NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems teaching kids abstinance does bugger all to stop them from having sex.

LINKY (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/)

WASHINGTON - Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes, and they first had sex at about the same age as their control group counterparts — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

The federal government now spends about $176 million annually on abstinence-until-marriage education. Critics have repeatedly said they don’t believe the programs are working, and the study will give them reinforcement.

click the link for the rest.

So basically regardless of what you teach them, and also what law is in place, teenagers are quite able to make up their own minds when they want to have sex.

What a surprise.

Never saw it coming.

I'm surprised this is still an issue of debate. Raging hormones wins over cautious reasoning 9 times out of 10. (No linky for that, just a reasonable assumption on my part.)

Actually, teenagers hate sex, and would never choose to have it of their own accord.

The liberal media, however, with its glorification of immorality and abominations, brainwashes them into abandoning their God-given instincts.

I'm shocked! :eek:


I thought all teenagers wanted to do was play violent video games on t3h inerwebs and listen to t3h raps.

Who knew?

Another shocking report (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38603):

Teen Sex Linked To Drugs And Alcohol, Reports Center For Figuring Out Really Obvious Things
May 1, 2002 | Issue 38•16

BOSTON—A definitive causal relationship exists between drug and alcohol use and teen sex, the Center For Figuring Out Really Obvious Things reported Monday.

The four-year, $3.5 million study, which examined the substance-abuse and sexual habits of more than 2,500 American teens, is regarded as one of the most "no-duh"-inducing in the center's history.

"Our exhaustive research clearly confirms that U.S. youths between the ages of 13 and 18 who drink and/or use drugs are more likely to be sexually active," said Dr. Gerald Eckersley, director of the Boston-based organization. "This may be our most significant finding since the landmark 1978 study that found a link between habitual chocolate consumption and weight gain."

"Our research shows that the inhibition-lowering properties of recreational drugs and alcohol cause those who use them to behave with less restraint, making sex among young people more likely to occur," Eckersley continued. "Gee, I bet you never would've guessed that."

The report went on to state that some teens may actually seek out drugs and alcohol for the express purpose of lowering their inhibitions and facilitating sex—a phenomenon well known to parents and teens alike for countless generations.

"Teens are not only having sex drunk or high, but they're also getting drunk or high to increase their chances of having sex," Eckersley said. "Interestingly, we found that this phenomenon also occurs among adults, as well as among every population everywhere in the world that has ever existed since the dawn of time."

To help spread word of its findings, the Center For Figuring Out Really Obvious Things sent a TelePrompTer-ready press release to more than 400 local TV-news affiliates across the U.S. Along with the press release, the stations received stock video footage of beer displays and teens smoking and drinking at parties.

"As a teaser for newscasters presenting this story, I would recommend, 'Think you know everything about teen sex and alcohol? Think again—a new study is out, and the findings may surprise you. Coming up next,'" Eckersley said. "Although, of course, the findings won't actually surprise you."

Founded in 1959, the Center For Figuring Out Really Obvious Things is among the world's leaders in stating the obvious. Operating under the motto Lumen Redundas, or "To Cast The Light Of Knowledge On The Already Well-Known," it has conducted non-groundbreaking research on a wide variety of self-evident phenomena.

Among the center's most notable non-discoveries are the 1974 determination that cars contribute to urban smog, the 1981 conclusion that taking the stairs burns more calories than taking the elevator, and the landmark 1997 finding that infidelity causes friction in marriages.

In spite of the center's sterling reputation, some of its findings, which seemed obvious at the time, are now considered inaccurate. A 1963 study, for example, confirmed that sugar was good for children's health because it gave their "growing bodies the pep and energy they need." Another example is the since-refuted 1972 study finding dairy foods to be "heart-healthy."

Still, Eckersley insisted that the center's research methods are "overwhelmingly reliable."

"I feel confident in the center's ability to determine the validity of virtually any obvious claim," Eckersley said. "It goes without saying, however, that even the best people in any line of study occasionally make mistakes. But even though it goes without saying, we here at the Center For Figuring Out Really Obvious Things are saying it anyway, in a $4.2 million study that will definitively prove this Even-The-Best-People-Sometimes-Make-Mistakes theory."

:eek:

Actually, teenagers hate sex, and would never choose to have it of their own accord.

The liberal media, however, with its glorification of immorality and abominations, brainwashes them into abandoning their God-given instincts.

That's what I thought. I'm so relieved.

wow

you mean highschool students dont wait until their teachers say they are ready for sex? they decide on their own?

they are so good at obeying all other adult mandated rules. i wonder why sex is such an exception.

It seems teaching kids abstinance does bugger all to stop them from having sex.

LINKY (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/)


click the link for the rest.

So basically regardless of what you teach them, and also what law is in place, teenagers are quite able to make up their own minds when they want to have sex.

What a surprise.

Never saw it coming.

I'd say there's a fairly good chance I'll never lose my virginity, from where I am right now.

Actually, teenagers hate sex, and would never choose to have it of their own accord.

The liberal media, however, with its glorification of immorality and abominations, brainwashes them into abandoning their God-given instincts.

QFT!:p

See? That's what the sensible people were saying.

Can the idea be scrapped now, please?

Oh, I am still waiting for some sex, and if anyone wants to help me out, I have about 30 dollars to spare :p

Actually, teenagers hate sex, and would never choose to have it of their own accord.

The liberal media, however, with its glorification of immorality and abominations, brainwashes them into abandoning their God-given instincts.

its so sad. you know, 100 years ago when we didnt have all this liberal media crap, people had to be forced to have sex. only the intense desire to please their parents by giving them grandchildren was enough to convince married couples to get busy.

Oh, I am still waiting for some sex, and if anyone wants to help me out, I have about 30 dollars to spare :p

I don't think you want a $30 hooker.

I'd say there's a fairly good chance I'll never lose my virginity, from where I am right now.

I'd say there is a fairly good chance you're wrong.

I don't think you want a $30 hooker.

You obviously don't know me :p

I mean, really, this isn't much of a contest:

Deeply ingrained instincts older than the class of animals known as vertebrates

vs.

"Just say 'no.'"


Sorry sexophobes, but no admonition against intercourse is going to overpower our most basic instincts.

$3 on booze, $2 on condoms, $25 in a hooker and you can have some serious fun. :D

"Teens are not only having sex drunk or high, but they're also getting drunk or high to increase their chances of having sex," Eckersley said. "Interestingly, we found that this phenomenon also occurs among adults, as well as among every population everywhere in the world that has ever existed since the dawn of time."

Now, that was golden lol.

I mean, really, this isn't much of a contest:

Deeply ingrained instincts older than the class of animals known as vertebrates

vs.

"Just say 'no.'"


Sorry sexophobes, but no admonition against intercourse is going to overpower our most basic instincts.

I bet $50 on the Instincts.

"Teens are not only having sex drunk or high, but they're also getting drunk or high to increase their chances of having sex," Eckersley said. "Interestingly, we found that this phenomenon also occurs among adults, as well as among every population everywhere in the world that has ever existed since the dawn of time."
It makes sense that people who enjy doing one fun thing might want to try doing two or three fun things at the same time.

Yeah, we do.

In other news, hurrah for the NUS National Students' Union Annual Conference - a drunken orgy the likes of which couldn't have been imagined in Nero's time :)

Guess I now have a reason WITH PROOF that I crossed off the "no sex until marriage" speech on my list of future speeches with my kids.
:D

I'd say there is a fairly good chance you're wrong.

Well, I'm in love with a woman, but I have no sexual attraction for her at all, and I'm not going to have sex with anyone I don't love. And she doesn't have any sort of attraction to me at all. I'd say that about covers it.

$3 on booze, $2 on condoms, $25 in a hooker and you can have some serious fun. :D
Or instead of the hooker, find yourself a woman / man that actually wants to have sex with you!

Oh, I am still waiting for some sex, and if anyone wants to help me out, I have about 30 dollars to spare :p

I have sex to spare and need $30, I think we can arrange a deal. :D

Or instead of the hooker, find yourself a woman / man that actually wants to have sex with you!

Who said the hooker doesnt want to have sex with me? The money is just an excuse. :p

Well, I'm in love with a woman, but I have no sexual attraction for her at all, and I'm not going to have sex with anyone I don't love. And she doesn't have any sort of attraction to me at all. I'd say that about covers it.

Alcohol helps.

Or instead of the hooker, find yourself a woman / man that actually wants to have sex with you!

If you rearrange the equation:

$28 Booze, $2 Condoms then you should be able to get someone to want to have sex with you.

Who drinks the booze depends on if you are good looking and become interesting when drunk or are not good looking (and not interesting) to people who are not drunk.

Alcohol helps.

I'm not old enough to drink. I hate the taste of it anyways though.

wow

you mean highschool students dont wait until their teachers say they are ready for sex? they decide on their own?

they are so good at obeying all other adult mandated rules. i wonder why sex is such an exception.

I was about to ask if this was an issue in the 60s. Then I remembered: It was the 60s. :p

I love what Congress wastes my tax dollars "studying."

Actually, teenagers hate sex, and would never choose to have it of their own accord.

The liberal media, however, with its glorification of immorality and abominations, brainwashes them into abandoning their God-given instincts.

QFTee hee hee! :p

It seems teaching kids abstinance does bugger all to stop them from having sex.

LINKY (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/)


click the link for the rest.

So basically regardless of what you teach them, and also what law is in place, teenagers are quite able to make up their own minds when they want to have sex.

What a surprise.

Never saw it coming.



HAHAHA!!! I knew that this place would be all abuzz about this! Comic relief!

Did you miss the part where it said about half of the kids in the study didn't have sex or where it said it didn't increase the amount of unprotected sex? Course not!:D

I mean, really, this isn't much of a contest:

Deeply ingrained instincts older than the class of animals known as vertebrates

vs.

"Just say 'no.'"


Sorry sexophobes, but no admonition against intercourse is going to overpower our most basic instincts.


It's called evolution and will power. It's sad you have none.


Oh well, carry on.

Oh, I don't know. I didn't start having sex until I was legally an adult, and it didn't mess me up.

Kids these days, they want everything now now now. They want their Ritalin-amphetamine pills now, because they want to get out of school right now, and because their parents don't have time to deal with them right now, so they want sex right now, because they're on amphetamines now.

