Kids have to understand this, even if they do choose to abstain from sex. Like I said long ago, life is about risk management, not risk avoidance.as long as they abstain, it is 100% effective. the moment they start having sex, then they are no longer abstaining and they need to rely on the other forms of Safe Sex and Birth Control.

Abstinence isn't something that you can stop and start, no it's something that you have to keep doing. and as long as you abstain, it's 100% effective.

Wise.see... I can be wise too... :D

They said that about chasity belts.

It has a high failure rate. People for some reason like sex.

The problem is the fact it is starting to be taught as the solution instead of an option.Chastity belts is not abstinance. abstinence is more will power to avoid the temptation and to control the urges. a chastity belt is a device. and thus prone to failure.

now a question. if a person chooses to abstain, but in 5 yrs finds a lover and they do the wild thing, did abstinence fail?

Chastity belts is not abstinance. abstinence is more will power to avoid the temptation and to control the urges. a chastity belt is a device. and thus prone to failure.

now a question. if a person chooses to abstain, but in 5 yrs finds a lover and they do the wild thing, did abstinence fail?

It's an option. Not a solution.

Does "my bitch won't put out" count as abstinence?

No, neither does 'I'm ugly' or 'I'm socially inept'.

However, it got me thinking: How many people really abstain?

Eventually... not many. As evidenced by the fact schools still have kids in them.