I may have not been very patient as a kid - who is? - but at least I wasn't a drugged-up walking hard-on randomly humping empty wheelchairs and listening to shitty music.

Oh, I don't know. I didn't start having sex until I was legally an adult, and it didn't mess me up.

Kids these days, they want everything now now now. They want their Ritalin-amphetamine pills now, because they want to get out of school right now, and because their parents don't have time to deal with them right now, so they want sex right now, because they're on amphetamines now.

I may have not been very patient as a kid - who is? - but at least I wasn't a drugged-up walking hard-on randomly humping empty wheelchairs and listening to shitty music.



How old was that?



I was never a patient kid either..I am not a patient adult in a matter of fact....Trust me, I think about sex 90% of the time.....Have been since I was 17 atleast.:) Oh well, I am gonna move to Canada where the age to consent to sex is lower.....hehe.

See? That's what the sensible people were saying.

Can the idea be scrapped now, please?

omg this post woulda been awesomeness if Kinda Sensible People had been the op.

How old was that?

18.


I am not a patient adult

(...)

I am gonna move to Canada where the age to consent to sex is lower.....hehe.

...that's disturbing.

18.




...that's disturbing.



What? Why? Whould you rather I say ban sex? You should atleast applaud a conservative that likes it. Give me some slack dude! I wouldn't touch a kid if thats what you think. Please, I am no pedo. I hate pedo's and think they should be locked up forever and a day.

150+ million on abstinence campaigns?! what a waste of money.

This is exactly why it's better to put more money into Contraceptive Awareness campaigns than Abstinence, which is currently favoured by the POTUS right now.

I had a look at US teenage birth rates on
http://statehealthfacts.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Births&topic=Teen+Birth+Rate+per+1%2C000

Texas - 2nd highest :p

what is shocking is that the federal government spends tax-payer's money on abstinence education.

what is shocking is that the federal government spends tax-payer's money on abstinence education.

Probably because it's the "morally right" thing to do even though if it doesn't actually work at all.

So Basically Teenagers Like having Sex

Not just teenagers. :)

See? That's what the sensible people were saying.

Can the idea be scrapped now, please?

First, sensible people have to be voted into office.

Probably because it's the "morally right" thing to do even though if it doesn't actually work at all.

but it's a religiously informed doctrine. the federal government has no place teaching it. if parents want their kids taught that sex is bad outside of marriage they can send their kids to religious schools.

Oh, I don't know. I didn't start having sex until I was legally an adult, and it didn't mess me up.

Kids these days, they want everything now now now. They want their Ritalin-amphetamine pills now, because they want to get out of school right now, and because their parents don't have time to deal with them right now, so they want sex right now, because they're on amphetamines now.

I may have not been very patient as a kid - who is? - but at least I wasn't a drugged-up walking hard-on randomly humping empty wheelchairs and listening to shitty music.

Yup, that sums up my crappy generation quite nicely.

It seems teaching kids abstinance does bugger all to stop them from having sex.



No, it seems they aren't teaching kids abstinance in the right way and probably aren't spending enough money on it. It doesn't mean abstinance education is bad. Afterall abstinance as never once failed to prevent the spread of STDs or pregencys of teens.

No, it seems they aren't teaching kids abstinance in the right way and probably aren't spending enough money on it. It doesn't mean abstinance education is bad. Afterall abstinance as never once failed to prevent the spread of STDs or pregencys of teens.

you're missing the point. Teaching abstinence only in schools has been a colossal failure. Kids who are taught abstinence only have higher rates of STDs than those who have comprehensive sex-ed, they're less likely to recognize they have an STD, and thus less likely to seek treatment. What's wrong with comprehensive sex-ed, anyway? I got it, and frankly, it made me less likely to drop my pants for the first guy who came around.

And if you think we need to spend more money on a failed program, you need to put the bong down. The increases in abstinence only education under Dubya have been staggering, but they haven't helped. Bring back comprehensive sex ed!

No, it seems they aren't teaching kids abstinance in the right way and probably aren't spending enough money on it. It doesn't mean abstinance education is bad. Afterall abstinance as never once failed to prevent the spread of STDs or pregencys of teens.
That's like saying making people never drive their cars has never failed to stop people from getting into car accidents...

you're missing the point. Teaching abstinence only in schools has been a colossal failure. Kids who are taught abstinence only have higher rates of STDs than those who have comprehensive sex-ed, they're less likely to recognize they have an STD, and thus less likely to seek treatment. What's wrong with comprehensive sex-ed, anyway? I got it, and frankly, it made me less likely to drop my pants for the first guy who came around.

And if you think we need to spend more money on a failed program, you need to put the bong down. The increases in abstinence only education under Dubya have been staggering, but they haven't helped. Bring back comprehensive sex ed!
Why? teaching kids how to have sex is like teaching someone how to use crack "safely". The difference is sex is probably more dangerous than drugs.

Why? teaching kids how to have sex is like teaching someone how to use crack "safely". The difference is sex is probably more dangerous than drugs.
Yeah, it's not like we need sex for the survival of the human race or anything like that. It's not like millions of people do it every day without any negative side effects whatsoever.

Seriously, WTF?

Why? teaching kids how to have sex is like teaching someone how to use crack "safely". The difference is sex is probably more dangerous than drugs.

But kids taught abstinence only are more likely to have unprotected sex (you know, dangerous sex), thus the higher STD rates. You can have sex safely, or at least reduce the risk of STD and pregnancy to drastically, whereas there are some drugs that are just not safe at all. PCP comes to mind.

Yeah, it's not like we need sex for the survival of the human race or anything like that. It's not like millions of people do it every day without any negative side effects whatsoever.

Seriously, WTF?

and millions of people do have negative side effects which ripple through society and affect more than just the people who had sex. Survival of the human race can be insured though sex within a marriage. Thats not hard.

But kids taught abstinence only are more likely to have unprotected sex (you know, dangerous sex), thus the higher STD rates. You can have sex safely, or at least reduce the risk of STD and pregnancy to drastically, whereas there are some drugs that are just not safe at all. PCP comes to mind.

condoms still break and things like the pill doesnt work all the time. There is no safe sex. The only way to be truly safe is to wait.

condoms still break and things like the pill doesnt work all the time. There is no safe sex. The only way to be truly safe is to wait.

Given the attitude you've been displaying towards women I don't imagine you've got much of a choice...

condoms still break and things like the pill doesnt work all the time.

And attempts at abstinence often fail miserably, too.

The only way it can be called "100% effective" is if you only consider the successful instances - which is the opposite of what people tend to do when considering the instances of birth control failure.

condoms still break and things like the pill doesnt work all the time.

And someone who truly wishes to remain abstinent can still find themselves suddenly having sex when they weren't expecting it. Things like that happen, humans being imperfect beings. So now someone is having sex with zero education on being safe and what possible consequences could result. You are saying this is a good thing?

And someone who truly wishes to remain abstinent can still find themselves suddenly having sex when they weren't expecting it.

Only in the case of rape.

Otherwise, someone who "truly wishes" to be abstinent will not just "find themselves" having sex. They may drop their pants and engage in sex... but in that case they didn't truly wish to be abstinent.

Only in the case of rape.

Otherwise, someone who "truly wishes" to be abstinent will not just "find themselves" having sex. They may drop their pants and engage in sex... but in that case they didn't truly wish to be abstinent.

I mean their hormones will get the best of them. You can truly try to deny something for yourself and still end up giving in. I suppose the "suddenly" isn't exactly precise but I will still stand by it.

Only in the case of rape.

Otherwise, someone who "truly wishes" to be abstinent will not just "find themselves" having sex. They may drop their pants and engage in sex... but in that case they didn't truly wish to be abstinent.

And there's the point - telling teenagers that they shouldn't have sex kinda gets lost in the roar of adolescent hormones. If they decide to have sex, I'd rather they be fully armed, so to speak, ready to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their partner.

I mean their hormones will get the best of them.

Is that sort of like demon possession? You know, where you have no self control, cannot be held responsible for your own actions, and are a victim of overwhelming forces.

I cast thee out.

Maybe it's just me, because I don't buy into the culture of victimhood, but hormones never made me do anything. If I ever did anything, it was ME doing it. But again maybe it's just me. Maybe only I recognize that self control has any place in society, instead of blaming "hormones," or "addiction" for that matter.

omg this post woulda been awesomeness if Kinda Sensible People had been the op.

:p :fluffle:

Is that sort of like demon possession? You know, where you have no self control, cannot be held responsible for your own actions, and are a victim of overwhelming forces.

I cast thee out.

Maybe it's just me, because I don't buy into the culture of victimhood, but hormones never made me do anything. If I ever did anything, it was ME doing it. But again maybe it's just me. Maybe only I recognize that self control has any place in society, instead of blaming "hormones," or "addiction" for that matter.

Okay, I mean they choose to be weak and so decide to sate their appetites. I don't care for the victim complex either mind you, they are responsible for their own actions. But one can say they will "never" do something and find themselves doing it anyway.

So Basically Teenagers Like having Sex

well.... yeah!

Why? teaching kids how to have sex is like teaching someone how to use crack "safely". The difference is sex is probably more dangerous than drugs.

Comprehensive sex ed does not teach kids how to have sex. It teaches about the reproductive systems, how one becomes pregnant, how to identify several veneral diseases, how babies are born....

...and what to do to prevent them, including abstinence.

And if you think that sex is more dangerous than drug use, then I am very worried about your state of mind.

And someone who truly wishes to remain abstinent can still find themselves suddenly having sex when they weren't expecting it. Things like that happen, humans being imperfect beings. So now someone is having sex with zero education on being safe and what possible consequences could result. You are saying this is a good thing?

Are you really implying people can't control their own actions when it comes to sex? Sex isn't something that happens on accident. You can't say "oops, I just tripped on your penis, over and over again. I totally wasnt expecting that." Thats a cop out of epic proportions.

And attempts at abstinence often fail miserably, too.

The only way it can be called "100% effective" is if you only consider the successful instances - which is the opposite of what people tend to do when considering the instances of birth control failure.

if you fail to abstain from sex, then thats not abstinance. Abstaining has shown to be 100% affective, no one can point to a single case where it hasn't.

if you fail to abstain from sex, then thats not abstinance. Abstaining has shown to be 100% affective, no one can point to a single case where it hasn't.

;) Jesus Christ.

if you fail to abstain from sex, then thats not abstinance.

Yes, and if you fail to use a condom properly, that's not proper use of a condom.

The important question is, what strategy, over all, works better: trying to commit yourself to safe sex, or trying to commit yourself to abstinence?

Abstinence pledges and the like have been shown to fail miserably, and to, if anything, increase the risk of unsafe sex - so the better plan is probably the first.

Are you really implying people can't control their own actions when it comes to sex? Sex isn't something that happens on accident. You can't say "oops, I just tripped on your penis, over and over again. I totally wasnt expecting that." Thats a cop out of epic proportions.

You should look again at what I wrote, people are weak, they often do things they believe to be wrong. Having sex when they think they shouldn't is one of those things. But the idea that someone shouldn't be informed of the consequences of the act and how they can be safe is simply foolish. All ignorance does is increase problems.

if you fail to abstain from sex, then thats not abstinance. Abstaining has shown to be 100% affective, no one can point to a single case where it hasn't.

And when somebody who, in your opinion, "makes a mistake" to have sex, where does their knowledge of safe sex come from? The aether?

:sniper: on rap and fightinh videos just sit down at the table during dinner and chat
I'm shocked! :eek:


I thought all teenagers wanted to do was play violent video games on t3h inerwebs and listen to t3h raps.

Who knew?

:sniper: on rap and fightinh videos just sit down at the table during dinner and chat

My family ninja fights during dinner while my Dad kicks dope lyrics over a funky beat. It's been tradition for longer than anyone can remember.

Comprehensive sex ed does not teach kids how to have sex. It teaches about the reproductive systems, how one becomes pregnant, how to identify several veneral diseases, how babies are born....
I don't have a big problem with them teaching them those sort of things, however I don't think its right to then say 'and thats what sex is, now we will show you how to have it whenever and with whoever "safely" ' thats a rather dangerous road to go down.


And if you think that sex is more dangerous than drug use, then I am very worried about your state of mind.
And I'm worried about the state of mind of people who think its ok to encourage young teens to have sex. They aren't ready to handle the emotional and mental stress that goes along with sex.

Yes, and if you fail to use a condom properly, that's not proper use of a condom.

The important question is, what strategy, over all, works better: trying to commit yourself to safe sex, or trying to commit yourself to abstinence?

Abstinence pledges and the like have been shown to fail miserably, and to, if anything, increase the risk of unsafe sex - so the better plan is probably the first.

the blame for failed abstinence pledges and what not do not rest with the teaching of abstinence itself but rather with society as a whole and groups like planned parenthood who encourage such behaviour. Planned parenthood is actually a group that loves to see young teens having sex because they make money off it through things like contraceptives and abortions. Its sad to see groups like that still around.

the blame for failed abstinence pledges and what not do not rest with the teaching of abstinence itself but rather with society as a whole and groups like planned parenthood who encourage such behaviour. Planned parenthood is actually a group that loves to see young teens having sex because they make money off it through things like contraceptives and abortions. Its sad to see groups like that still around.

They must love breast cancer there, too. My wife goes there on a regular schedule for mammograms. I'm confused though... why is this evil group fighting for Americans to have free access to abortions?

;) Jesus Christ.

You win the thread.

I don't have a big problem with them teaching them those sort of things, however I don't think its right to then say 'and thats what sex is, now we will show you how to have it whenever and with whoever "safely" ' thats a rather dangerous road to go down.



And I'm worried about the state of mind of people who think its ok to encourage young teens to have sex. They aren't ready to handle the emotional and mental stress that goes along with sex.

Who the heck is encouraging them? Do you think they show pornos in these classes showing them how to insert tabbe a into slotte b?

You don't think it's a good idea for kids to know that having unprotected sex even ONCE can cause pregnancy? And that spraying Coca-Cola in a girl's parts won't prevent it? Neither will standing up immediately afterward?

You don't think it's a good idea for teens to know how to properly apply a condom if god forbid after all people have said to them they've decided to go ahead anyway?

Nobody here is talking about encouraging promiscuity, but pretending that teens have not been having sex, despite the teachings of their families and religions, for thousands of years is just willfully ignorant to the point of neglect.

the blame for failed abstinence pledges and what not do not rest with the teaching of abstinence itself but rather with society as a whole and groups like planned parenthood who encourage such behaviour. Planned parenthood is actually a group that loves to see young teens having sex because they make money off it through things like contraceptives and abortions. Its sad to see groups like that still around.

That's just plain idiotic. Planned Parenthood came about way back in 1916 because adults did not have the right to choose whether or not they would become parents. Its mission has evolved as young women who felt they could not go to their parents were getting botched abortions and dying or becoming infertile, and the poor were being saddled with pregnancies the rich could afford to fly off and get rid of.

Please for God's sake educate yourself.

Huh. Whodathunkit?

Also, anyone remember that story at some school where they were teaching abstinence-only education and every single girl in the class was pregnant?

Although 14.9 seems a little low.

Come on people, has television taught you nothing? Teenagers aren't programmed to have sex, they're programmed to do the exact opposite of what authority figures tell them to do.

Prevent teenage pregnancy! Tell your teen to have unprotected sex!


Duh :rolleyes:

I'd say there's a fairly good chance I'll never lose my virginity, from where I am right now.

Georgia?

Just a guess.

And if you think that sex is more dangerous than drug use, then I am very worried about your state of mind.

He's just your average, ordinary, ityphallophobe/sexophobe.

the blame for failed abstinence pledges and what not do not rest with the teaching of abstinence itself but rather with society as a whole and groups like planned parenthood who encourage such behaviour. Planned parenthood is actually a group that loves to see young teens having sex because they make money off it through things like contraceptives and abortions. Its sad to see groups like that still around.

Actually, teenagers hate sex, and would never choose to have it of their own accord.

The liberal media, however, with its glorification of immorality and abominations, brainwashes them into abandoning their God-given instincts.

;)

;)

Is that the feeling of vindication? or futher bemusement? I can't tell at this point.

Is that the feeling of vindication? or futher bemusement? I can't tell at this point.

Vindication and amusement.

Actually, teenagers hate sex, and would never choose to have it of their own accord

last time i checked, teenagers realy DO like havin sex, as a teenager who has had sex and enjoyed it, i would tend to assume unless your freakin out your mind, you would infact enjoy it too
and since when would we never choose to have it, if we want it, we'l have it, no matter what the law or parents or friends say otherwise, we tend to go with our naturaly instincts as humans, and have it, and damn well enjoy it too:p

No, it seems they aren't teaching kids abstinance in the right way and probably aren't spending enough money on it. It doesn't mean abstinance education is bad. Afterall abstinance as never once failed to prevent the spread of STDs or pregencys of teens.

Given that no socety has ever managed to convince people not to have sex I suspect the 'Right Way' to teach it does not exist.

Telling people not to have sex is like telling the tide not to come in.

You should look again at what I wrote, people are weak, they often do things they believe to be wrong. Having sex when they think they shouldn't is one of those things. But the idea that someone shouldn't be informed of the consequences of the act and how they can be safe is simply foolish. All ignorance does is increase problems.
You have it wrong. Well - for my life at least.

I never felt compelled to resist temptation, no desire to. I never felt any need to and never saw any reason other than other peoples morality for depriving myself of engaging in something I knew I wanted to do.

I guess I just refused to accept that I should let other peoples shame burden my concience, that another persons shame should not make me feel guilty for a natural and beautiful act.

Abstinence until marriage is bullshit anyway...you can learn a lot about someone's philosophy and whether they are right for you by having sex with them that you couldn't learn otherwise...what's important is just that you're not just doing it casually, and that you do it with the proper protection.

what's important is just that you're not just doing it casually

Why not?

Why not?

Because that's not how you get really good at it. It would be like...casually taking up an instrument, or a sport...it's fun, but you don't get the discipline that you do from a serious committment.

Not that I have anything to brag about, it's just an inference.

You don't think it's a good idea for kids to know that having unprotected sex even ONCE can cause pregnancy? And that spraying Coca-Cola in a girl's parts won't prevent it? Neither will standing up immediately afterward?

You don't think it's a good idea for teens to know how to properly apply a condom if god forbid after all people have said to them they've decided to go ahead anyway?
No, I don't think thats a good idea. I believe they should be taught to wait, and only to wait. 40 or even 30 years ago most teens waited until they were at least 17 or 18 years old before having sex. Modesty was encouraged and people had morals. Now its not uncommon for 11 or 12 old kids to have sex and think nothing of it. And what does society do about this? they seem to say 'oh well, kids will be kids'. Why am I the only one who seems to frightened by this trend?

Nobody here is talking about encouraging promiscuity
It sure seems that way.


but pretending that teens have not been having sex, despite the teachings of their families and religions, for thousands of years is just willfully ignorant to the point of neglect.

maybe in western culture

That's just plain idiotic. Planned Parenthood came about way back in 1916 because adults did not have the right to choose whether or not they would become parents. Its mission has evolved as young women who felt they could not go to their parents were getting botched abortions and dying or becoming infertile, and the poor were being saddled with pregnancies the rich could afford to fly off and get rid of.

Please for God's sake educate yourself.

It doesn't matter where Planned Parenthood came from, the fact is today they rejoice in and promote teen sex because it gets them money and support.

maybe in western culture

Every culture.

Even repressive ones where they execute women for refusing to carry another persons shame between their legs.

Georgia?

Just a guess.

No. I meant how my life is right now. I'll explain.

I, despite my rather young age, believe myself to be in love with a woman. As such, I believe that I should not have sex with any other person while I am still in love with her. I'm certain I love her though, and I'm certain I will continue to love her for a long time.

Rejection, thus far, has not affected my feelings for her. I can say this for certain because she rejected me once last November, which was rather depressing. Within a week, I ended up in a relationship with someone else, who I didn't have feelings for. This only made things worse. Before she broke up with me for some other man, though, I realized I still loved the other woman. After that, I ended up gradually beginning to see her again, almost directly after which she told me she believes herself to be a lesbian. A few weeks passed. I still loved her, which I ended up telling her. Then, the next week, she figured out that she was not a lesbian, but almost right after, told me she'd never have any feelings for me. Ever. That was two and a half months ago. I still love her. She still maintains she will never have any feelings for me.

That about explains my pessemism, in short.

It seems teaching kids abstinance does bugger all to stop them from having sex.

LINKY (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/)


click the link for the rest.

So basically regardless of what you teach them, and also what law is in place, teenagers are quite able to make up their own minds when they want to have sex.

What a surprise.

Never saw it coming.


Do Teenagers like sex? thats like asking , Do bears shit in woods?

It doesn't matter where Planned Parenthood came from, the fact is today they rejoice in and promote teen sex because it gets them money and support.

Yes, God forbid teenagers who are clearly going to have sex anyway have access to contraception.

I think teens have sex because it's so glamourised. I sometimes get made fun of because of my virginity. Why? I'm percieved as being different. Oh well. If living with a verbally, and often physically, abusive asshole brother has taught me anything, it's that words are just that: words. They aren't bullets. They aren't kryptonite. They aren't a mob of angry villagers. They're just words. Sticks and stones. Ignore the hippy teachers, people. If you kill yourself over a few words, you're more messed up in the head than words can ever make you.

Now teens. They see sex as something you do when you like someone or when you are bored. They have this rediculous notion of sexual freedom. Sex isn't free. It can't be free. When you do it willynilly, you're playing Russian Roulette. You risk AIDS. You risk hepatitus. You risk genetal/vaginal problems. Do you think a sex-crazed AIDS victim is going to tell you that he or she has AIDS? And give up the sex they craze? Hell no. You're safer when you stick with one partner that you know. That's why no-sex-before-marraige is encouraged. It's supposed to give you some time to get to know the person before you hump him or her. It would have worked too if it weren't for quick and easy marraiges.

Teen girls and women especially aren't supposed to have sex willynilly. There's this stuff called hormones. In females, it makes them more caring and compassionate after sex because pregnancy often follows sex and women are programmed to protect their offspring, assuming they're okay in the head. It's because of evolution, God, Allah, whoever. Sex too often messes with womens' hormones. Their bodies aren't designed for too much sex. Call me sexist, but that's the thing with evolution. It's sexist. Men don't have this big a problem because their contribution ends after the dick exits the chick. In the end, men are the walking sperm banks and women are the wombs. That's all nature cares about. You're a doctor? Nature doesn't give a damn. Lawyer? Mama Nature don't care. Unemployed? Nature couldn't care less.

I also suspect chemicals in foods and milk. Hormones are given to cows to increase milk production. Hormones could theoretically end up in the milk and when a girl drinks it, bam. She develops because the hormones affect female parts. Boys don't get affected because they don't produce milk. Girls eventually do.

I think teens have sex because it's so glamourised. I sometimes get made fun of because of my virginity. Why? I'm percieved as being different. Oh well. If living with a verbally, and often physically, abusive asshole brother has taught me anything, it's that words are just that: words. They aren't bullets. They aren't kryptonite. They aren't a mob of angry villagers. They're just words. Sticks and stones. Ignore the hippy teachers, people. If you kill yourself over a few words, you're more messed up in the head than words can ever make you.

Now teens. They see sex as something you do when you like someone or when you are bored. They have this rediculous notion of sexual freedom. Sex isn't free. It can't be free. When you do it willynilly, you're playing Russian Roulette. You risk AIDS. You risk hepatitus. You risk genetal/vaginal problems. Do you think a sex-crazed AIDS victim is going to tell you that he or she has AIDS? And give up the sex they craze? Hell no. You're safer when you stick with one partner that you know. That's why no-sex-before-marraige is encouraged. It's supposed to give you some time to get to know the person before you hump him or her. It would have worked too if it weren't for quick and easy marraiges.

Teen girls and women especially aren't supposed to have sex willynilly. There's this stuff called hormones. In females, it makes them more caring and compassionate after sex because pregnancy often follows sex and women are programmed to protect their offspring, assuming they're okay in the head. It's because of evolution, God, Allah, whoever. Sex too often messes with womens' hormones. Their bodies aren't designed for too much sex. Call me sexist, but that's the thing with evolution. It's sexist. Men don't have this big a problem because their contribution ends after the dick exits the chick. In the end, men are the walking sperm banks and women are the wombs. That's all nature cares about. You're a doctor? Nature doesn't give a damn. Lawyer? Mama Nature don't care. Unemployed? Nature couldn't care less.

I also suspect chemicals in foods and milk. Hormones are given to cows to increase milk production. Hormones could theoretically end up in the milk and when a girl drinks it, bam. She develops because the hormones affect female parts. Boys don't get affected because they don't produce milk. Girls eventually do.

Wow, you really really hate sex.

Why?

I think teens have sex because it's so glamourised. I sometimes get made fun of because of my virginity. Why? I'm percieved as being different. Oh well. If living with a verbally, and often physically, abusive asshole brother has taught me anything, it's that words are just that: words. They aren't bullets. They aren't kryptonite. They aren't a mob of angry villagers. They're just words. Sticks and stones. Ignore the hippy teachers, people. If you kill yourself over a few words, you're more messed up in the head than words can ever make you. Glamourized? Maay have a point. But words are far more efffective than you think.

Now teens. They see sex as something you do when you like someone or when you are bored. They have this rediculous notion of sexual freedom. All teens, or just the idiots? Sex isn't free. It can't be free. When you do it willynilly, you're playing Russian Roulette. You risk AIDS. You risk hepatitus. You risk genetal/vaginal problems. Do you think a sex-crazed AIDS victim is going to tell you that he or she has AIDS? And give up the sex they craze? Hell no. You have agood point.

You're safer when you stick with one partner that you know. That's why no-sex-before-marraige is encouraged. It's supposed to give you some time to get to know the person before you hump him or her. It would have worked too if it weren't for quick and easy marraiges. Why marriage, though?

Teen girls and women especially aren't supposed to have sex willynilly. There's this stuff called hormones. In females, it makes them more caring and compassionate after sex because pregnancy often follows sex and women are programmed to protect their offspring, assuming they're okay in the head. So sex is just for reproduction?

It's because of evolution, God, Allah, whoever. I pick evolution. Sex too often messes with womens' hormones. Their bodies aren't designed for too much sex. Call me sexist, but that's the thing with evolution. It's sexist. Men don't have this big a problem because their contribution ends after the dick exits the chick. In the end, men are the walking sperm banks and women are the wombs. That's all nature cares about. You're a doctor? Nature doesn't give a damn. Lawyer? Mama Nature don't care. Unemployed? Nature couldn't care less. It messes with hte hormones? I never saw anythign about that, and I've looked at the Planned Parenthood site.

I also suspect chemicals in foods and milk. Hormones are given to cows to increase milk production. Hormones could theoretically end up in the milk and when a girl drinks it, bam. She develops because the hormones affect female parts. Boys don't get affected because they don't produce milk. Girls eventually do. Your tinfoil hat clashes with your outfit. *nod*

It doesn't matter where Planned Parenthood came from, the fact is today they rejoice in and promote teen sex because it gets them money and support.

Once again, you need to put down the bong! Because whatever's in that thing is clearly screwing with your mental processes. Do you know how much money Planned Parenthood loses when they charge on a sliding scale, like most of them do? If you don't make a lot of money, you don't pay a lot of money for the services they provide. There's not much profit in what they do, believe me. In fact one office recently held a fundraiser: People would call in and pledge a certain dollar amount per protester outside the office on a certain day. They pulled in a mint during that one. Other offices are considering doing the same.

<snipping a whole bunch of crap>

Teen girls and women especially aren't supposed to have sex willynilly. There's this stuff called hormones. In females, it makes them more caring and compassionate after sex because pregnancy often follows sex and women are programmed to protect their offspring, assuming they're okay in the head. <snipping a lot more crap>

You know, I've seen bigger loads of BS, but this is pretty close to the record. Go off, do some actual research on female sexuality, then come back and stop prating nonsense.

I think teens have sex because it's so glamourised.
Swing and a miss.

They have sex because they want to.


Now teens. They see sex as something you do when you like someone or when you are bored.
Swing and a miss. Strike Two.

They (well I) see it as something they want to do. They might do it purely for the act or because they see it as a way to express their love for their partner and don't think they need a sheet of paper telling them that they love each other.


They have this rediculous notion of sexual freedom. Sex isn't free. It can't be free.
Strike three.


When you do it willynilly, you're playing Russian Roulette. You risk AIDS. You risk hepatitus. You risk genetal/vaginal problems. Do you think a sex-crazed AIDS victim is going to tell you that he or she has AIDS? And give up the sex they craze?
It's not as though people use judgement or anything when selecting who they have sex with. Or Condoms. Or even insist on their partners getting STD tests.


Hell no. You're safer when you stick with one partner that you know. That's why no-sex-before-marraige is encouraged. It's supposed to give you some time to get to know the person before you hump him or her. It would have worked too if it weren't for quick and easy marraiges.
Not if the other person is fucking about.


Teen girls and women especially aren't supposed to have sex willynilly.
Player hater.


There's this stuff called hormones. In females, it makes them more caring and compassionate after sex because pregnancy often follows sex and women are programmed to protect their offspring, assuming they're okay in the head.
You're not onto a good batting average here.


Sex too often messes with womens' hormones. Their bodies aren't designed for too much sex.
Bullshit.

If anything they are designed for a hell of a lot more sex than men due to not needing time to get a hardon again and the ability to have multiple orgasims.


Call me sexist
Can do.

, but that's the thing with evolution. It's sexist. Men don't have this big a problem because their contribution ends after the dick exits the chick. In the end, men are the walking sperm banks and women are the wombs.
If you are male then it is probably a good thing if you are still a virgin.


That's all nature cares about. You're a doctor? Nature doesn't give a damn. Lawyer? Mama Nature don't care. Unemployed? Nature couldn't care less.


Humans are social creatures. If you think repoduction is the only function of sex in a social species then you are wrong. If you think repoduction is the only function of sex in a relationship you are also very wrong


I also suspect chemicals in foods and milk. Hormones are given to cows to increase milk production. Hormones could theoretically end up in the milk and when a girl drinks it, bam. She develops because the hormones affect female parts. Boys don't get affected because they don't produce milk. Girls eventually do.
FYI - Guys grow boobs if they get too exposed to female hormones.

I don't suppose you'd also be interested to note that women are having children at an older age these days than at any time in human history? In the west it used to be common to marry girls off at ages as young as 12. Have you ever read Romeo and Juilett? She has just turned 14 and her mum is upset that she is taking so long to get married off- this was not really all that long ago in our history.

I think teens have sex because it's so glamourised. I sometimes get made fun of because of my virginity. Why? I'm percieved as being different. Oh well. If living with a verbally, and often physically, abusive asshole brother has taught me anything, it's that words are just that: words. They aren't bullets. They aren't kryptonite. They aren't a mob of angry villagers. They're just words. Sticks and stones. Ignore the hippy teachers, people. If you kill yourself over a few words, you're more messed up in the head than words can ever make you.

Now teens. They see sex as something you do when you like someone or when you are bored. They have this rediculous notion of sexual freedom. Sex isn't free. It can't be free. When you do it willynilly, you're playing Russian Roulette. You risk AIDS. You risk hepatitus. You risk genetal/vaginal problems. Do you think a sex-crazed AIDS victim is going to tell you that he or she has AIDS? And give up the sex they craze? Hell no. You're safer when you stick with one partner that you know. That's why no-sex-before-marraige is encouraged. It's supposed to give you some time to get to know the person before you hump him or her. It would have worked too if it weren't for quick and easy marraiges.

Teen girls and women especially aren't supposed to have sex willynilly. There's this stuff called hormones. In females, it makes them more caring and compassionate after sex because pregnancy often follows sex and women are programmed to protect their offspring, assuming they're okay in the head. It's because of evolution, God, Allah, whoever. Sex too often messes with womens' hormones. Their bodies aren't designed for too much sex. Call me sexist, but that's the thing with evolution. It's sexist. Men don't have this big a problem because their contribution ends after the dick exits the chick. In the end, men are the walking sperm banks and women are the wombs. That's all nature cares about. You're a doctor? Nature doesn't give a damn. Lawyer? Mama Nature don't care. Unemployed? Nature couldn't care less.

I also suspect chemicals in foods and milk. Hormones are given to cows to increase milk production. Hormones could theoretically end up in the milk and when a girl drinks it, bam. She develops because the hormones affect female parts. Boys don't get affected because they don't produce milk. Girls eventually do.

Or, you know, because the onset of puberty is mother nature's way of telling humanity to get busy. We're not supposed to live as long as we do; we're supposed to breed early. Rough guess, 15-25 is prime. Thank God sex isn't just for procreation.

This is the problem when conservatives go trying to use facts. Look, you guys won back when you rounded people up for not giving up there constitutional rights and pulling the "infallible word of God" card. Facts aren't really your friends...

No. I meant how my life is right now. I'll explain.

I, despite my rather young age, believe myself to be in love with a woman. As such, I believe that I should not have sex with any other person while I am still in love with her. I'm certain I love her though, and I'm certain I will continue to love her for a long time.

Rejection, thus far, has not affected my feelings for her. I can say this for certain because she rejected me once last November, which was rather depressing. Within a week, I ended up in a relationship with someone else, who I didn't have feelings for. This only made things worse. Before she broke up with me for some other man, though, I realized I still loved the other woman. After that, I ended up gradually beginning to see her again, almost directly after which she told me she believes herself to be a lesbian. A few weeks passed. I still loved her, which I ended up telling her. Then, the next week, she figured out that she was not a lesbian, but almost right after, told me she'd never have any feelings for me. Ever. That was two and a half months ago. I still love her. She still maintains she will never have any feelings for me.

That about explains my pessemism, in short.

Seems kind of silly to try to pursue a relationship that will never result in harmony...that's just me...

That's why no-sex-before-marraige is encouraged. It's supposed to give you some time to get to know the person before you hump him or her.

I think this may be the shatterpoint in your argument...don't you think it's possible that "humping someone" is a way to "get to know the person"? In fact, I would think that I'd be terrified of marrying someone I hadn't alreadyy had sex with, because I wouldn't *know* them. I'd be marrying a stranger.

No, I don't think thats a good idea. I believe they should be taught to wait, and only to wait. 40 or even 30 years ago most teens waited until they were at least 17 or 18 years old before having sex. Modesty was encouraged and people had morals. Now its not uncommon for 11 or 12 old kids to have sex and think nothing of it. And what does society do about this? they seem to say 'oh well, kids will be kids'. Why am I the only one who seems to frightened by this trend?

I'm gonna call bullshit on the 11 or 12 year olds having sex. At least it being not uncommon, or accepted. Cites, please.

40 or even 30 years ago most teens waited until they were at least 17 or 18 years old before having sex.

Prove it.

40 or even 30 years ago most teens waited until they were at least 17 or 18 years old before having sex
Prove it.

Good luck to him on that one.

If anything kids, particulary girls, are waiting longer these days than they have through most of human history. In the west it used to be quite common to marry your daughters off at about 13, or in some places as soon after they started their periods as possible. This was part of the reson for horrific childbirth death rates. This trend was repeated all over the globe and all throught history to the beginning of civilization.

In many parts of the world this is still the case today.

Prove it.

Ozzie and Harriet syndrome. Fact about that show: Not a reality series.

Prove it.

I like how what most kids consider a silly whine from someone who is accused of something they clearly did is a shatterpoint in some adult and teenager's arguments.

And what the devil is Ozzie and Harriet?

*Realizes as he types that that he should just check wikipedia*

I still don't get how this is relevant.

HAHAHA!!! I knew that this place would be all abuzz about this! Comic relief!

Did you miss the part where it said about half of the kids in the study didn't have sex or where it said it didn't increase the amount of unprotected sex? Course not!:D

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you simply misunderstood. The point here is not how many teenagers are not having sex. It's this:

about half of the abstinence students and about half from the control group reported that they remained abstinent.

Translation: Abstinence pledges do not decrease the likelihood a teenager will have sex.

I will, however, give you that the study indicates that it does not decrease the likelihood of using a condom. However, it does not give statistics on likelihood of becoming pregnant. Which is really what matters. You can use condoms wrong.

I had a look at US teenage birth rates on
http://statehealthfacts.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Births&topic=Teen+Birth+Rate+per+1%2C000

Texas - 2nd highest :p

The District of Columbia is 1st.


This causes me to wonder about just what exactly they're doing with our tax dollars in those parts of the budget they're not telling us about.

Seems kind of silly to try to pursue a relationship that will never result in harmony...that's just me...

It is silly. I love her though, and I'm certain that isn't going to change. It's better than nothing.

Once again, you need to put down the bong! Because whatever's in that thing is clearly screwing with your mental processes. Do you know how much money Planned Parenthood loses when they charge on a sliding scale, like most of them do? If you don't make a lot of money, you don't pay a lot of money for the services they provide. There's not much profit in what they do, believe me. In fact one office recently held a fundraiser: People would call in and pledge a certain dollar amount per protester outside the office on a certain day. They pulled in a mint during that one. Other offices are considering doing the same.

They still get support for what they do and they just continue to promote teen and even preteen sex.

They still get support for what they do and they just continue to promote teen and even preteen sex.

Okay, you're confused here. Planned Parenthood does not promote teen and preteen sex. That's like saying people who teach other people how to swordfight are in favor of skewering people with swords. Planned Parenthood figures if teens are going to have sex, they should do it right and not die or have their lives ruined. The same is true of most swordfighting instructors. They're not in favor of stabbing people, but they figure if you're going to stab someone, you should be able to do it effectively and without injuring yourself.

I'm gonna call bullshit on the 11 or 12 year olds having sex. At least it being not uncommon, or accepted. Cites, please.

Prove it.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20051005-9999-1m5survey.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070226131500.htm

anything else?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20051005-9999-1m5survey.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070226131500.htm

anything else?

Yeah...that second one says teen sex leads to delinquency. Not that teens are having sex at an earlier age. (I personally think it's probably the other way around, that delinquents are more likely to have sex then a nondelinquent.)

They still get support for what they do and they just continue to promote teen and even preteen sex.

They don't promote teen sex

Soviestan, give an argument for abstinence that could not also be used to justify never driving ever before we listen to you. After all, there were no car accidents in the 1800's.
And cars aren't necessary for the survival of humanity, either.

And BTW, the marriages in which neither partner has had sex beforehand are most likely to be the marriages in which one partner cheats, which totally destroys any advantage.

I think this may be the shatterpoint in your argument...don't you think it's possible that "humping someone" is a way to "get to know the person"? In fact, I would think that I'd be terrified of marrying someone I hadn't alreadyy had sex with, because I wouldn't *know* them. I'd be marrying a stranger.



0_o


Sorry, but that argument has lost me. How is having sex with someone going to make you know what kind of person the are any better? I mean, how is having sex with them going to make you know their thoughts, likes and dislikes, favorite food, favorite color, favorite shows. And is not having having sex with someone make them a stranger? It's like saying I haven't had sex with you so I don't know you.......Ummm....I won't even touch if you think you KNOW your parents.

0_o


Sorry, but that argument has lost me. How is having sex with someone going to make you know what kind of person the are any better? I mean, how is having sex with them going to make you know their thoughts, likes and dislikes, favorite food, favorite color, favorite shows. And is not having having sex with someone make them a stranger? It's like saying I haven't had sex with you so I don't know you.......Ummm....I won't even touch if you think you KNOW your parents.

But you are not planning on in the future sharing the sexual side of yourself with your parents...

But you are not planning on in the future sharing the sexual side of yourself with your parents...



But your parents maybe....Sorry, That was nasty.......



Still doesn't answer my questions.

But your parents maybe....Sorry, That was nasty.......



Still doesn't answer my questions.

I was not the quoted poster either and don't have any opinion on your questions, but I did on your false comparison.

Your future wife you are planning on sharing a sexual relationship with, your parents not. Why would you need the same level of sexual knowledge of both?

Personally I think you could get by either way depending on the personalities involved but I still think the comparison was at least false if not a strawman

0_o

Sorry, but that argument has lost me. How is having sex with someone going to make you know what kind of person the are any better?

A person's sexual self is one important part of who they are. It's not all of who they are, but it is an important part. If you have had sex with somebody and don't feel that you've learned something about them in the process, then I am very sorry for you because you're missing out on one of the best parts of sex.


I mean, how is having sex with them going to make you know their thoughts, likes and dislikes, favorite food, favorite color, favorite shows.

How is saying "I do" going to accomplish any of those? It doesn't, of course.

You learn different things about people in different ways. The sexual side of a person is one side of them. Knowing a person's favorite color won't allow you to know their thoughts, just like knowing their favorite place to be kissed won't allow you to know their thoughts. It just lets you know a little something more about them. It's one more piece you can add to your puzzle-image of that person.

I believe that when you commit to marrying a person, you are making a pledge for life. You are pledging to be partner to this person for the rest of your life. In my opinion, it is dishonorable and dishonest to make such a pledge unless you have done EVERYTHING in your power to find out if you will be able to be a happy, healthy, loving partner to that person. This means that you should get to know that person as completely as you can, and that you should not shy away from any side of their personality or self. You will never be able to know them completely, of course, even after 50 years of marriage, but you should do you very best to get to know them BEFORE you make the pledge. Knowing their sexual self is one part of this, no more or less important than any other part.


And is not having having sex with someone make them a stranger? It's like saying I haven't had sex with you so I don't know you.......Ummm....I won't even touch if you think you KNOW your parents.
Don't be silly. It's not black and white like that. You can know people to different extents and in different ways. I do not know my parents or sibling in a sexual way, but that doesn't stop me from being close to them and loving them. It simply means there is a side of who they are that I will never know. That's okay, and it doesn't make me love them any less, it just means that their relationships with people they are sexual with are going to have an element that my relationship with them does not.

I think teens have sex because it's so glamourised. I sometimes get made fun of because of my virginity. Why? I'm percieved as being different. Oh well. If living with a verbally, and often physically, abusive asshole brother has taught me anything, it's that words are just that: words. They aren't bullets. They aren't kryptonite. They aren't a mob of angry villagers. They're just words. Sticks and stones. Ignore the hippy teachers, people. If you kill yourself over a few words, you're more messed up in the head than words can ever make you.

I hear so many people say this, but it was never my experience as a kid. Yeah, there were pressures to be sexual, but most teens are far smarter than anybody credits them. Not to mention that teens to today have more information available to them than any generation before, so they actually KNOW about the risks of sexual activity. Most teens in my school were more mature and informed about sex than their own parents.


Now teens. They see sex as something you do when you like someone or when you are bored. They have this rediculous notion of sexual freedom. Sex isn't free. It can't be free.

"Freedom" doesn't mean "free sex," and most teens know that. It means that you are free to make your own choices with your own body, and that nobody else should be forcing you to do something with your body that you don't want.


When you do it willynilly, you're playing Russian Roulette. You risk AIDS. You risk hepatitus. You risk genetal/vaginal problems. Do you think a sex-crazed AIDS victim is going to tell you that he or she has AIDS?

Oooh, the "sex-crazed AIDS victim!" I like this! It's like the dude with the hook hand who terrorizes Lover's Lane, only updated for the new millenium!


And give up the sex they craze? Hell no. You're safer when you stick with one partner that you know.

The fastest growing population of new HIV infectees is MONOGAMOUS MARRIED WOMEN. Hmm.


That's why no-sex-before-marraige is encouraged.

Never, in the history of the world, has there been any culture in which all people abstained from sex until marriage and remained monogamous in marriage. Never. Not once.

Teaching kids that marriage is a contraceptive is a dangerous lie.


It's supposed to give you some time to get to know the person before you hump him or her. It would have worked too if it weren't for quick and easy marraiges.

The idea that marriage is supposed to occur between two people who know each other well is a VERY recent idea. For the overwhelming majority of Western history, courtship was more an economic transaction than anything else.


Teen girls and women especially aren't supposed to have sex willynilly. There's this stuff called hormones. In females, it makes them more caring and compassionate after sex because pregnancy often follows sex and women are programmed to protect their offspring, assuming they're okay in the head. It's because of evolution, God, Allah, whoever.

Myth. Sad, tired myth.


Sex too often messes with womens' hormones. Their bodies aren't designed for too much sex.

Myth. The female body is actually very resilient and specifically built in such a way that it can experience lots of sex. For instance, the female body, unlike the male body, doesn't physiologically require a "cooling down" period between orgasms or sexual episodes. The female body also possesses the only human organ designed exclusively for sexual pleasure.


Call me sexist,

Okay, you're sexist.


but that's the thing with evolution. It's sexist.

That's true, in a way. Evolution provided women with the only organ that exists purely to provide sexual pleasure. Sorry, guys. I wish you didn't have to miss out.


Men don't have this big a problem because their contribution ends after the dick exits the chick. In the end, men are the walking sperm banks and women are the wombs. That's all nature cares about. You're a doctor? Nature doesn't give a damn. Lawyer? Mama Nature don't care. Unemployed? Nature couldn't care less.

Yeah yeah, blah blah blah.

Look, it's great that you're another sexist who slept through freshman Bio and all, but it's really old hat to try to use evolutionary theory to prop up your personal hangups.

If you want to abuse your fellow humans and treat women as cum dumpsters, at least have the balls to admit that you're an asshole. Don't try to blame "nature" for the fact that YOU, personally, have a problem.


I also suspect chemicals in foods and milk. Hormones are given to cows to increase milk production. Hormones could theoretically end up in the milk and when a girl drinks it, bam. She develops because the hormones affect female parts. Boys don't get affected because they don't produce milk. Girls eventually do.
That's a lovely theory. Do you even know what a "hormone" is?

They still get support for what they do and they just continue to promote teen and even preteen sex.

BULL. SHIT. Prove it, please. Cite me some reliable sources that prove that Planned Parenthood encourages preteens to have sex. And no, offering free or low cost health screenings or birth control doesn't count. I begged my mom to let me go on birth control at 13 because I'd heard it reduced cramps.

Who the heck is encouraging them? Do you think they show pornos in these classes showing them how to insert tabbe a into slotte b?

You don't think it's a good idea for kids to know that having unprotected sex even ONCE can cause pregnancy? And that spraying Coca-Cola in a girl's parts won't prevent it? Neither will standing up immediately afterward?

You don't think it's a good idea for teens to know how to properly apply a condom if god forbid after all people have said to them they've decided to go ahead anyway?

Nobody here is talking about encouraging promiscuity, but pretending that teens have not been having sex, despite the teachings of their families and religions, for thousands of years is just willfully ignorant to the point of neglect.
People also seem to forget that MARRIED COUPLES USE CONTRACEPTION.

Even if every single teen DID wait until marriage to have sex, they would STILL need to know about contraception and birth control.

The overwhelming majority of married couples do not want to have a baby every time they fuck. The overwhelming majority of married couples could not afford to support that many kids even if they DID want to have them. It is important for ANYBODY who is fucking to know where babies come from, and how to prevent pregnancy if they aren't ready or willing to be a parent. THIS INCLUDES MARRIED PEOPLE.

Sex too often messes with womens' hormones. Their bodies aren't designed for too much sex.
*Giggles*

For instance, the female body, unlike the male body, doesn't physiologically require a "cooling down" period between orgasms or sexual episodes.
Between ejaculations, actually. You can seperate orgasm and ejaculation, it just requires more effort than it's worth IMO.
Not that I don't covet your easy multiple orgasms, but I'm pedantic :p

That's a lovely theory. Do you even know what a "hormone" is?
Showing you're doing it right?

*Giggles*

Giggles indeed. I love being told that my body "isn't designed for too much sex." It's worked plenty well so far...


Between ejaculations, actually. You can seperate orgasm and ejaculation, it just requires more effort than it's worth IMO.
Not that I don't covet your easy multiple orgasms, but I'm pedantic :p

A good point. Most men never separate their orgasms from ejaculation, so it's easy to forget that the two are not one and the same. My bad.


Showing you're doing it right?
*rimshot*

Only in the case of rape.

Otherwise, someone who "truly wishes" to be abstinent will not just "find themselves" having sex. They may drop their pants and engage in sex... but in that case they didn't truly wish to be abstinent.
When it comes to teenagers, rape cases are actually a pretty damn big deal.

In the U.S., 7 in 10 women who had sex before age 14, and 6 in 10 of those who had sex before age 15 report having had sex involuntarily. (I'm getting these numbers from The Alan Guttmacher Institute)

Teens 16 to 19 are 3.5 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. (U.S. Department of Justice.) According to the Justice Department, one in two rape victims is under age 18; one in six is under age 12.

If you're talking about teens and sex, you have to recognize that a very significant number of "sexually active" teens are victims of rape. Teens need to know about their bodies not only so they can make healthy choices with their own sex lives, but also so they can be better equipped to deal with rape and the aftermath of rape.

They don't promote teen sex

You say the don't, all the evidence points to they do.

You say the don't, all the evidence points to they do.
Then it will, no doubt, be quite easy for you to provide said evidence. Please do.

Then it will, no doubt, be quite easy for you to provide said evidence. Please do.

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/informed/contentview.asp?c=32833

http://www.grtl.org/plannedparenthood.asp#Act5(scroll down to 2nd issue from bottom)

http://www.all.org/stopp/st001219.htm

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/informed/contentview.asp?c=32833

http://www.grtl.org/plannedparenthood.asp#Act5(scroll down to 2nd issue from bottom)

http://www.all.org/stopp/st001219.htm
I'm going to set aside the fact that all three of your sources are ridiculously biased, just because I'm feeling charitable this morning. Even so...

Your first source whines about a PP ad which declares "safe is sexy," without providing a link to the offending ad. You'll need to show us the ad so we can see if it actually promotes teen sex.

Your second source, in the second item from the bottom, simply makes the same assertion you do: that PP promotes teen sex. No evidence is provided for this claim.

Your third source, likewise, is simply an account of how an anti-choice organization asserts that PP is "trying to create another problem so they can then cry to the government for more money to solve it," by releasing a report on teen sex practices that suggests an increase in various types of sexual behavior among teens. This assertion is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Indeed, the only source in the article is the PP source.

In addition, your third source contains the following passage: "Planned Parenthood's own report -- in Family Planning Perspectives, March/April 1998 -- stated that a result of condom availability programs in high schools is a significant increase in females engaging in various deviant sexual acts."

This statement is a lie.

The actual study reports:
"Prior to implementation of a condom availability program in a Los Angeles County high school, 1,945 students in grades 9-12 (98% of eligible students) completed a self-administered anonymous survey on their sexual behavior and on related knowledge and attitudes; one year later, 1,110 students (59% of eligible students) completed a follow-up survey.

Results: There was no significant change over time in the percentage of males or females who had ever had vaginal intercourse or who had had vaginal intercourse during the year prior to the survey. The percentage of males who reported using condoms every time they engaged in vaginal intercourse during the past year increased significantly, from 37% to 50%, and the percentage of males who reported condom use at recently initiated first vaginal intercourse increased from 65% to 80%. On the other hand, female respondents showed no significant change in their condom use.
...
Conclusions:The condom availability program appears not to have produced an increase in sexual activity among high school students, and it appears to have led to improved condom use among males."

The study did find that female students in their second sample were more likely to report having engaged in oral sex or anal sex with a partner, but amount of sexual activity was statistically unchanged. So after contraception and education about safe sex were made available at the school, female students reported more sexual contact that minimizes risk of pregnancy, while not actually increasing their over-all levels of sexual activity at all.

So of your three sources, we have 1) no evidence provided, 2) no evidence provided, 3) no evidence provide, plus an out-right lie.

I guess I will have to be more careful when I ask for evidence, huh?

When I say "evidence," I mean real evidence, not random theories that have been made up on the fly by people who have already decided what their conclusions will be.

Evidence also must consist of more than just somebody else saying the same thing you are saying. If you claim bigfoot exists, and I ask you for evidence, you don't get to cite your friend Tony's webpage where he asserts that "Bigfoot is real!" That's not evidence of anything other than that you share a particular delusion with at least one other person.

Evidence also cannot be a lie. If you claim a source proves one thing, when the source actually proves the opposite, you have not provided evidence. You have lied. This does not strengthen your case.

So, with that clarified, let me ask again:

Please present evidence that Planned Parenthood promotes/encourages teen sex.

I guess I will have to be more careful when I ask for evidence, huh?

When I say "evidence," I mean real evidence, not random theories that have been made up on the fly by people who have already decided what their conclusions will be.

Evidence also must consist of more than just somebody else saying the same thing you are saying. If you claim bigfoot exists, and I ask you for evidence, you don't get to cite your friend Tony's webpage where he asserts that "Bigfoot is real!" That's not evidence of anything other than that you share a particular delusion with at least one other person.

Evidence also cannot be a lie. If you claim a source proves one thing, when the source actually proves the opposite, you have not provided evidence. You have lied. This does not strengthen your case.

So, with that clarified, let me ask again:

Please present evidence that Planned Parenthood promotes/encourages teen sex.
I feel like you deserve a fruit basket or gift package of assorted soaps and massage oils... something. That you would have to explain such a thing...

I guess I will have to be more careful when I ask for evidence, huh?

When I say "evidence," I mean real evidence, not random theories that have been made up on the fly by people who have already decided what their conclusions will be.

Evidence also must consist of more than just somebody else saying the same thing you are saying. If you claim bigfoot exists, and I ask you for evidence, you don't get to cite your friend Tony's webpage where he asserts that "Bigfoot is real!" That's not evidence of anything other than that you share a particular delusion with at least one other person.

Evidence also cannot be a lie. If you claim a source proves one thing, when the source actually proves the opposite, you have not provided evidence. You have lied. This does not strengthen your case.

So, with that clarified, let me ask again:

Please present evidence that Planned Parenthood promotes/encourages teen sex.

define "evidence" What sort of evidence would make you happy? It seems the only evidence you will accept is if it fits your worldview.

define "evidence"
...

You're kidding, right?

You didn't seriously ask me to define "evidence" while quoting a post in which I spelled out what "evidence" is, right? Because that would be...why, that would be...that would be enough to just tip me right over the edge into full-fledged insanity, is what that would be...

You say the don't, all the evidence points to they do.

No it does not it points to them providing knowledge not encouragement

No, I don't think thats a good idea. I believe they should be taught to wait, and only to wait. 40 or even 30 years ago most teens waited until they were at least 17 or 18 years old before having sex.

Holy shit, you have GOT to be joking!!! In the 60's and 70's teens "waited"????? You are soooo full of shit, or you simply don't have clue one as to what you're talking about.

Shove off!

No, it seems they aren't teaching kids abstinance in the right way and probably aren't spending enough money on it. It doesn't mean abstinance education is bad. Afterall abstinance as never once failed to prevent the spread of STDs or pregencys of teens.

Awright.

Exactly HOW does one mess up teaching ABSTINANCE? And if those doing the teaching are THAT stupid, perhaps funding them really is throwing good money after bad.

Awright.

Exactly HOW does one mess up teaching ABSTINANCE? And if those doing the teaching are THAT stupid, perhaps funding them really is throwing good money after bad.
The US federal government has spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on abstinence education.

If hundreds of millions of dollars isn't enough to communicate the message, "Don't fuck until yer hitched," then I humbly submit that it is unlikely any amount of money WILL be sufficient.

But Sovietstan certainly is doing a good job of representing the current "conservative" mindset in my country: "If it doesn't work, throw more money at it!"

The US federal government has spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on abstinence education.

If hundreds of millions of dollars isn't enough to communicate the message, "Don't fuck until yer hitched," then I humbly submit that it is unlikely any amount of money WILL be sufficient.

But Sovietstan certainly is doing a good job of representing the current "conservative" mindset in my country: "If it doesn't work, throw more money at it!"

Please pardon me while I exuberantly yell:

BOTTLE FOR PRESIDENT!

You are my hero. Deft disembowelments of arguments not even worthy of such effort, plus a solid definition of evidence (which was, of course, completely ignored) -- you clearly rock.

Please pardon me while I exuberantly yell:

BOTTLE FOR PRESIDENT!

You are my hero. Deft disembowelments of arguments not even worthy of such effort, plus a solid definition of evidence (which was, of course, completely ignored) -- you clearly rock.
I reluctantly accept this glamorous and high-paying position.

;)

In the 60's and 70's teens "waited"????? You are soooo full of shit

As I like to say (I forget where I picked this up.), "It's a miracle his eyes don't turn brown."

This, obviously, doesn't work if the person's eyes are already brown.

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/informed/contentview.asp?c=32833

http://www.grtl.org/plannedparenthood.asp#Act5(scroll down to 2nd issue from bottom)

http://www.all.org/stopp/st001219.htm

Okay, I should have been a little more specific. Give me actual sources, you know, studies from unbiased groups. I don't count pro-life websites as unbiased sources any more than I count Planned Parenthood as unbiased when it comes to abortion.

Soviestan just got poned. Again.

Abstinance education doesn't work. Instincts are stronger for teenagers than some know-it-all authority is who's telling them not to do this thing that feels absolutely wonderful and gets them so close to another person. It just doesn't work.

Teenagers have always been having sex. If you go back far enough, the marriage age was during the teens, and that's why you don't hear about lots of pre-marital sex from then.

Even one hundred years ago teenagers were having sex. Maybe not the rich teenagers we hear about so much, but do you think they paid attention to such things in the slums?

People always like to romanticize the past and be like "well, back then, nobody did such and such." Well that's simply not true.

And the fact that Soviestan claims that in the 60's and 70's, kids weren't fucking their brains out, just shows he's out of his mind.

There's a book called A World Lit Only by Fire, a history of the Middle Ages. The guy relied solely on secondary sources, and most of it was crap, but he had an interesting anecdote that bears on this discussion:

Her virginity was supposedly a woman's most precious possession, one to guard more than life itself. It's surprising, then, how many of them managed to lose it.

Damn right they do, dont we all? besides why wouldnt they, with beautiful young fresh bodies, this is the best time for them to do it.
besides I'd join in/ watch if I could message me ;)

Okay, I should have been a little more specific. Give me actual sources, you know, studies from unbiased groups. I don't count pro-life websites as unbiased sources any more than I count Planned Parenthood as unbiased when it comes to abortion.
Soviestan is incapable of posting anything approaching unbiased, reputable sources. I've long since given up on that.

The fun thing is, if you actually bother to read the crap sources he DOES post, you find out that they actually don't even say what he claims they say. So he's being lazy AND lying!

Allah would be so proud.

Soviestan is incapable of posting anything approaching unbiased, reputable sources. I've long since given up on that.

The fun thing is, if you actually bother to read the crap sources he DOES post, you find out that they actually don't even say what he claims they say. So he's being lazy AND lying!

Allah would be so proud.

Oh, I know. I guess Redwulf's enjoyment of windmills and the jousting pleasures thereof has rubbed off. Plus, it's fun to see what kind of crap he comes up with!

Oh, I know. I guess Redwulf's enjoyment of windmills and the jousting pleasures thereof has rubbed off. Plus, it's fun to see what kind of crap he comes up with!
Indeed. Hell, ripping into Sovie's lame "sources" is easier than falling off a log, but I end up with people calling for Bottle For President! Works out great for me! :D

Indeed. Hell, ripping into Sovie's lame "sources" is easier than falling off a log, but I end up with people calling for Bottle For President! Works out great for me! :D

LOL. I read your response out loud to Redwulf, and he said that he likes to poke trolls, they make such interesting noises. :)

I reluctantly accept this glamorous and high-paying position.

;)

Your throne awaits you, sire.

:p

First law of Advertising: Tell someone they can't have something and they will want it.

OK, kids. I am an old geezer with a couple of kids of my own.

Reality. Heterosexual intercourse with no protection has about a 25-30% chance of successful conception each time out. Condoms reduce that to about 8%.

So, sex is a craps game. Do you really want to throw the dice?

The US federal government has spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on abstinence education.

If hundreds of millions of dollars isn't enough to communicate the message, "Don't fuck until yer hitched," then I humbly submit that it is unlikely any amount of money WILL be sufficient.

But Sovietstan certainly is doing a good job of representing the current "conservative" mindset in my country: "If it doesn't work, throw more money at it!"

Yep. I have been the tax wasting business for 20 years and that is exactly how it is done.

Awright.

Exactly HOW does one mess up teaching ABSTINANCE? And if those doing the teaching are THAT stupid, perhaps funding them really is throwing good money after bad.

To be fair, I think you can mess up "teaching" (I'll explain the quotes in a line or two) abstinence - and I think we've got millions of dollars being spent on just that.

I see no problem with encouraging teenagers to wait until they are ready for sex. And, for most, that will likely be late teens to early twenties.I don't think it's possible to truly teach abstinence (hence the quotes). However, a fully informed teenager is much more likely to make a good decision than one who is ignorant - and a good decision will often be waiting. But just saying, "Hey kids, don't do it!" or using scare tactics isn't going to convince anyone to wait.

Saying "Don't do it!" over and over does nothing but make sex seem taboo. It seem illicit and thus teens will want to do it. It's the same reason that so many teens are out there binge drinking. They've been told they can't, so now they're doing it - and doing it to excess.

And scare tactics don't work either. Going on and on and on about STDs and the possible failure rate of contraceptives without being open and frank about sex itself and why people like to do it will backfire. If we aren't open and frank about sex, teens will find out things we've hidden. And they'll be likely to see everything we've told them about sex as a bunch of bull.

If we want teens to wait longer to have sex, the path to take is complete honesty.

First law of Advertising: Tell someone they can't have something and they will want it.

OK, kids. I am an old geezer with a couple of kids of my own.

Reality. Heterosexual intercourse with no protection has about a 25-30% chance of successful conception each time out. Condoms reduce that to about 8%.

So, sex is a craps game. Do you really want to throw the dice?

Condoms are even more effective when consistently used properly. Remember that the data concerning the effectiveness of condoms postulates that 8% will become pregnant within the year. Among these, are those who do not use a condom every time (quite common) and those who occasionally may put it on incorrectly.

Really, what's most effective is to use condoms in conjunction with another form of birth control.

Indeed. Hell, ripping into Sovie's lame "sources" is easier than falling off a log, but I end up with people calling for Bottle For President! Works out great for me! :D

Hell, it's easier then falling off a perfectly round, rolling, frictionless log covered in grease and teflon.

First law of Advertising: Tell someone they can't have something and they will want it.

OK, kids. I am an old geezer with a couple of kids of my own.

Fantasy. Heterosexual intercourse with no protection has about a 25-30% chance of successful conception each time out. Condoms reduce that to about 8%.

So, sex is a craps game. Do you really want to throw the dice?

Fixed. They don't reduce it to 8% EACH TIME, they reduce it to 8% over a year, from what I understand. Which is a considerably less chance then each time.

Reality. Heterosexual intercourse with no protection has about a 25-30% chance of successful conception each time out. Condoms reduce that to about 8%.

So, sex is a craps game. Do you really want to throw the dice?
More importantly, let's ask all those kids who are "saving themselves for marriage":

When you do end up getting married, and you do end up having sex with your spouse, do you want to end up having a baby 25% of the times you have sex?

Put this in perspective. Let's say you want to have the "typical" American family of 2.5 children or whatever it is. Round it up to 3. Assuming you are going to remain completely ignorant about contraception, this means that you would get to have sex 12 times IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Because one in every four times, you're getting preggers.

So maybe you get to have sex once on your wedding night, and then once a year on your anniversary for the next 11 years. After that, though, it's back to total abstinence, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

Hmm.

I'm guessing contraception might be something these kids need to know about, even if they manage to abstain until hitched.

More importantly, let's ask all those kids who are "saving themselves for marriage":

When you do end up getting married, and you do end up having sex with your spouse, do you want to end up having a baby 25% of the times you have sex?

Put this in perspective. Let's say you want to have the "typical" American family of 2.5 children or whatever it is. Round it up to 3. Assuming you are going to remain completely ignorant about contraception, this means that you would get to have sex 12 times IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Because one in every four times, you're getting preggers.

So maybe you get to have sex once on your wedding night, and then once a year on your anniversary for the next 11 years. After that, though, it's back to total abstinence, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

Hmm.

I'm guessing contraception might be something these kids need to know about, even if they manage to abstain until hitched.

Why assume that we don't know anything about contraception? I'm fully aware of contraception, I'm a biology student with the option module of "Growth, Development and Reproduction", but I'm just choosing not to have sex until I'm married. It's nobody elses choice, no-ones forced me, encouraged, or otherwise coaxed me into it. My choice alone.

Plus, when I do, hopefully, get married, I'll fully intend to use contracetives.

Why? I just feel it's improper. I'd like to think that if I've decided to spend my life with someone, then I love them enough to have sex with them. To me, it's an extraordinarily intimate process, that I don't want to do each and every time I get into a relationship.

So please, my good (wo)man, don't tarnish us all as ignorant and uninformed for our personal beliefs.

So please, my good (wo)man, don't tarnish us all as ignorant and uninformed for our personal beliefs.

Did you just say that to Bottle? Did you seriously just fucking say that to fucking BOTTLE? YOU FOOOOOO0OOOLLLL!

*Flees thread*

Did you just say that to Bottle? Did you seriously just fucking say that to fucking BOTTLE? YOU FOOOOOO0OOOLLLL!

*Flees thread*

That's a rather ominous fleeing....

*builds makeshift bunker from random junk in the back garden*

Why assume that we don't know anything about contraception? I'm fully aware of contraception, I'm a biology student with the option module of "Growth, Development and Reproduction", but I'm just choosing not to have sex until I'm married. It's nobody elses choice, no-ones forced me, encouraged, or otherwise coaxed me into it. My choice alone.

Plus, when I do, hopefully, get married, I'll fully intend to use contracetives.

Why? I just feel it's improper. I'd like to think that if I've decided to spend my life with someone, then I love them enough to have sex with them. To me, it's an extraordinarily intimate process, that I don't want to do each and every time I get into a relationship.

So please, my good (wo)man, don't tarnish us all as ignorant and uninformed for our personal beliefs.
Um, you don't seem to have followed this discussion.

My entire point was that education about contraception is important for EVERYBODY, including people who want to wait until marriage, which is why abstinence-only education is bunk no matter what.

I never said that kids who wait until marriage don't or can't understand contraception. My entire point, in fact, was that they CAN and SHOULD understand it!

You are arguing my point for me. You agree that knowledge of contraception is important for people who plan to abstain until marriage.

That's a rather ominous fleeing....

*builds makeshift bunker from random junk in the back garden*
Well, he's kinda right. I mean, if you're going to jump on somebody and tell them they are ignorant and uninformed it's best to

a) not pick somebody with a reputation for an obsession with sources, citations, fact, and information.

b) ensure that you've actually read the discussion in question, and aren't completely putting your foot in your mouth by yelling at them for saying something that is actually the opposite of what they were saying.

But it's okay. Everybody makes mistakes.

So Basically Teenagers Like having Sex

Not my daughter! :mad:

Well, he's kinda right. I mean, if you're going to jump on somebody and tell them they are ignorant and uninformed it's best to

a) not pick somebody with a reputation for an obsession with sources, citations, fact, and information.

b) ensure that you've actually read the discussion in question, and aren't completely putting your foot in your mouth by yelling at them for saying something that is actually the opposite of what they were saying.

But it's okay. Everybody makes mistakes.

Please read my post again. I didn't call you ignorant or uninformed...

Um, you don't seem to have followed this discussion.

My entire point was that education about contraception is important for EVERYBODY, including people who want to wait until marriage, which is why abstinence-only education is bunk no matter what.

I never said that kids who wait until marriage don't or can't understand contraception. My entire point, in fact, was that they CAN and SHOULD understand it!

You are arguing my point for me. You agree that knowledge of contraception is important for people who plan to abstain until marriage.

I replied in response to how I thought it was written.

And, I'm quite happy to argue your point - it is entirely essential that everyone knows about contraception. The fact that some of us choose to abstain should not affect that in any way.

More importantly, let's ask all those kids who are "saving themselves for marriage":

When you do end up getting married, and you do end up having sex with your spouse, do you want to end up having a baby 25% of the times you have sex?

Put this in perspective. Let's say you want to have the "typical" American family of 2.5 children or whatever it is. Round it up to 3. Assuming you are going to remain completely ignorant about contraception, this means that you would get to have sex 12 times IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Because one in every four times, you're getting preggers.

So maybe you get to have sex once on your wedding night, and then once a year on your anniversary for the next 11 years. After that, though, it's back to total abstinence, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

Hmm.

I'm guessing contraception might be something these kids need to know about, even if they manage to abstain until hitched.
To be fair, there is always the option of having sex during pregnancy and after menopause.

Fixed. They don't reduce it to 8% EACH TIME, they reduce it to 8% over a year, from what I understand. Which is a considerably less chance then each time.
Actually, it's far less than that. Over the course of an entire year, the chance of one sexual encounter resulting in a condom breaking is 2%.

To be fair, there is always the option of having sex during pregnancy and after menopause.
Hmm, good point.

So all you have to face is continual pregnancy until you either die in childbirth or become physically too old to bear children. Somehow I'm not seeing many girls being thrilled about that notion these days...

And, for the teenage boys in the class, a lifetime of sex with either a woman who is pregnant, has been pregnant 20 times, or is post-menopausal.

I'm just saying, in terms of marketting this to young people, you're going to have a hard sell. Largely because kids who are choosing to abstain are usually not complete fucking morons, and they KNOW they don't want to be cranking out babies every single time they fuck. It's just that a lot of idiot adults have spent piles of money trying to teach these kids that a wedding band is a magical contraceptive that makes sure nobody ever gets sick or pregnant when they don't want to be.

I replied in response to how I thought it was written.

Like I said, just make sure you read the context of a discussion in the future.


And, I'm quite happy to argue your point - it is entirely essential that everyone knows about contraception. The fact that some of us choose to abstain should not affect that in any way.
Word!

Why is it if you tell teenagers how to have sex and not have their lives ruined, people say you're somehow "encouraging" them?

Why is it if you tell teenagers how to have sex and not have their lives ruined, people say you're somehow "encouraging" them?

Because condoms FORCE kids to have sex, you godless man-whore! :mad:

:p

I waited until I was 19 to have sex (intercourse, that is). That is because my mother said I should wait until I am in a long-term relationship that I believe is marriage material. I also took great pains to get STD test results from the guy. Thankfully I'm still clean even though I wasn't aware that you could still get STDs from "other stuff" besides regular sex.

So...I think a combination of accurate sex education and a supportive adult (who is not having sex with you, of course) contribute to delaying sex. But what do I know. :rolleyes: