NationStates Jolt Archive

So, a debate has grown on another forum that I visit about Sex Education. They're actually debating which is the more responsible thing to do when teenagers are confronted with the choice of sex. Should they practice abstinence and not have sex, or should they have sex, but use condoms, birth control pills, you know stuff that they should teach you in Sex Ed.

Personally for me, I have tried abstinence, and all it did was make me sexually frustrated, I didn't get any relief until I made love with one of my friends and we both did take precaution, I wore a condom, she took the pill. Abstinence is bullshit, all it does is create sexually frustrated kids who are taught they should be ashame of their body and ashame that they want to do something with another consenting person. I highlighted consenting for a reason. Teenagers and kids are going to have sex, that's just a fact, the least we can do is give them the proper education on how to deal with it and how to protect yourself and the person you're having sex with.

((Poll Coming))

using a condom would be responsible, but abstinence would be responsible too, I don't see why both can't be equally responsible?
But teaching them about condoms and other contraceptives is way more responsible than giving abstinence only "sex education"

Personally, I think they're equally responsible, just a matter of preference. So I chose the second option because it seemed both responsible and reasonable.

using a condom would be responsible, but abstinence would be responsible too, I don't see why both can't be equally responsible?

I was going to say, the most responsible thing a person can do is simply accept the consequences of their choice, whatever that choice may be. But I figured that was too obvious.

Abstain or proceed "safely?" It's not really my business, so I could really care less. Just don't make it my business my forcing me (or the rest of society) to clean up your negative social or medical externalities.

I was going to say, the most responsible thing a person can do is simply accept the consequences of their choice, whatever that choice may be. But I figured that was too obvious.

I think the most responsible thing someone can do is think about the consequences of the choices they can make and then choose the one with the best consequences. Basing your choices on the consequences of those choices seems more responsible to me than just accepting every consequence of your actions.
But I guess that's probably what you meant.

Safe sex & sensible use of contraception is just as responsible as abstinence (IMO). Bearing in mind that complete abstinence takes a very strong will & one lapse is very irresponsible.

I think the most responsible thing someone can do is think about the consequences of the choices they can make and then choose the one with the best consequences.


That would be rational behavior, perhaps. Responsibility is more along the lines of not trying to dump the costs or consequences onto someone else when things don't turn out as well as one hoped.

I knew these girls in college who were all part of the 'Jesus club', they were the whole christian group and apparently wore abstinence rings, yeah well at least one of when was pregnant by the end of year 12, at the end it was of a matter of 'which Christian isn't a skank' lol

I was going to say, the most responsible thing a person can do is simply accept the consequences of their choice, whatever that choice may be. But I figured that was too obvious.

Abstain or proceed "safely?" It's not really my business, so I could really care less. Just don't make it my business my forcing me (or the rest of society) to clean up your negative social or medical externalities.

Forcing? How does that happen then I wonder? Some kids have sex, contract an STD and then come around to your house with the ropes and the hosepipe until you agree to pay for their treatment?

Ahhahaa back to the OP. Sex is a perfectly natural thing to do, and it is perfectly natural for teenagers to get interested in it.

Sex education is most reasonable.

Abstinence. Looks like I'm in the minority here. I demand AA. Joke doods.

But! My abstinence answer is primarely to those that choose this path over another which is designed to allow sex but cut down on pregnancy and vd. Best path would actually be to not even know of sex or think about having sex at all until they are older. But .. that is not gonna happen in this perverted day in age.
Sure.. try to raise your kid on those ideals and you will be labeled a nut job.

Hmmm. I suppose abstinence is a more fool-proof method, and may therefor be classed as "More Responsible".... But the day I vote for abstinence over sex is the day you bury me.

Hmmm. I suppose abstinence is a more fool-proof method, and may therefor be classed as "More Responsible".... But the day I vote for abstinence over sex is the day you bury me.


Why is it FOOL proof? Whats foolish about not having sex? Can you name more foolish out comes of having sex or not having sex? the word is FULL proof. As long as they aren't violated.. but that goes with anything.

Why is it FOOL proof? Whats foolish about not having sex? Can you name more foolish out comes of having sex or not having sex? the word is FULL proof. As long as they aren't violated.. but that goes with anything.

Fair point, I suppose a true fool would find a way to impregnate/get pregnant whilst remaining abstinent.

Also: It's "Foolproof". As in, designed to work despite human error.

Not everyone is cut for abstinence and not everyone is cut for having sex.

So, a debate has grown on another forum that I visit about Sex Education. They're actually debating which is the more responsible thing to do when teenagers are confronted with the choice of sex. Should they practice abstinence and not have sex, or should they have sex, but use condoms, birth control pills, you know stuff that they should teach you in Sex Ed.

For each individual, the responsible thing to do is to educate yourself, evaluate your personal situation, and make the choice that is best for you.

I abstained for several years even though part of me wanted to have sex, because I didn't feel it would be a good choice at the time. Then I stopped abstaining because I felt it was a good choice. I don't think I was irresponsible to do the first and responsible to do the second, or vice versa.

Fair point, I suppose a true fool would find a way to impregnate/get pregnant whilst remaining abstinent.

Also: It's "Foolproof". As in, designed to work despite human error.

I was speaking of actual sex, not artificial insemination.

Ok. I was wrong about the foolproof meaning. Stupid word though. It's like saying all humans are fools. Full proof looks better .. but I guess it doesn't stand.

For each individual, the responsible thing to do is to educate yourself, evaluate your personal situation, and make the choice that is best for you.

I abstained for several years even though part of me wanted to have sex, because I didn't feel it would be a good choice at the time. Then I stopped abstaining because I felt it was a good choice. I don't think I was irresponsible to do the first and responsible to do the second, or vice versa.

Yeah same here .. I screwed like a mad horny bunny for years.. nothing good came from it. I stopped and those that know I stopped think it's 'weird'. Funny that. You have to admit that its a lot more acceptable to sexually active than not.

It's like saying all humans are fools.

Look out the window sometime. It's sobering. ;) hehe

Why is it FOOL proof? Whats foolish about not having sex? Can you name more foolish out comes of having sex or not having sex? the word is FULL proof. As long as they aren't violated.. but that goes with anything.

Umm do you know what foolproof means in this context?

If you have no sex the chance of catching an SDT are nil. One might say foolproof.

I might be thinking along different lines too. I'm thinking more along the lines of kids .. not adults.. although the not having sex weirdness does spill over to any age.

I think it's important to get experience with sex. It's part of growing up learning about your own body and other people's bodies, about likes and dislikes, things you can do and what they feel like.
Personally, I think the most responsible way is to learn about contraception and sexual health, then when you're ready find a loving partner or partners, and play.

Abstinence, as you said, leads to frustration and, I've frequently found, total ignorance about human emotions when it comes to sexual issues, among other things.

Umm do you know what foolproof means in this context?

If you have no sex the chance of catching an SDT are nil. One might say foolproof.

Yeah I meant that as full proof .. meaning covers all. I see what he's saying now tho.. same thing different spelling.

Abstinence. Looks like I'm in the minority here. I demand AA. Joke doods.

But! My abstinence answer is primarely to those that choose this path over another which is designed to allow sex but cut down on pregnancy and vd. Best path would actually be to not even know of sex or think about having sex at all until they are older. But .. that is not gonna happen in this perverted day in age.
Sure.. try to raise your kid on those ideals and you will be labeled a nut job.

What's perverted about it? Humans reach puberty and want to have sex. It's the most natural thing in the world, it's as natural as the fact that they want to eat and breathe. They just need to be aware of possible dangers and ways to avoid them.

I know what you mean and I agree but I would just like to point out that some STD's are transmitted trough other things than sex too. (needles and AIDS for instance) And that it wouldn't really be a bad idea to educate people about those risks too.

Then I guess for diseases transmitted in a non sexual way, we can't really call them STD's huh!;)

Umm do you know what foolproof means in this context?

If you have no sex the chance of catching an SDT are nil. One might say foolproof.

I know what you mean and I agree but I would just like to point out that some STD's are transmitted trough other things than sex too. (needles and AIDS for instance) And that it wouldn't really be a bad idea to educate people about those risks too.

What's perverted about it? Humans reach puberty and want to have sex. It's the most natural thing in the world, it's as natural as the fact that they want to eat and breathe. They just need to be aware of possible dangers and ways to avoid them.


I mentioned perverted because of how almost everything aimed at the teen aged etc revolves around sex .. one way or the other. Sex is a big thing unto itself, but the emotional maturity it takes to handle it is another. Most are not as fortunate to find their life partner after the first lay at 15. Again .. as I said above I was thinking more along the lines of young folk.. not grown ass adults 30 years old who don't know shit about sex.

I mentioned perverted because of how almost everything aimed at the teen aged etc revolves around sex .. one way or the other. Sex is a big thing unto itself, but the emotional maturity it takes to handle it is another. Most are not as fortunate to find their life partner after the first lay at 15. Again .. as I said above I was thinking more along the lines of young folk.. not grown ass adults 30 years old who don't know shit about sex.

What age group are you talking about when you say young folx? Teenagers 15-19? Isn't that just around the time that sex starts to enter their minds?

What age group are you talking about when you say young folx? Teenagers 15-19? Isn't that just around the time that sex starts to enter their minds?


12 to 16 off the top of my head. But really ..I'd have to think about that for a while to come with actual ages.. I might would go as low as 10. It's about when they start getting influenced by those types of things I guess.

I mentioned perverted because of how almost everything aimed at the teen aged etc revolves around sex .. one way or the other. Sex is a big thing unto itself, but the emotional maturity it takes to handle it is another. Most are not as fortunate to find their life partner after the first lay at 15. Again .. as I said above I was thinking more along the lines of young folk.. not grown ass adults 30 years old who don't know shit about sex.

I think the only perverted aspect about teenagers having sex is probably that modern society expects them not to have children.
Biologically, they're going through the time in their lives when they are the most fertile, and their bodies are naturally tuned to "sex at any given opportunity".
Not saying that they should have kids, considering all other aspects of society and western culture it's really better they wait, but calling it perverted what happens to their bodies is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

I think the only perverted aspect about teenagers having sex is probably that modern society expects them not to have children.
Biologically, they're going through the time in their lives when they are the most fertile, and their bodies are naturally tuned to "sex at any given opportunity".
Not saying that they should have kids, considering all other aspects of society and western culture it's really better they wait, but calling it perverted what happens to their bodies is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

no, no wasn't calling what happens to them perverted.. I was calling the tv, music and movies perverted. The shit aimed at their age group.

Abstinence. Looks like I'm in the minority here. I demand AA. Joke doods.

But! My abstinence answer is primarely to those that choose this path over another which is designed to allow sex but cut down on pregnancy and vd. Best path would actually be to not even know of sex or think about having sex at all until they are older. But .. that is not gonna happen in this perverted day in age.
Sure.. try to raise your kid on those ideals and you will be labeled a nut job.

Right, 'cause sex is dirty. :headbang:

Then I guess for diseases transmitted in a non sexual way, we can't really call them STD's huh!;)

if you look at it that way :rolleyes::p

12 to 16 off the top of my head. But really ..I'd have to think about that for a while to come with actual ages.. I might would go as low as 10. It's about when they start getting influenced by those types of things I guess.

Okay well yes, I would say that 12-14 seems young to be thinking about sex, 15 onwards though seems quite normal to me. Indeed even some 12-14 year olds think about it, I mean we all develop differently huh.

I'm not sure about the use of the word perverted though, is it really perverted for a 15 year old to think about sex?

I was speaking of actual sex, not artificial insemination.

Ok. I was wrong about the foolproof meaning. Stupid word though. It's like saying all humans are fools. Full proof looks better .. but I guess it doesn't stand.

not all, just many

And it implies that the method (or whatever it's referring to) is so sound that not even a fool could screw it up. If you think about it reasonably it is not a 'stupid' word.

no, no wasn't calling what happens to them perverted.. I was calling the tv, music and movies perverted. The shit aimed at their age group.

Can you give us an example?

But ahhh.. that really has to deal with their home life .. parents/gaurdians .. thier upbringing.. I'm not saying things should be regulated cause children might be influenced. so.. I leave this. lol But I do have my opinions about things and I do feel kids are influenced etc.. and even though I can blame society to a certain extent .. the blame doesn't lay on them solely.

Can you give us an example?

MTV

Okay well yes, I would say that 12-14 seems young to be thinking about sex, 15 onwards though seems quite normal to me. Indeed even some 12-14 year olds think about it, I mean we all develop differently huh.

I'm not sure about the use of the word perverted though, is it really perverted for a 15 year old to think about sex?
Wouldn't it be natural, by definition, for people to start thinking sexual thoughts whenever they naturally start thinking such thoughts?

If a 5 year old thinks about sex naturally, I don't see what would be accomplished by telling the child that it's perverted to have those thoughts.

But ahhh.. that really has to deal with their home life .. parents/gaurdians .. thier upbringing.. I'm not saying things should be regulated cause children might be influenced. so.. I leave this. lol But I do have my opinions about things and I do feel kids are influenced etc.. and even though I can blame society to a certain extent .. the blame doesn't lay on them solely.

Heh we are all influenced by things to certain degrees, I mean other wise advertising just would not exist. I agree that those in the mentioned age groups may not have the emotional security, which is why sex education is the better response.

A typical teenager will get up to whatever he or she wants, and mum and dad rarely find out, so in the words of Mr Blair, 'education, education, education'

MTV

Ahhh yes, I see your point.

no, no wasn't calling what happens to them perverted.. I was calling the tv, music and movies perverted. The shit aimed at their age group.

Well, things tend to get aimed at a group of people because that group of people is interested in it... like there's more porn for men out there than for women, cause men tend to go more for porn.
And there are more make-up ads for women cause women wear more make-up. See how that works?

But I think what you're trying to get at is that a focus like this can create a feedback-loop : Kids listen to songs about sex (drugs/violence/depression... take your pick ;)), more songs about sex are being produced cause kids listen to them, songs about sex get marketed to kids, kids listen to more songs about sex, more songs about sex are being produced...

Wouldn't it be natural, by definition, for people to start thinking sexual thoughts whenever they naturally start thinking such thoughts?

If a 5 year old thinks about sex naturally, I don't see what would be accomplished by telling the child that it's perverted to have those thoughts.

Yeah of course, but generally thoughts of sex come with puberty wouldn't you say.

As to the whole perverted thing, heh I didn't say it was, in fact I'm arguing that it is not.

Okay well yes, I would say that 12-14 seems young to be thinking about sex, 15 onwards though seems quite normal to me. Indeed even some 12-14 year olds think about it, I mean we all develop differently huh.

I'm not sure about the use of the word perverted though, is it really perverted for a 15 year old to think about sex?

No its not. I started having sex at 12. I look back on that now and think WTF! But luckily unlike most of my female friends my experience wasn't bad. He was a virgin too. It was actually sorta sweet.. but what happened after that wasn't. And no I'm not saying what I did is what all other young girls would do.. but it's pretty obvious that young girls are influenced by high profile sex pots and music that talks of girls like dogs. They see this shit and hear more so than not. BUT .. again .. the home life parents/guardians etc are more to blame most of the time , but not always .. sometimes it's the kid.

..

I dunno. argh

Yeah of course, but generally thoughts of sex come with puberty wouldn't you say.

As to the whole perverted thing, heh I didn't say it was, in fact I'm arguing that it is not.

Not necessarily... I know I started way before puberty. I can't remember my exact age, but I was still in primary school.
I remember seeing studies that a certain percentage of pre-pubescent children do masturbate on a more or less regular basis. I can go look for links later...

Yeah of course, but generally thoughts of sex come with puberty wouldn't you say.

Depends on what you mean by "thoughts of sex" I suppose. My parents and I had conversations about sex, including topics like oral sex and orgasms, long before I hit puberty. I was interested in these topics and usually was the one who brought up the subject.

I don't honestly know when I first had a mature, sexual-desire type thought. I had my first crush around third grade, so I would have been about 8 or 9, and I certainly was thinking about kissing at that point.

At any rate, if you want to use puberty as the start point then 12 years old is waaaaaaaaaaaay too old. My mom got her period at 9. I think I was about 11 when I got mine, and I was considered a "late bloomer" in my extended family.

.. I dunno. argh

Hah welcome to my world, i find myself making that very same noise quite often!

<snip>

No dispute, he's your kid after all. Just one question : Why would you have a problem with him having sex?

So, a debate has grown on another forum that I visit about Sex Education. They're actually debating which is the more responsible thing to do when teenagers are confronted with the choice of sex. Should they practice abstinence and not have sex, or should they have sex, but use condoms, birth control pills, you know stuff that they should teach you in Sex Ed.

Personally for me, I have tried abstinence, and all it did was make me sexually frustrated, I didn't get any relief until I made love with one of my friends and we both did take precaution, I wore a condom, she took the pill. Abstinence is bullshit, all it does is create sexually frustrated kids who are taught they should be ashame of their body and ashame that they want to do something with another consenting person. I highlighted consenting for a reason. Teenagers and kids are going to have sex, that's just a fact, the least we can do is give them the proper education on how to deal with it and how to protect yourself and the person you're having sex with.

((Poll Coming))

Wilgrove, I generally find your posts to be insightful and more often than not I agree with you, but on this one, brother, you've dropped the ball in a big way.

First of all, if abstinence only leads to sexual frustration then I submit to you that there is an acute lack of proper perspective on the matter. Sex isn't like eating or breathing. It's not necessary for survival. We live in a time where the media (music, hollywood, TV) would have us believe that human beings should be having sex at almost every possible opportunity. It sounds like you've swallowed that message whole.

Second, I'd like to see where you're getting the idea that teaching kids abstinence equates to shame w/regard to the topic of sex. I've got a teenage son who has been taught abstinence AND is unashamed of his body or the natural urges that come with puberty. He knows and understands what they mean, and he feels perfectly free and open to talk to me about it anytime. (Well, except maybe at the dinner table in front of his younger siblings. ;) ) If adults generally have difficulty teaching abstinence without introducing shame, then the problem lies with THEM, and not with the strategy of abstinence itself.

I challenge your assertion that "teenagers are going to have sex, period." This mentality has been used to justify taking the easy way out in terms of sex ed for years. Giving a kid condoms because you think you can't stop them equates to implicit permission in the mind of a teenager. No wonder they are out of control. We're essentially sending them the message that we can't stop them. Why SHOULD they listen?

Ever seen the anti-drug ads where it says that parents are the #1 influence when it comes to kids staying off of drugs? Sex isn't any different.

You want to teach a kid responsibility? Want to teach them abstinence? Here's how you do it:

1) Communicate. Don't be shy or embarassed to talk to your kids about sex. Don't fidget or beat around the bush. Just talk to them. If they see you're uncomfortable, they'll be uncomfortable.

2) Empathize. Remember what it was like when you were a teenager and realize that they're having the very same feelings. Let them know that. Let them see you as someone who understands.

3) Don't preach. Let them do most of the talking if possible. Once they feel they can open up to you, they will.

4) Listen. Hear them and pay attention.

5) Keep your cool. They might tell you something you don't like. Lose your cool, and you'll never have to worry about THAT again... because they'll stop talking to you.

6) Be firm. Let them know what you expect of them. Let them know that you have enough faith in them that you know they can handle it.

Lastly, don't let them get into situations where they can't resist temptation. Willpower isn't a block for temptation. It's like a guardrail. You don't drive your car by rubbing the guardrail, do you? No, you stay away from it. It's only there for emergency. My son understands that while he's allowed to have a girl over, even be in his room, they will *NOT* ever have the door closed. It will be open all the way to the wall stop. He knows I trust him, but I've also explained to him that hormones are a powerful thing, and no matter how strong your convictions or willpower are, it's possible to be in a situation where you just can't control yourself. The solution: avoid those situations. It's not a question of trust. It's a question of being prudent.

Dispute me if you want, but so far so good. I've seen this approach work consistently over and over and in my own child's case, is 100% effective thus far.

And, amazing though it may seem, he's not in the least bit ashamed of his body, and he hasn't died yet from sex deprivation.

Right, 'cause sex is dirty. :headbang:

Well dirty sex is!

Not necessarily... I know I started way before puberty. I can't remember my exact age, but I was still in primary school.
I remember seeing studies that a certain percentage of pre-pubescent children do masturbate on a more or less regular basis. I can go look for links later...

I was masterbating at like 5.. but it wasnt a clitoral masterbation.. it was pillow between the legs type thing.. my mom and grandma new what was going on .. but I still don't know how I started .. but it happened. I also know my oldest neice did the same thing. Maybe my sister did too when she was young? Were we horn dogs? I certainly know we weren't ready to be scrogging tho.

I remember seeing studies that a certain percentage of pre-pubescent children do masturbate on a more or less regular basis. I can go look for links later...
Indeed, it is quite normal and natural for pre-pubescent kids to masturbate and/or examine their genitals. And I'm not just talking about 9 or 10 year olds. Preschoolers, toddlers, and even infants may engage in these behaviors. It's not sick or wrong for them to do this, it's just normal human behavior.

That's the wrong question, because it has no answer. The difference between the options has nothing to do with "responsibility."

Teenagers can responsibly choose to have safe sex, if they are willing to accept the minimal risk that safe sex practices cannot eliminate. They can also responsibly choose to be abstinent, if they are not willing to accept that risk, or if, for whatever reason, they are not particularly inclined to have sex.

That's a choice to which there is no one right answer.

I was masterbating at like 5.. but it wasnt a clitoral masterbation.. it was pillow between the legs type thing.. my mom and new what was going on .. but I still don't know how I started .. but it happened. I also knew my oldest neice did the same thing. Maybe my sister did too when she was young? Were we horn dogs? I certainly know we weren't ready to be scrogging tho.
Yep. My parents had a talk with me (and, later, with my brother) explaining that it's okay to masturbate but that it's a private activity. I don't remember exactly how old I was when I got this talk, but my brother got it when he was starting preschool.

using a condom would be responsible, but abstinence would be responsible too, I don't see why both can't be equally responsible?
But teaching them about condoms and other contraceptives is way more responsible than giving abstinence only "sex education"

This.

Well, things tend to get aimed at a group of people because that group of people is interested in it... like there's more porn for men out there than for women, cause men tend to go more for porn.
And there are more make-up ads for women cause women wear more make-up. See how that works?

But I think what you're trying to get at is that a focus like this can create a feedback-loop : Kids listen to songs about sex (drugs/violence/depression... take your pick ;)), more songs about sex are being produced cause kids listen to them, songs about sex get marketed to kids, kids listen to more songs about sex, more songs about sex are being produced...

Yeah.

I was masterbating at like 5.. but it wasnt a clitoral masterbation.. it was pillow between the legs type thing.. my mom and grandma new what was going on .. but I still don't know how I started .. but it happened. I also know my oldest neice did the same thing. Maybe my sister did too when she was young? Were we horn dogs? I certainly know we weren't ready to be scrogging tho.

Course we weren't ready for that yet ;)
But it's rather typical behaviour, I think. I mean look at any kind of young mammal, be that puppies or little bunnies. They'll play, and they'll dry-hump each other from very early on. Doesn't mean they really have sex yet, they're just playing and learning. I'm guessing humans are much the same in that way.

I think the main problem with today's society is that we assing an annaturally long period to "learning" or "childhood". If you look at more primitive society, you'll find that kids get married up once the girls are 9 or 10 (around the time they'll have their first period) and the boys maybe 13 or 14 (wet dream time ;)). The idea is "we can't stop them to fuck around, so let's get them married and they can fuck each other".

Not necessarily... I know I started way before puberty. I can't remember my exact age, but I was still in primary school.
I remember seeing studies that a certain percentage of pre-pubescent children do masturbate on a more or less regular basis. I can go look for links later...

Granted, but you see that I used the word generally!

I've seen this approach work consistently over and over and in my own child's case, is 100% effective thus far.

How do you know?

Depends on what you mean by "thoughts of sex" I suppose. My parents and I had conversations about sex, including topics like oral sex and orgasms, long before I hit puberty. I was interested in these topics and usually was the one who brought up the subject.

I don't honestly know when I first had a mature, sexual-desire type thought. I had my first crush around third grade, so I would have been about 8 or 9, and I certainly was thinking about kissing at that point.

At any rate, if you want to use puberty as the start point then 12 years old is waaaaaaaaaaaay too old. My mom got her period at 9. I think I was about 11 when I got mine, and I was considered a "late bloomer" in my extended family.

Yeah I have always been interested in girls for as long as I can remember, but as you say kissing really, I didn't have any sexual urges until puberty.

Granted, but you see that I used the word generally!

I'll have to go find those links when I get home (can't very well do it at work, sorry), but I vaguely recall rather staggering numbers of something around 75% of boys and 60-something% of girls... might be wrong, though, but I do remember I was quite surprised.

How do you know?
My parents and I have a great relationship, and have always been very close, and I've always felt 100% comfortable talking to them about sex and sexuality.

I still didn't tell them when I lost my virginity.

Tell me you know more about my son than I do.

Okay, I know more about your son than you do ;) :p

Course we weren't ready for that yet ;)
But it's rather typical behaviour, I think. I mean look at any kind of young mammal, be that puppies or little bunnies. They'll play, and they'll dry-hump each other from very early on. Doesn't mean they really have sex yet, they're just playing and learning. I'm guessing humans are much the same in that way.

I think the main problem with today's society is that we assing an annaturally long period to "learning" or "childhood". If you look at more primitive society, you'll find that kids get married up once the girls are 9 or 10 (around the time they'll have their first period) and the boys maybe 13 or 14 (wet dream time ;)). The idea is "we can't stop them to fuck around, so let's get them married and they can fuck each other".

Yeah my aunt Mary was basically handed off to a man, by my grand pa (I never knew him, but I know he gambled like hell, drove my grand ma almost crazy, ran liquor, and put a hammer in someones head), when she was 13. The man .. well I dunno exactly.. but from what shes said he had to be at least in his 30's then. I understand that our reproductiveness or whatever was utilized more so in the 'old days' .. and back then a 14 yr old girl having kids wasn't a big deal. But now it is. I dunno where I was going with this lol.

No dispute, he's your kid after all. Just one question : Why would you have a problem with him having sex?

Well, firstly for religious reasons. We're Mormons and he's quite energetic about the Church. He's very active in Church participation and he's anticipating going on a mission when he's 19. His standards of personal conduct are, ironically, even higher than mine. Despite my efforts to get him to loosen up a little ;)

Second, because it's simply more practical and responsible. At this stage in his life his primary concerns are his education and social development. There are girls he's interested in and I encourage him to talk to them, go out with them, whatever... But he's got to be careful not to let that stuff distract him from his goals. It's not just girls/sex either. I once almost had to take away his gaming stuff because of slipping grades.

And lest anyone reading this get the impression that I'm an overlord who watches his every move, I assure you this is not so.

How do you know?

Because I know my son, and I pay attention. I follow my own advice and we talk. I mostly listen.

Please, please, please, please challenge me on this I dare you. I double dare you. Tell me you know more about my son than I do.

Are you assuming they couldn't figure it out for themselves?

I didn't tell my parents either but they knew, because they knew me.

*lol
And how did they know? I think it's hilarious how people always assume that losing one's virginity is such a major thing and is going to change a person so much it's impossible for others not to notice...
My mother knew cause I told her. And it did surprise her.

My parents and I have a great relationship, and have always been very close, and I've always felt 100% comfortable talking to them about sex and sexuality.

I still didn't tell them when I lost my virginity.

Are you assuming they couldn't figure it out for themselves?

I didn't tell my parents either but they knew, because they knew me.

Good, then you can tell him to get off his ass and clean up his room :D

I'm thinking it at him, let me know when the message gets through :)

Are you assuming they couldn't figure it out for themselves?

No, I'm not assuming it. I know it because they told me so. They thought my current boyfriend and I lost our virginity together (we were 19 when we got together). In reality, neither of us were virgins when we met.


I didn't tell my parents either but they knew, because they knew me.
My parents know me better than pretty much anybody in the world. I talk to them all the time, I love them like mad, and they're two of the smartest people I've ever met.

But they don't know everything about me. They don't magically know about everything that happens to me. I think one of the reasons they are fantastic parents is because they don't think they'll magically know stuff like that. They make their best guesses, and sometimes they're amazingly perceptive, but they're not psychic.

EDIT: I want to clarify. I'm not trying to knock your relationship with your kid. It sounds like you're doing a great job of talking to him about sex and sexuality, and it sounds like you have a really good relationship with him. That's awesome. All I'm saying is that no matter how awesome your relationship is, you should NOT expect that you will somehow know if/when he has sex, or if/when he tries drugs, or anything else that parents worry about.

There's a good chance you won't know until he tells you about it. THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU A BAD PARENT. It doesn't mean your relationship with your kid is broken. It doesn't mean you failed, or he failed, or that either of you can't trust the other, or anything like that.

Okay, I know more about your son than you do ;) :p

Good, then you can tell him to get off his ass and clean up his room :D

*lol
And how did they know? I think it's hilarious how people always assume that losing one's virginity is such a major thing and is going to change a person so much it's impossible for others not to notice...
My mother knew cause I told her. And it did surprise her.

I don't know how they knew... they just did. (I didn't draw that conclusion, they told me before I told them ;) )

My parents and I have a great relationship, and have always been very close, and I've always felt 100% comfortable talking to them about sex and sexuality.

I still didn't tell them when I lost my virginity.


I came home from school and mentioned what the health care teacher said.. that once a girl starts having her period she should begin getting pap tests. I got in a physical fight with my mom that day. And was called a whore. Although yes I had been having sex .. years prior.. but she didn't know that.

But .. when she was young and started her period.. as she told me this story .. she threw her underwear into the outhouse (40's) cause she knew she'd be in trouble.. cause girls only got their periods after they've done it, and cause of this her brother beat her ass. But.. she had been doing it.. so that was really the reason she felt guilty lol. Such fucked up shit.


Oh! and the day I lost mine.. my school called home and my mom came over to my bf's ..which of course was home too, cause we skipped.. along with a friend who played mario all day when we weren't out riding four wheelers.. but anyway.. he (my BF) stood there in his kitchen with a blanket wrapped around him from where he had jumped out of bed with me, and told her I wasn't there. She left. I always felt sort of bad about that. Looking back no one should've went to the door.. but it was Chris that dumbass.. he was younger than were were and just didnt know .. he joined the Marines years later and turned out fine.

I don't know how they knew... they just did. (I didn't draw that conclusion, they told me before I told them ;) )

Let me guess... they told you the morning after your wedding? :p

I'm thinking it at him, let me know when the message gets through :)

Take your time. It may be awhile before you can burrow through his thick skull.
:)

Are you assuming they couldn't figure it out for themselves?

I didn't tell my parents either but they knew, because they knew me.

Heh my mum and dad still don't know half of what I got up to, let alone when I lost my virginity!

Let me guess... they told you the morning after your wedding? :p

Yeah, only because they insisted on tagging along on the honeymoon to give us pointers.

j/k, of course. ;)

Not everyone is cut for abstinence and not everyone is cut for having sex.

Humans naturally have sex, they don't naturally practise abstinence.

They don't naturally wear clothes or cook food either. Your point?

That we should be wandering around naked chewing on a piece of raw meat?
Why not? LG probably is.

Humans naturally have sex, they don't naturally practise abstinence.
Actually, both are natural among humans. But nice try.

Humans naturally have sex, they don't naturally practise abstinence.

For the most part, yes. There's people around that are asexual, though.
Not altogether that many, but there are a few....

Humans naturally have sex, they don't naturally practise abstinence.

They don't naturally wear clothes or cook food either. Your point?

Because I know my son, and I pay attention. I follow my own advice and we talk. I mostly listen.

Yes, yes, I talked extensively to my parents too, and they listened well and paid attention.

Did I tell them everything? Of course not--especially not on those occasions that I did something they had explicitly prohibited.

Please, please, please, please challenge me on this I dare you. I double dare you. Tell me you know more about my son than I do.

Who said I know more about your son than you do? I simply doubt that you know as much as you suppose.

They don't naturally wear clothes or cook food either. Your point?

Few people feel the urge to run around naked or eat raw meat. Some do, though, so why shouldn't they?

Heh my mum and dad still don't know half of what I got up to, let alone when I lost my virginity!

Heh none of my family really do, my parents know/knew more than my siblings..but they still only know what has been told. I wish they did know more in a way.. maybe they could understand me better. I keep too much shit myself probably, but I also don't think I should have to explain things to people either. As long as I don't mess with you.. or as long as I do my job (employer) and don't put you at risk.. my past shouldn't matter.

Not having unsafe sex is more responsible than having unsafe sex. How one goes about the former doesn't really matter, as long as it works.

Yes, yes, I talked extensively to my parents too, and they listened well and paid attention.

Did I tell them everything? Of course not--especially not on those occasions that I did something they had explicitly prohibited.


Who said I know more about your son than you do? I simply doubt that you know as much as you suppose.

Based on what? Your own experience? How does that translate to knowledge about my son and me? On what basis do you conclude that I know less than I think? Have you met my son? Do you have some insight into the state of our communication?

Or are you just grasping at straws?

Few people feel the urge to run around naked or eat raw meat. Some do, though, so why shouldn't they?

My point is that to say it's not 'natural' for humans to practice abstinence is to assume that natural nehavior for humans must equate to the behavior of animals.

Why people think that's a good standard to hold one's self to is beyond me.

That we should be wandering around naked chewing on a piece of raw meat?
Why not? LG probably is.

That sounds like a good time...

:D

They don't naturally wear clothes or cook food either. Your point?

Well I would argue that point, we being part of nature, make it our nature to do whatever it is we do.

The majority of us wear clothes and cook food, and have done so now for soooooooooooooo long, that I would say it is natural for us to do so.

Humans naturally have sex, they don't naturally practise abstinence.Good thing humans are conscious then.

My point is that to say it's not 'natural' for humans to practice abstinence is to assume that natural nehavior for humans must equate to the behavior of animals.

Why people think that's a good standard to hold one's self to is beyond me.

So only animals are natural? And humans have no forms of natural behaviour that animals don't have? And humans aren't, at the end of the day, highly social animals? ;)

Ok, I will go one step further : It's not healthy for humans to practice abstinence over an extended period of time. It hightens stress levels in the body, it can weaken the immune system and is not beneficial to mental health.

Well I would argue that point, we being part of nature, make it our nature to do whatever it is we do.

The majority of us wear clothes and cook food, and have done so now for soooooooooooooo long, that I would say it is natural for us to do so.

That's sort of where I was going... (posted a little earlier.)

So only animals are natural? And humans have no forms of natural behaviour that animals don't have? And humans aren't, at the end of the day, highly social animals? ;)


Not at all. Just what's natural for a human and what's natural for an animal aren't the same. Some animals eat their young and mate with their own parents. For a human, that is NOT natural.

(Hold the West Virginia jokes, please ;) )


Ok, I will go one step further : It's not healthy for humans to practice abstinence over an extended period of time. It hightens stress levels in the body, it can weaken the immune system and is not beneficial to mental health.

Sure, but it won't kill a teenager.

Sure, but it won't kill a teenager.

Neither would locking him into his room and feeding him on beetroots and soda bread.

Not suggesting you'd ever do that, but there's a world of difference between what kills us and what's just not good for us.

Neither would locking him into his room and feeding him on beetroots and soda bread.

Not suggesting you'd ever do that, but there's a world of difference between what kills us and what's just not good for us.

Of course. And the point at which we seem to disagree is whether or not it's good for a teenager to be sexually active.

On what basis do you conclude that I know less than I think?

Well, a number of bases. For one, teenagers typically conceal a great deal from their parents, and the amount they conceal (not to mention the skill of their concealment) generally increases with the restrictions their parents place on them. For another, it is very easy (and very common) for parents to think they know far more about the lives of their children than they actually do, and that gap increases with the child's age... that's one thing (perhaps the only thing) the advocates of more restrictive parenting get right.

Furthermore, you have failed to present any good reason for your case being any different. You insist it is, but then, rationally we must distinguish between subjective surety and objective support... especially in a case where subjective surety is encountered quite often even when applied to false propositions.

Sure, your case may be an exception, and I don't pretend to know that it's not. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Neither would locking him into his room and feeding him on beetroots and soda bread.

Not suggesting you'd ever do that, but there's a world of difference between what kills us and what's just not good for us.
I think there might be a bit of wiring-crossing on this topic, though, because "abstinence" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.

For instance, when I talk about abstinence, I mean it in general. I've abstained from sex at various points and for various reasons. I don't think it's necessarily harmful for anybody to do this.

However, when we are talking about "abstinence" in the broader cultural understanding of the term, it really means "abstaining from sex until marriage." That's a critical distinction, in my opinion.

Of course. And the point at which we seem to disagree is whether or not it's good for a teenager to be sexually active.
Wouldn't that depend on who the teenager is, what type of sexual activity it is, and how the teen feels about it?

Why on Earth would we assume that all teenagers will benefit equally from the same level of sexual activity? That's not true for adults, so why would it be true for teens?

Of course. And the point at which we seem to disagree is whether or not it's good for a teenager to be sexually active.

Why would it not be good?

Why would it not be good?
I could think of lot of reasons why sexual activity might be bad for a teenager. I can think of lots of reasons why sexual activity might be bad for an adult. I'm sure you can, too.

I could think of lot of reasons why sexual activity might be bad for a teenager. I can think of lots of reasons why sexual activity might be bad for an adult. I'm sure you can, too.

I meant what was his reasoning behind: teenagers should not have sex.

I meant what was his reasoning behind: teenagers should not have sex.
Well, that's kind of a different matter.

In my opinion, it's as stupid to say "Teenagers shouldn't have sex" as it is to say "Teenagers should have sex." Teenagers are individuals. What's right for one teen may be all wrong for another.

Well, a number of bases. For one, teenagers typically conceal a great deal from their parents, and the amount they conceal (not to mention the skill of their concealment) generally increases with the restrictions their parents place on them. For another, it is very easy (and very common) for parents to think they know far more about the lives of their children than they actually do, and that gap increases with the child's age... that's one thing (perhaps the only thing) the advocates of more restrictive parenting get right.


I am aware of all of this. None of it justifies the assumptions you've made in this case.


Furthermore, you have failed to present any good reason for your case being any different. You insist it is, but then, rationally we must distinguish between subjective surety and objective support... especially in a case where subjective surety is encountered quite often even when applied to false propositions.


I haven't 'failed' to present a good reason. I simply don't owe you an explanation. I have accepted other peoples' assertions in this thread regarding the relationship between them and others and yet you're taking me to task over mine.

tsk tsk


Sure, your case may be an exception, and I don't pretend to know that it's not. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Would you bet against it?

'cause I could use a little extra money...

Wouldn't that depend on who the teenager is, what type of sexual activity it is, and how the teen feels about it?

Why on Earth would we assume that all teenagers will benefit equally from the same level of sexual activity? That's not true for adults, so why would it be true for teens?

Frankly, I think they'd benefit from -NONE-.

You made a good point earlier in pointing out that different people may have differing ideas on abstinence, in terms of what they mean when they use the term. I'm gonna start a new ball rolling by specifying mine.

I think it's perfectly natural for teenagers to masturbate. It's not an activity to be encouraged, but IMHO it's a part of their personal developoment in terms of learning their body and how it works. I don't expect my son to tell me if he does it, although I suspect if he's not doing it already he's not far away. (You should see him lock onto the TV screen when a bikini-clad woman appears on camera. He's totally a breast man.)

Dating is fine. Smooching is fine. Making out is borderline but I suspect we all have diverging ideas on what constitutes 'making out.'

Physical contact rule: If you think her father might object, don't do it. (Assume her father is a Baptist minister.)

That prettymuch defines the cap.

As for age... Well once he's 18 it's out of my hands but my goal is to keep him on a path that when I wind him up and let him go he'll remain on it. On that day, the responsibility transfers from me to him.

Why would it not be good?

Cabra West asked me that earlier. Should only be a page or two back. In short, my answer was: 1) religious reasons and 2)Practical reasons

I think there might be a bit of wiring-crossing on this topic, though, because "abstinence" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.

For instance, when I talk about abstinence, I mean it in general. I've abstained from sex at various points and for various reasons. I don't think it's necessarily harmful for anybody to do this.

However, when we are talking about "abstinence" in the broader cultural understanding of the term, it really means "abstaining from sex until marriage." That's a critical distinction, in my opinion.

True, same here.
However, there's a massive difference between "I don't feel like having sex or a relationship of any kind right now, I really don't need it at the moment" and "I cannot have sex because it's a sin, and I'll get diseases and get pregnant and my parents told me not to".
One's a pragmatic and personal decision which I wouldn't have the slightest problem with. The other is social pressure which I think can indeed make a person sick in more than one way.

Well, that's kind of a different matter.

In my opinion, it's as stupid to say "Teenagers shouldn't have sex" as it is to say "Teenagers should have sex." Teenagers are individuals. What's right for one teen may be all wrong for another.

BUT... at least until they reach the age of adulthood, that's the parents' call, not theirs.

BUT... at least until they reach the age of adulthood, that's the parents' call, not theirs.

Er, no.
You seem to be under the impression that until they're adults, you somehow "own" them as a parent, in the sense that you can spell out what they will and won't do.
In my personal experience, that's the best way of raising exceptionally unresponsible children, who will break out as soon as they get a chance and go to more dangerous extremes than people who have been given reasonable amounts of personal responsibility from a young age. I sometimes think they have a need to "catch up".

Responsibility is about taking the consequences for your actions. In this context, both approaches are equally responsible.

Er, no.
You seem to be under the impression that until they're adults, you somehow "own" them as a parent, in the sense that you can spell out what they will and won't do.
In my personal experience, that's the best way of raising exceptionally unresponsible children, who will break out as soon as they get a chance and go to more dangerous extremes than people who have been given reasonable amounts of personal responsibility from a young age. I sometimes think they have a need to "catch up".

I disagree. Until they're adults, I'm personably accountable for them and what they're taught. That's why I teach them abstinence. Know what else I teach them? Not to smoke, not to drink, to be sure and brush their teeth and eat plenty of green vegetables. Sometimes I have to enforce the rules. Normally I don't.

It's strange to me that people are always perfectly fine with parents guiding their kids in terms of how to eat healthy, how to behave properly in public, personal hygeine, religion, etc. But the moment parents teach some specific ideas about sex all of a sudden it's "you have no right to tell them they can't do that!"

I find it inconsistent and frankly, ominous.

Frankly, I think they'd benefit from -NONE-.

Who, adults?


You made a good point earlier in pointing out that different people may have differing ideas on abstinence, in terms of what they mean when they use the term. I'm gonna start a new ball rolling by specifying mine.

Thanks!


I think it's perfectly natural for teenagers to masturbate. It's not an activity to be encouraged, but IMHO it's a part of their personal developoment in terms of learning their body and how it works. I don't expect my son to tell me if he does it, although I suspect if he's not doing it already he's not far away. (You should see him lock onto the TV screen when a bikini-clad woman appears on camera. He's totally a breast man.)

Agreed! (Both about masturbation and about attractive people in bathing suits.)


Dating is fine. Smooching is fine. Making out is borderline but I suspect we all have diverging ideas on what constitutes 'making out.'

From what you say below, it sounds like you don't consider "making out" to involve physical contact. Which makes me wonder about the mechanics of "smooching" in your book.

What about "smooching" on the neck? The chest? The breasts? The genitals?


Physical contact rule: If you think her father might object, don't do it. (Assume her father is a Baptist minister.)

I've been pretty much on board with what you've been saying so far, but this one is really unacceptable to me.

Her body is her own. The only person's consent you should worry about is hers.

Her father has absolutely no right whatsoever, in any way shape or form, to make choices for her about how her body is involved in sex or reproduction. NOBODY has that right, other than the girl/woman herself. You should never, under any circumstances, be thinking about getting consent from anybody other than the person themselves, because NOBODY has any right to give or withhold consent for them.

I really believe that it is dangerous to teach your son otherwise. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and you may feel my reaction is too strong, but this is a subject that I am very very serious about. It is a subject that I believe must be dealt with in a perfectly clear and uncompromising manner. I believe it is incredibly dangerous to teach young men that ANYBODY has the right to give or withhold consent on behalf of another person. To put it bluntly, that's rapist talk. Even if you have the best of intentions, it's still wrong as hell.


That prettymuch defines the cap.

As for age... Well once he's 18 it's out of my hands but my goal is to keep him on a path that when I wind him up and let him go he'll remain on it. On that day, the responsibility transfers from me to him.

My parents never saw it that way. I'm their child, and they're my parents, for as long as we live. I didn't suddenly become an adult on some particular birthday.

BUT... at least until they reach the age of adulthood, that's the parents' call, not theirs.
Absolutely not.

A parent DOES NOT have the right to give or withhold sexual consent on behalf of their child.

I haven't 'failed' to present a good reason. I simply don't owe you an explanation.

Of course you don't. It's your business. But if you see fit to use your son as an example of parental encouragement of abstinence working, you can hardly object when I point out that you have demonstrated nothing of the sort.

I have accepted other peoples' assertions in this thread regarding the relationship between them and others and yet you're taking me to task over mine.

I'm willing to accept that your depiction of your relationship of your son is broadly correct. As Bottle pointed out earlier, though, even if a parent's relationship with his or her son is wonderful, close, and trusting, that's no guarantee that the parent can reasonably expect to know everything about his life--especially, again, as it concerns things that have been explicitly prohibited.

I was going to say, the most responsible thing a person can do is simply accept the consequences of their choice, whatever that choice may be. But I figured that was too obvious.

Abstain or proceed "safely?" It's not really my business, so I could really care less. Just don't make it my business my forcing me (or the rest of society) to clean up your negative social or medical externalities.

1. I agree with you. I do have a little nit pick with what you wrote though and it's not meant as a dig. Many people make the mistake which is why it grinds in my thoughts. The statement is "I couldn't care less." If you could care less it really doesn't make sense in context.

eg. I couldn't care less if you like me or not.

eg. I could care less if you like me or not.

Like I said, it's just a little tick I have.

Who, adults?

No, teenagers.


From what you say below, it sounds like you don't consider "making out" to involve physical contact. Which makes me wonder about the mechanics of "smooching" in your book.

What about "smooching" on the neck? The chest? The breasts? The genitals?


Well if you'd like me to be that specific I can certainly do that. Smooching is simply kissing. Making out is more intense. Where I'd draw the line of what's appropriate is: Is it an activity that tends to lead to more? Like, If I kiss someone on the lips, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'll then go further and kiss her elsewhere. On the other hand, If I'm sucking on her breasts there's a pretty damn strong likelihood that somebody's gonna cum in the very near future.


I've been pretty much on board with what you've been saying so far, but this one is really unacceptable to me.

Her body is her own. The only person's consent you should worry about is hers.

Her father has absolutely no right whatsoever, in any way shape or form, to make choices for her about how her body is involved in sex or reproduction. NOBODY has that right, other than the girl/woman herself. You should never, under any circumstances, be thinking about getting consent from anybody other than the person themselves, because NOBODY has any right to give or withhold consent for them.

I really believe that it is dangerous to teach your son otherwise. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and you may feel my reaction is too strong, but this is a subject that I am very very serious about. It is a subject that I believe must be dealt with in a perfectly clear and uncompromising manner. I believe it is incredibly dangerous to teach young men that ANYBODY has the right to give or withhold consent on behalf of another person. To put it bluntly, that's rapist talk. Even if you have the best of intentions, it's still wrong as hell.

My parents never saw it that way. I'm their child, and they're my parents, for as long as we live. I didn't suddenly become an adult on some particular birthday.

I understand why you feel very strongly about this, but if I'm in error, I'm erring on the side of caution at worst. I'm not sure how you equate imposed abstinence to an act of rape. (Besides, the baptist minister dad thing is just a guideline. I really don't care if she does have a permissive father it's the conduct of my kid that's at issue.)

While we're on that subject, I'll take this opportunity to point out something that's important enough to break the 'abstinence talk' barrier. And that is, my sons (yes, both of them... the pre-teenager as well) understand that there is exactly ONE definition for the word 'no.' If they, despite what they've been taught, find themselves in a position where they can proceed and want to, the girl has the perfect right to say 'no' at ANY time and that's the end of it. 'No' doesn't mean 'maybe later' and it doesn't mean 'yes keep going.' Ever. (Well, when adults play there's safe words and all that so they can say no and not really mean it, but at this stage that's not important. At this stage all they need to know is that no means NO.)

They also know that if I were to learn of them ignoring a girl telling them 'no,' I would personally fuckstart their head and let them rot in jail for it.

Cabra West asked me that earlier. Should only be a page or two back. In short, my answer was: 1) religious reasons and 2)Practical reasons

You said why it would not be good for your son, not why having sex is automatically bad for all teenagers, which is what you seem to be implying.

Absolutely not.

A parent DOES NOT have the right to give or withhold sexual consent on behalf of their child.

See my other post.

Of course you don't. It's your business. But if you see fit to use your son as an example of parental encouragement of abstinence working, you can hardly object when I point out that you have demonstrated nothing of the sort.


You would still need some kind of basis in fact for disputing my assertion regarding my relationship with him.


I'm willing to accept that your depiction of your relationship of your son is broadly correct. As Bottle pointed out earlier, though, even if a parent's relationship with his or her son is wonderful, close, and trusting, that's no guarantee that the parent can reasonably expect to know everything about his life--especially, again, as it concerns things that have been explicitly prohibited.

Nothing is guaranteed, of course. It's a judgement call. Like everything else.

You said why it would not be good for your son, not why having sex is automatically bad for all teenagers, which is what you seem to be implying.

The reasons that pertain to him are universal. Sure, the religion is only relevant to followers of it, but the principle of it applies universally.

The practical issue is universal as well.

What's interesting here is that teenagers having sex is the root cause of the high numbers of teen pregnancy, teen VD, the recently publicized phenomenon of teenage sex parties. It contributes to self-esteem problems, teenage suicide, discipline issues and so on.

And yet people are endorsing this as the MORE responsible option next to abstinence.

I find that baffling.

You would still need some kind of basis in fact for disputing my assertion regarding my relationship with him.

No, I wouldn't. The burden of proof is on you. So far you've been unconvincing, and I've explained why.

The statement is "I couldn't care less." If you could care less it really doesn't make sense in context.

eg. I couldn't care less if you like me or not.

eg. I could care less if you like me or not.


QFT

No, I wouldn't. The burden of proof is on you. So far you've been unconvincing, and I've explained why.

Not on me at all. I've offered up my personal observations and experience with my son. First-person testimony is valid evidence. For you to dispute that, you must show that either my obervations of my relationship with my son are inaccurate, that I'm lying or that he is acting without my knowledge in this area.

And yet people are endorsing this as the MORE responsible option next to abstinence.

Teenage sex as such? No, they aren't.

I disagree. Until they're adults, I'm personably accountable for them and what they're taught. That's why I teach them abstinence. Know what else I teach them? Not to smoke, not to drink, to be sure and brush their teeth and eat plenty of green vegetables. Sometimes I have to enforce the rules. Normally I don't.

It's strange to me that people are always perfectly fine with parents guiding their kids in terms of how to eat healthy, how to behave properly in public, personal hygeine, religion, etc. But the moment parents teach some specific ideas about sex all of a sudden it's "you have no right to tell them they can't do that!"

I find it inconsistent and frankly, ominous.

Oh, I would tell parents who feed their kids junk food that they shouldn't be doing that, definitely.

My parents didn't teach me not to drink and not to smoke. They told me that smoking is addictive and it's easier never to start (they both had started at some point and could never get out of the habit), and that alcohol is for enjoying, not for getting drunk on (after my first hangover, I knew what they were talking about). But at the end of the day, they were well aware that they would never be able to live my life for me and that I needed to make my own decisions and live with them.
Or rather, my mother did. My father eventually did try the authoritarian approach, and I loathe him for it to this day.
My mother trusted me and my brothers and left us all legal (and sometimes slightly illlegal) freedoms. I respect and love her greatly for that

What's interesting here is that teenagers having sex is the root cause of the high numbers of teen pregnancy, teen VD, the recently publicized phenomenon of teenage sex parties.

Not entirely true. Unprotected sex by uninformed/misinformed teenagers is the root cause, in other words the problem is that they have been sheltered from the realities (among which are if you have unprotected sex chances are very good that the girl will get pregnant, and that either can catch an STD).

First-person testimony is valid evidence.

Yes, it is. For something we have good reason to believe you would actually know.

But we have no such good reason, so....

It's strange to me that people are always perfectly fine with parents guiding their kids in terms of how to eat healthy, how to behave properly in public, personal hygeine, religion, etc. But the moment parents teach some specific ideas about sex all of a sudden it's "you have no right to tell them they can't do that!"

I find it inconsistent and frankly, ominous.

It depends on what you mean by 'guiding'. "Telling them they can't do that" seems to be a lot more than just guidance to me. (Or if that sort of edict falls within your definition of benign guidance, I'm not keen to know about your ideas on religious 'guidance'.) Despite your blithe assertion, I can't imagine that many people would object to parents offering genuine sexual guidance to their children.

Anyhow, you have to look at it pragmatically too. If you prohibit your kids from doing something that they know full well they are legally allowed to do, and that you yourself have done (and probably are still doing), trying to stop them may not be easy. And in that case I'd rather be open about it, than have it going on totally secretively with them feeling unable to talk to their parents about it because their parents have told them not to do it at all.

Maybe I'll feel different once I have kids myself; but I (just about) remember being a teenager, and how I would have reacted to my parents in this sort of situation - even though I've always been a very long way indeed away from the rebellious end of the spectrum.

You would still need some kind of basis in fact for disputing my assertion regarding my relationship with him.
One doesn't need anything to dispute anecdotal evidence except anecdotal evidence

What's interesting here is that teenagers having sex is the root cause of the high numbers of teen pregnancy, teen VD, the recently publicized phenomenon of teenage sex parties. It contributes to self-esteem problems, teenage suicide, discipline issues and so on.
And what most of us infer from this is that teenagers really want to have sex, and the say-so of their parents isn't enough to stop them. So obviously one must make sure that they know why they should take precautions when having sex and what precautions to take. That doesn't preclude encouraging them not to have sex.

And yet people are endorsing this as the MORE responsible option next to abstinence.
Strawman.

I find that baffling.
Of course you do, you wrote it to be baffling.

Oh, I would tell parents who feed their kids junk food that they shouldn't be doing that, definitely.

My parents didn't teach me not to drink and not to smoke. They told me that smoking is addictive and it's easier never to start (they both had started at some point and could never get out of the habit), and that alcohol is for enjoying, not for getting drunk on (after my first hangover, I knew what they were talking about). But at the end of the day, they were well aware that they would never be able to live my life for me and that I needed to make my own decisions and live with them.
Or rather, my mother did. My father eventually did try the authoritarian approach, and I loathe him for it to this day.
My mother trusted me and my brothers and left us all legal (and sometimes slightly illlegal) freedoms. I respect and love her greatly for that

My approach with my kids is not merely authoritarian. Like I said earlier, our communication is excellent and I don't use threats in this area to get them to comply. I don't threaten them with punichment on this. You'd really have to see it for yourself to gain a real appreciation for the dynamic.

My own parents sucked at this, so I already knew what *not* to do before I became a dad.

Not entirely true. Unprotected sex by uninformed/misinformed teenagers is the root cause, in other words the problem is that they have been sheltered from the realities (among which are if you have unprotected sex chances are very good that the girl will get pregnant, and that either can catch an STD).

I think in this day and age, very few teens are sheltered from any such thing. They're getting the message from school, parents (yes, I do teach them about this too) and even PSAs on tv.

Yes, it is. For something we have good reason to believe you would actually know.

But we have no such good reason, so....

Then draw your conclusion and move along. Just don't waste your time or mine trying to make me concede the idea that somehow your insight supercedes my own direct knowledge.

It depends on what you mean by 'guiding'. "Telling them they can't do that" seems to be a lot more than just guidance to me. (Or if that sort of edict falls within your definition of benign guidance, I'm not keen to know about your ideas on religious 'guidance'.) Despite your blithe assertion, I can't imagine that many people would object to parents offering genuine sexual guidance to their children.

Well I hope I haven't given the impression that all I'm doing is "telling them they can't do that." If I have, then let me add to that that we have had very stimulating two-way conversations about this stuff. My son is brilliant. He has questions. He's a bit shy sometimes but he knows I won't push him to talk until he's ready, and when he is it's awesome. (Both of my sons are that way, actually.)

And yet my ex can't understand why they won't talk to her. She's more of the aggressive pushy type.


Anyhow, you have to look at it pragmatically too. If you prohibit your kids from doing something that they know full well they are legally allowed to do, and that you yourself have done (and probably are still doing), trying to stop them may not be easy. And in that case I'd rather be open about it, than have it going on totally secretively with them feeling unable to talk to their parents about it because their parents have told them not to do it at all.


But you can't leave out the strong religious influence. They have a perspective on the matter that goes far beyond the simple issues here.


Maybe I'll feel different once I have kids myself; but I (just about) remember being a teenager, and how I would have reacted to my parents in this sort of situation - even though I've always been a very long way indeed away from the rebellious end of the spectrum.

I wish my parents had been the way I am with my kids. My mom talked to me about stuff but tended to be inconsistent. One minute she was telling me that I should wait until I was married, and as soon as I had a steady girlfriend she went out and bought me condoms. (Until then, I hadn't even considered the possibility of ACTUALLY sleeping with my girlfriend. I fantasized about it, of course... but...) My dad, on the other hand, must have just assumed I'd learn whetever I needed from friends. We *never*spoke about it, even when I approached him. I think it just caught him off guard and he didn't know what to say.

Most of what I learned about sex came from reading my dad's stash of Penthouse mags and reading the forum section :P

The reasons that pertain to him are universal. Sure, the religion is only relevant to followers of it, but the principle of it applies universally.

The practical issue is universal as well.

What's interesting here is that teenagers having sex is the root cause of the high numbers of teen pregnancy, teen VD, the recently publicized phenomenon of teenage sex parties. It contributes to self-esteem problems, teenage suicide, discipline issues and so on.

And yet people are endorsing this as the MORE responsible option next to abstinence.

I find that baffling.

I think if you check sheer numbers, teenage pregnancy has actually decreased for about a century or so in the Western world. Keep in mind that just half a century ago, people would be married off in their teenage years and usually immediately set about producing the next generation.
My mother was married when she was 18 and had me when she was 19 (she got divorced at 36).
VD is the reason why we need more information about protection, not less.
And what is wrong with sex parties? Provided all participants are happy to be there and participate and none are there because it's "cool"...

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but just to announce my arrival at the party (;)):

I believe the most responsible decision is the one that is right for the individual. I further believe that for a decision to be right, it must be informed. Therefore, regardless of when/whether teenagers decide to start having sex, they should be given all the best available information about it, so that they can make an informed decision about what is right for them.

One doesn't need anything to dispute anecdotal evidence except anecdotal evidence

Funny how the standards seem to change around here based on whom you're trying to refute. I make an assertion about something that only I am privy to knowledge about, and you're perfectly okay with trying to dispute it with your own assumptions and generalizations.

You guys are always great for laughs.


And what most of us infer from this is that teenagers really want to have sex, and the say-so of their parents isn't enough to stop them. So obviously one must make sure that they know why they should take precautions when having sex and what precautions to take. That doesn't preclude encouraging them not to have sex.


I don't infer that at all. To do so is to ignore all of the other influences like the entertainment media, the increased attitude of parents that they somehow can't control their kids (This isn't just a problem with the subject of sex. It extends to other areas too.)

Strawman.


WTF Strawman? I make a comment regarding the topic of the thread. What, exactly, are you trying to refute?


Of course you do, you wrote it to be baffling.

Um... ok. :confused:

My approach with my kids is not merely authoritarian. Like I said earlier, our communication is excellent and I don't use threats in this area to get them to comply. I don't threaten them with punichment on this. You'd really have to see it for yourself to gain a real appreciation for the dynamic.

My own parents sucked at this, so I already knew what *not* to do before I became a dad.



You made it sound that way, but I apologise if I misunderstood.
Just out of curiosity... if your son came home tomorrow telling you he just had sex and it was the most wonderful thing he ever experienced, what exactly would you say to him?

I think if you check sheer numbers, teenage pregnancy has actually decreased for about a century or so in the Western world. Keep in mind that just half a century ago, people would be married off in their teenage years and usually immediately set about producing the next generation.
My mother was married when she was 18 and had me when she was 19 (she got divorced at 36).
Indeed, there's a reason why puberty happens when it does. When our bodies become sexually mature, nature expects us to start having sex. You can remove all societal pressures towards sex, if you like, but you cannot remove the normal human sex drive or change the age range at which it kicks into high gear.

VD is the reason why we need more information about protection, not less.
Exactly.

And what is wrong with sex parties? Provided all participants are happy to be there and participate and none are there because it's "cool"...
In fact, in many cultures it is considered abnormal to be a virgin on one's wedding day, and in some cultures, sex parties for teens or young adults were/are a valued social event.

I think if you check sheer numbers, teenage pregnancy has actually decreased for about a century or so in the Western world. Keep in mind that just half a century ago, people would be married off in their teenage years and usually immediately set about producing the next generation.

My mother was married when she was 18 and had me when she was 19 (she got divorced at 36).

If the numbers are decreasing, it's a good thing. I wouldn't count married teens, however. (Whether or not they should have gotten married in the first place is another matter ;) )


VD is the reason why we need more information about protection, not less.
And what is wrong with sex parties? Provided all participants are happy to be there and participate and none are there because it's "cool"...

Condoms just aren't reliable enough to risk life on. They're just not.

And, why do YOU think a lot of those kids are at those parties? Remember, we're talking about a segment of the poulation with whom it's illegal for adults to have sex precisely because they're considered too young and/or immature to make that choice for themselves.

I don't infer that at all. To do so is to ignore all of the other influences like the entertainment media, the increased attitude of parents that they somehow can't control their kids (This isn't just a problem with the subject of sex. It extends to other areas too.)

I think you mistake parents that leave the decision about when and under what circumstances to have sex to their children rather with parents who would love to control their kids but fail.
One is a conscious decision to let the kid decide about its own body, the other is parental failure.


WTF Strawman? I make a comment regarding the topic of the thread. What, exactly, are you trying to refute?

I think he meant you are making it out as if we all are telling teenager to have more and more sex, whereas the majority of posters actually said that teens should have sex when they feel they're ready for it and that it should not be the parent's decision.

I tried to not interfer with peoples personal lives. Everyone should be educated on proper contraceptives, as opposed to the millions the US spends on Abstinance Only which is shown not to work, if anyone wants exact numbers and sources say so and I suppose I could dig them up.


Once you have all the information, only then is your decision resposible.

Im a newly wed, so I dont have kids yet, but you better believe Ill be making sure my kids are educated on contraceptives, and if theyre at a school that doesnt teach them about it, by god Ill do it myself


ps- Im a poll whore

You made it sound that way, but I apologise if I misunderstood.
Just out of curiosity... if your son came home tomorrow telling you he just had sex and it was the most wonderful thing he ever experienced, what exactly would you say to him?

I've given that very question a lot of thought. For the record, I wouldn't scream at him nor would I throw him out of the house or anything like that.

I'd start by reminding him of what he's giving up by doing it. He'd be giving up his standing in the Church (and in the case of my son, that's a big deal.) Depending on the circumstance (like if it was a steady girlfriend or if it was just a random quickie at a party) I'd point out why it's something he may not be so happy about in retrospect later. I'd be honest, and tell him of my own not dissimilar experience and why I regret it.

I'd counsel him to talk to our Bishop about it, and I would, depending on the girl in question, probably take steps to limit opportunities for it to happen again.

Again, I wouldn't shout at him. Hell, I'd probably not even punish him. I don't think I'd outright forbid him to see the girl anymore, since what's done is done and the last thing I need is to make myself his enemy. I'd probably want to bring her in on the discussion too, if possible.

I should have voted other. I can't generalise and say whether it is better to have sex in every situation or not have sex, it depends on the people involved, their age, their psychological state, whether someone is being pressured into it....

For each individual, the responsible thing to do is to educate yourself, evaluate your personal situation, and make the choice that is best for you.

I abstained for several years even though part of me wanted to have sex, because I didn't feel it would be a good choice at the time. Then I stopped abstaining because I felt it was a good choice. I don't think I was irresponsible to do the first and responsible to do the second, or vice versa.

Well said.

I certainly have my own ideas about when a person should choose to have sex and when they shouldn't, but the main thing is that any human being should be well-informed and make that decision in his/her own.

If the numbers are decreasing, it's a good thing. I wouldn't count married teens, however. (Whether or not they should have gotten married in the first place is another matter ;) )

Teenage sex is teenage sex. If you think they're too immature to handle a condom, do you honestly think they're mature enough to handle marriage?


Condoms just aren't reliable enough to risk life on. They're just not.

And, why do YOU think a lot of those kids are at those parties? Remember, we're talking about a segment of the poulation with whom it's illegal for adults to have sex precisely because they're considered too young and/or immature to make that choice for themselves.

They protect form almost all known STDs, with a failure rate so small as to be negligable.
And I don't know why those kids are there, I wouldn't have done it. But I think if they do let themselves get pressured into something like this, they've got more severe issues than a little shag at a party. I'd like to point out again that I endorse teens to have sex when they themselves feel ready for it. I'm not at all in favour of pushing them one way or another.

I've given that very question a lot of thought. For the record, I wouldn't scream at him nor would I throw him out of the house or anything like that.

I'd start by reminding him of what he's giving up by doing it. He'd be giving up his standing in the Church (and in the case of my son, that's a big deal.) Depending on the circumstance (like if it was a steady girlfriend or if it was just a random quickie at a party) I'd point out why it's something he may not be so happy about in retrospect later. I'd be honest, and tell him of my own not dissimilar experience and why I regret it.

I'd counsel him to talk to our Bishop about it, and I would, depending on the girl in question, probably take steps to limit opportunities for it to happen again.

Again, I wouldn't shout at him. Hell, I'd probably not even punish him. I don't think I'd outright forbid him to see the girl anymore, since what's done is done and the last thing I need is to make myself his enemy. I'd probably want to bring her in on the discussion too, if possible.



Now THAT is responsible. Kuddos.

I think you mistake parents that leave the decision about when and under what circumstances to have sex to their children rather with parents who would love to control their kids but fail.
One is a conscious decision to let the kid decide about its own body, the other is parental failure.


Well, that's the thing... My objective isn't to exercise control over my kids. My objective is to teach them how to exercise self-control so that I wouldn't have to. At the end of the day, the idea is to raise adults, not automotons.


I think he meant you are making it out as if we all are telling teenager to have more and more sex, whereas the majority of posters actually said that teens should have sex when they feel they're ready for it and that it should not be the parent's decision.

Ah. Well in response I'd say that given the poll questions, it does set up a sort of dichotomy between two options, and I just can't see how abstinence is less responsible than prettymuch anything.

No, teenagers.

So, at what point does sex become "good for" somebody? You think it's bad for teens to have sex, but not adults. When does the transition occur? How do you tell when somebody has undergone this transition?


Well if you'd like me to be that specific I can certainly do that. Smooching is simply kissing. Making out is more intense. Where I'd draw the line of what's appropriate is: Is it an activity that tends to lead to more? Like, If I kiss someone on the lips, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'll then go further and kiss her elsewhere. On the other hand, If I'm sucking on her breasts there's a pretty damn strong likelihood that somebody's gonna cum in the very near future.

Without wanting to be too graphic (or personal), I feel obligated to tell you that you're waaaaaaaaaay off on that one. :D


I understand why you feel very strongly about this, but if I'm in error, I'm erring on the side of caution at worst.

But that's just it...I don't think you are.

For me, erring on the side of caution is teaching kids that nobody ever has the right to give or withhold consent for anybody else. A parent has precisely ZERO right to decide whether or not their child consents to sex.


I'm not sure how you equate imposed abstinence to an act of rape. (Besides, the baptist minister dad thing is just a guideline. I really don't care if she does have a permissive father it's the conduct of my kid that's at issue.)

Let me see if I can restate it, then.

You are teaching your son that somebody other than his partner has the right to give or withhold consent for her activities. You are teaching your son to worry about what somebody else thinks about what he's doing with his partner, rather than focusing on what she wants. You are encouraging your son to view his partner's sexuality as belonging to somebody other than her, as if her father's approval or disapproval is what really matters.

Your son should only be engaging in sexual activity with conscious, thinking individuals. You should encourage him to honor and respect the judgment of his partner about her own actions. She is a conscious being who is capable of making her own choices about what she does, and she is the only person from whom he can (or should) seek permission for sexual activities.


While we're on that subject, I'll take this opportunity to point out something that's important enough to break the 'abstinence talk' barrier. And that is, my sons (yes, both of them... the pre-teenager as well) understand that there is exactly ONE definition for the word 'no.' If they, despite what they've been taught, find themselves in a position where they can proceed and want to, the girl has the perfect right to say 'no' at ANY time and that's the end of it. 'No' doesn't mean 'maybe later' and it doesn't mean 'yes keep going.' Ever. (Well, when adults play there's safe words and all that so they can say no and not really mean it, but at this stage that's not important. At this stage all they need to know is that no means NO.)

Great. Fantastic. Thank you thank you thank you for teaching this to your sons.

Way too many people think that the "no means no" talk is for girls. Way too many parents worry about protecting their daughters from being "violated," but they don't worry about teaching their sons to not violate women. That's so deeply screwed up that it makes me want to cry, and one of the few things that makes me feel better is when I talk with parents who get it and who focus on teaching their sons (and daughters!) to respect other people's bodies.


They also know that if I were to learn of them ignoring a girl telling them 'no,' I would personally fuckstart their head and let them rot in jail for it.
I really didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of intentionally teaching your kids that rape is okay.

The problem is that (in my opinion) you give conflicting messages when you start introducing all this crap about her father's wishes. On the one hand you're saying that her "no" is final, but on the other hand you're saying that her "yes" isn't. You're saying that her father has the right to over-ride her wishes and her decisions about her sexual activity.

As a female human being (and former teenager) I find this profoundly insulting. There's this paternalistic bullshit about how girls need Daddy to protect them against the dirty boys who will take advantage of them. That's fucked up and wrong. Your boys know that her "no" is final, and they should also know that her "yes" is not contingent upon paternal approval. If she wants sex, then that's HER choice, not her father's.

Yeah, this poll does kind of suck.


I choose option four - I like sex:p

Teenage sex is teenage sex. If you think they're too immature to handle a condom, do you honestly think they're mature enough to handle marriage?


Honestly, no I don't. But a married teenager having sex is infinitely preferable to one that isn't. Fortunately, in this day and age it's very rare for people under 18 to be married anyway.


They protect form almost all known STDs, with a failure rate so small as to be negligable.
And I don't know why those kids are there, I wouldn't have done it. But I think if they do let themselves get pressured into something like this, they've got more severe issues than a little shag at a party. I'd like to point out again that I endorse teens to have sex when they themselves feel ready for it. I'm not at all in favour of pushing them one way or another.

I wouldn't call a 16% failure rate negligible.

You and I agree on the issue of pressure, and that's part of why these sex parties are seen as being a problem... a lot of the participants ARE pressured, or aren't truly aware of what they're getting into.

Honestly, no I don't. But a married teenager having sex is infinitely preferable to one that isn't. Fortunately, in this day and age it's very rare for people under 18 to be married anyway.

*lol So it's preferable for them to be married and to have sex then and produce kids (which I'm sure they'll be mature enough to raise) than not to be married and use contraceptives?



I wouldn't call a 16% failure rate negligible.

You and I agree on the issue of pressure, and that's part of why these sex parties are seen as being a problem... a lot of the participants ARE pressured, or aren't truly aware of what they're getting into.

Last time I checked, failure rate that resulted in pregnancy was at 5%, and failure rate regarding STDs at well below 1%...

I would have to come down on the side of Abstinence. I have abstained from sex and, though I still have the desires on any normal male, I am not "sexually frustrated." Sex is a want not a need, if you don't believe me, just ask anyone who has been through US Army Ranger School have many times they thought about sex after the first two weeks. Much, not all by any means, but much, of the urge to have sex is due to our culture.

So, at what point does sex become "good for" somebody? You think it's bad for teens to have sex, but not adults. When does the transition occur? How do you tell when somebody has undergone this transition?

I don't know when, but I do know that it's sometime after adulthood is reached. If it happens prior, it won't kill them to wait. There's a big difference bwteen being ready and *thinking* you're ready.


Without wanting to be too graphic (or personal), I feel obligated to tell you that you're waaaaaaaaaay off on that one. :D


Well maybe... It's kinda hard to create an arbitrary definition for a non-arbitrary thing. Like... Is French-Kissing part of smooching or making out? I dunno. Both? Either? Just tying to give you a feel for where I'm at on it.

But I assure you, If I go for the breasts, somebody's cummin'. :fluffle:


But that's just it...I don't think you are.

For me, erring on the side of caution is teaching kids that nobody ever has the right to give or withhold consent for anybody else. A parent has precisely ZERO right to decide whether or not their child consents to sex.


Well maybe I can narrow this down a bit. First, we agree you can't consent on behalf of somebody else. That's pretty obvious IMHO.

As to the other... two things: One, "what her dad wants" was my way of trying to create a semi-amusing guideline. When I talk to my sons, I'm not telling them to base their standard on what they think their girlfriend's dad might be okay with. If I gave that impression I apologize for not being more clear. (I just thought the baptist minister dad was a cute analogy for this conversation.) What I tell my sons is: Don't do anything that's going to make you want more. Don't do anything you wouldn't do in front of others. (Before somebody says it... that excludes orgies :D) WHat her dad would say is irrelevant because it's up to my sons (and the girl) to make the right choices.

Hopefully that clears up most of the rest of what you said, because in principle we agree on it.


Great. Fantastic. Thank you thank you thank you for teaching this to your sons.

Way too many people think that the "no means no" talk is for girls. Way too many parents worry about protecting their daughters from being "violated," but they don't worry about teaching their sons to not violate women. That's so deeply screwed up that it makes me want to cry, and one of the few things that makes me feel better is when I talk with parents who get it and who focus on teaching their sons (and daughters!) to respect other people's bodies.

I agree. I used to be very incredulous that such a talk would even be necessary until I heard some of my own peers talking about 'no' meaning something other than 'no.' My mom taught me had this lesson, but even then I had thought it should be obvious.


I really didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of intentionally teaching your kids that rape is okay.


I didn't take it that way. I was just on a rant ;)

Last time I checked, failure rate that resulted in pregnancy was at 5%, and failure rate regarding STDs at well below 1%...
If condoms are used correctly, that's about right. However, lots of kids aren't taught to use condoms correctly. It's a fun trick that abstinence-only folks use: they refuse to teach kids to use condoms correctly, then cite statistics which rely on the misuse of condoms as proof that condoms don't work and thus we shouldn't teach kids to use condoms.

*lol So it's preferable for them to be married and to have sex then and produce kids (which I'm sure they'll be mature enough to raise) than not to be married and use contraceptives?


With the caveat that they're in a culture where teenage marriage is the norm.

If somehow I had a choice between having my son get some cookie or being married before the age of 18, I'd chose the former. It's a matter of degrees. One can possibly ruin his life, the other probably will.

Ask me how I know. :/


Last time I checked, failure rate that resulted in pregnancy was at 5%, and failure rate regarding STDs at well below 1%...

Clearly we're operating from different sources. If the reality is somewhere in between (or even if it's very close to yours) that's still too high a risk to justify.

Ever played Dungeons & Dragons? A '1' always misses. Sure, on a d20 your'e only 5% likely to roll one, bit you ALWAYS worry about it when you go to make that hit roll...

Ever played Dungeons & Dragons? A '1' always misses. Sure, on a d20 your'e only 5% likely to roll one, bit you ALWAYS worry about it when you go to make that hit roll...


A D&D analogy to condom failure was just made in a thread about premaritial sex?


You sir, win the thread.



Or, judging by your name Ill bet you get this one..."Damnit, my condom miscast." ;)

Thats why you use bith control pills. Its like allowing a reroll lol

Funny how the standards seem to change around here based on whom you're trying to refute. I make an assertion about something that only I am privy to knowledge about, and you're perfectly okay with trying to dispute it with your own assumptions and generalizations.
You make an assertion that only you are privy to knowledge about, and we have no reason to believe you, given that your claims are exceptional and lacking in evidence. You can't just say that teaching your son to abstain has worked out great and expect us to believe it. I can just as easily say that I have a son and teaching him to abstain has failed horribly.

You guys are always great for laughs.
I do what I can :)



I don't infer that at all.
I do.
To do so is to ignore all of the other influences like the entertainment media,
So teenagers want to have sex because they're indirectly being told to by entertainment media? If this is true then one has to ask why would they do this? What do they gain by convincing teenagers who otherwise would have had no interest in sex that they should be interested in sex? It makes no sense.
the increased attitude of parents that they somehow can't control their kids (This isn't just a problem with the subject of sex. It extends to other areas too.)
What makes you can control any other person? Or that you should? Children are people too, not property or pets.


WTF Strawman? I make a comment regarding the topic of the thread. What, exactly, are you trying to refute?

I think he meant you are making it out as if we all are telling teenager to have more and more sex, whereas the majority of posters actually said that teens should have sex when they feel they're ready for it and that it should not be the parent's decision.

That.

A D&D analogy to condom failure was just made in a thread about premaritial sex?


You sir, win the thread.


SCORE!


Or, judging by your name Ill bet you get this one..."Damnit, my condom miscast." ;)

Thats why you use bith control pills. Its like allowing a reroll lol

Or like the Bretonnian Potion Sacre... Gives you +1 to the die roll result :P

Hmmm I wonder which Lore that would fall under...

Lore of Latex?

SCORE!



Or like the Bretonnian Potion Sacre... Gives you +1 to the die roll result :P

Hmmm I wonder which Lore that would fall under...

Lore of Latex?



Its sex related, so Slaaneshi lore.;)

*roll on the miscast table* 12....fuck....I have AIDS now.


Anyway, on topic, NB, I have an honost question for you. I fear that when parents constantly stress abstaining from sex, it makes their children afraid to come talk to them about sex, or ask for help if they have a problem, like wanting to get tested. I have no children (yet) so I could be totally off base, but thats how it was for me growing up (super religous Evangelical mother). Is that a situation you may/have incoutered?

Regardlss Im teaching my kids about it all, and want to be there if they have any worries or concerns. Hell, all m daughter will have to tell me is she wants to go on the pill and Ill put her on it no questions asked, because better safe than pregant. Im just going to reminde her nobody likes a dirty slut, espeically not daddy ;).

Im just wondering how other parents handle that potential issue.

You make an assertion that only you are privy to knowledge about, and we have no reason to believe you, given that your claims are exceptional and lacking in evidence. You can't just say that teaching your son to abstain has worked out great and expect us to believe it. I can just as easily say that I have a son and teaching him to abstain has failed horribly.

I find it depressing that you'd find a well-behaved AND well-adjusted son with a great relationship with his father to be so exceptional. Maybe I'm just used to being around such people. In that case, I'll take your skepticism as a compliment. Thank you.


So teenagers want to have sex because they're indirectly being told to by entertainment media? If this is true then one has to ask why would they do this? What do they gain by convincing teenagers who otherwise would have had no interest in sex that they should be interested in sex? It makes no sense.


It makes perfect sense when you consider all they have to do is cater to the already existing condition of teenagers being inundated with hormones and are horny as hell.


What makes you can control any other person? Or that you should? Children are people too, not property or pets.


It's not about control. It's about raising your kids right. There's a difference, and I've addressed this already.

Its sex related, so Slaaneshi lore.;)

That must be why my other army is Dark Elves...

Cult of Slaanesh.. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Yeah, this poll does kind of suck.

No it doesn't: there was no option for oral sex only :D

I would say abstinence is more responsible, not so much from the personal safety standpoint as from the standpoint of what you do with your time. Sexuality tires you in many ways, and I feel that taking that out of your life gives you a great deal more time and energy for other things.


You poor, poor man/woman. I must disagree. Sex is great.

ps- Provided you are using it correctly (remembering to take it), birth control is over 99% effective at not getting you knocked up

I would say abstinence is more responsible, not so much from the personal safety standpoint as from the standpoint of what you do with your time. Sexuality tires you in many ways, and I feel that taking that out of your life gives you a great deal more time and energy for other things.

Also, there is always a chance (usually around 5%) that any particular birth control method will fail. It's a small chance, but it's still there, and unlike other things you risk -getting hurt on the job, getting killed in a car accident- all you're gaining from what you do is a small measure of pleasure, something which can be gained many ways very effectively. Still, this said, using birth control and being sexually active is still a very major step up from not using birth control and being sexually active.

I find it depressing that you'd find a well-behaved AND well-adjusted son with a great relationship with his father to be so exceptional. Maybe I'm just used to being around such people. In that case, I'll take your skepticism as a compliment. Thank you.
No, I find it exceptional that you would know everything about your son's sex life. As I understand it, most people don't feel the need to rush and inform their parents when they start having sex.



It makes perfect sense when you consider all they have to do is cater to the already existing condition of teenagers being inundated with hormones and are horny as hell.
So you concur that teenagers want to have sex, regardless of the actions of entertainment media.



It's not about control. It's about raising your kids right. There's a difference, and I've addressed this already.
Then why did you complain about parents thinking they can't control your kids?

No, I find it exceptional that you would know everything about your son's sex life. As I understand it, most people don't feel the need to rush and inform their parents when they start having sex.

They certainly would be unlikely to do so if they thought it would disappoint or upset their parents. In my case, my mother was the 2nd or 3rd person I told when I first became sexually active. But, then again, she'd made it clear that she would be supportive of me no matter what my decision was, and had taken steps to make sure I was well-informed and that I would do so safely when I did.

Also, I'm probably a bit strange. =)

They certainly would be unlikely to do so if they thought it would disappoint or upset their parents. In my case, my mother was the 2nd or 3rd person I told when I first became sexually active. But, then again, she'd made it clear that she would be supportive of me no matter what my decision was, and had taken steps to make sure I was well-informed and that I would do so safely when I did.

Also, I'm probably a bit strange. =)

Its true.

My mother would have smothered me in my sleep with my pillow.
Thats waht worries me about parents who are like 'Sex is the devil!" (not saying anyone here is like that), because your kid could catch somehing (because they dont know how to protect themselves) and then spread it to others because they are to scared to ask to get tested (if they even know where to go)

So, a debate has grown on another forum that I visit about Sex Education. They're actually debating which is the more responsible thing to do when teenagers are confronted with the choice of sex. Should they practice abstinence and not have sex, or should they have sex, but use condoms, birth control pills, you know stuff that they should teach you in Sex Ed.

Personally for me, I have tried abstinence, and all it did was make me sexually frustrated, I didn't get any relief until I made love with one of my friends and we both did take precaution, I wore a condom, she took the pill. Abstinence is bullshit, all it does is create sexually frustrated kids who are taught they should be ashame of their body and ashame that they want to do something with another consenting person. I highlighted consenting for a reason. Teenagers and kids are going to have sex, that's just a fact, the least we can do is give them the proper education on how to deal with it and how to protect yourself and the person you're having sex with.

((Poll Coming))

I agree mostly with the above. Abstinence should not be an option shoved down anyone's throat. I feel very few people could see any point in it. For the most part "sex ed" should teach about birth control, safety, blah, blah. Sex will not really harm anybody, so who cares?

As for me, I have yet to have sex. I certainly do not consider myself "frustrated". It is certainly a fact that kids will have sex. It is certainly a fact that adults cannot control them. It is, however, not a fact that they cannot control themselves. One can get cravings for food, and one must eat to stay alive. But if I did not have to eat to live, I certainly could abstain from food.

But all-in-all, teaching birth control is a lot easier, and a lot more effective. Spending money teaching kids not to have sex is pointless.

I would say abstinence is more responsible, not so much from the personal safety standpoint as from the standpoint of what you do with your time. Sexuality tires you in many ways, and I feel that taking that out of your life gives you a great deal more time and energy for other things.


You poor, poor man/woman. I must disagree. Sex is great.


Seconded :D


No, I find it exceptional that you would know everything about your son's sex life. As I understand it, most people don't feel the need to rush and inform their parents when they start having sex.


[/beating dead horse]


So you concur that teenagers want to have sex, regardless of the actions of entertainment media.


Of course. I've never said otherwise. What I blame the media for is encouraging them to the point where those that choose abstinence are ridiculed. I blame them for creating a mythos that says that happiness comes from screwing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.


Then why did you complain about parents thinking they can't control your kids?

If you can't tell the difference from context I'm not going to waste time on a pointless syntax debate.

They certainly would be unlikely to do so if they thought it would disappoint or upset their parents.

Agreed. However...


In my case, my mother was the 2nd or 3rd person I told when I first became sexually active. But, then again, she'd made it clear that she would be supportive of me no matter what my decision was, and had taken steps to make sure I was well-informed and that I would do so safely when I did.

My mom was supportive and open and honest with me, too, but I still didn't tell her when I had sex.

Sorry for harping on this, but I really think it's a mistake for any parent to think that being a great parent will result in your kid telling you everything. Your kid is certainly more LIKELY to talk with you if they feel good about your relationship, but they still might not tell you everything. I think a lot of parents beat themselves up about this and think they must have been a bad parent because their kid didn't tell them about something important.

Even the best parent should act under the assumption that their kid isn't going to tell them everything. No matter how great your kid is. No matter how great a relationship you have with them. For the sake of caution, don't assume you're going to know when your kid has sex for the first time, or when they try smoking the first time, or anything else like that.

Keep that in mind when talking to your kid about sex.

They might not come to you if they suspect they have an STD. They might not want to talk to you if they suspect they're pregnant. They might not want you to be the one to answer questions like, "Why did it hurt to pee the day after I lost my virginity?*"

That's why you help make sure that information and support are available from other people and other sources. It never hurts to give your kids multiple resources and multiple mentors!


*It's cystitis, sometimes called "Honeymooner's Disease" or "Bride's Bladder." The vaginal wall lies very near the female bladder and urethra. For some women the act of intercourse exerts enough pressure on the bladder that they easily get bladder or UTI infections. This results in frequent need to pee and burning during urination. It's something that happens to many women who've just started having sex, particularly if they're in the "honeymoon" period of a relationship during which they're having lots of sex. Some people freak out because they think they've contracted an STD (a reasonable fear), but it's actually a minor problem and will usually go away on its own after a few days.

Of course. I've never said otherwise. What I blame the media for is encouraging them to the point where those that choose abstinence are ridiculed. I blame them for creating a mythos that says that happiness comes from screwing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

To be fair, I don't think - even when I was a teen - I've ever met anyone who bought into that mythos. There were a lot of people who believed a lot of crap, but that's one I never heard.

Anyway, on topic, NB, I have an honost question for you. I fear that when parents constantly stress abstaining from sex, it makes their children afraid to come talk to them about sex, or ask for help if they have a problem, like wanting to get tested. I have no children (yet) so I could be totally off base, but thats how it was for me growing up (super religous Evangelical mother). Is that a situation you may/have incoutered?

I can definitely see that, and it is a problem. My response to it is to approach the topic, with my son, in an almost casual manner, stressing that to abstain isn't about impressing or disappointing me, but rather, is a choice that ultimately will be better for him. I tell him why, I respond to his questions, and I let him know that no matter what he says to me or asks me I'll never think there's something wrong with him or love him less or anything like that.

I've heard too many stories just l ike what you're refering to, where parents get so adamant and unapproachable about the topic that they actually do more harm than good. (I was raised Catholic)


Regardlss Im teaching my kids about it all, and want to be there if they have any worries or concerns. Hell, all m daughter will have to tell me is she wants to go on the pill and Ill put her on it no questions asked, because better safe than pregant. Im just going to reminde her nobody likes a dirty slut, espeically not daddy ;).

Generally, my ex handles questions from my daughter, although she seems to be quite bad at it so I've given my current wife the go ahead to respond should my daughter come to her. (She already has, actually, but until now my wife has been telling her it would be more apropriate to ask her mom.)

If my daughters (There's one in the oven ;) ) ever come to me wanting birth control, I'd probably have a similar discussion with her about being sure she understands what she's doing and is still committed to following the right path, but I'd not flat-out deny her. Ideally, I'd want her to be safe and not need it, but that's better than being unsafe and suddenly realizing, too late, that she did.

But, to head off the inevitable flood you know I'll get from some of the others on here of "AHA! Then you agree with us, NB! That's what we've been sayin'!" let me just point out that this in no way would be an indicator of permission or consent fromme for her to engage in sex. It would not constitute a surrender to the inevitability of teenage sex, and it would change *none* of the rules regarding having boys over or closing the door. She would still be expected to maintian the same moral standard as before. Ideally, the pills would be a waste of money because she'd never need to rely on them.

*snip*

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone with a good relationship with his/her parents is necessarily going to make a point of telling them, just that I think it's more likely in that situation. I also think it's much more likely for a teen who finds herself in trouble (STD/pregnancy/etc.) to go to a parent for help if that relationship is set up.

The main thing is making sure that a teen (a) is well-informed and (b) knows that he can speak frankly with a parent about these things, whether he chooses other sources or not.

To be fair, I don't think - even when I was a teen - I've ever met anyone who bought into that mythos. There were a lot of people who believed a lot of crap, but that's one I never heard.

Well, I'm only describing it the way it looks from the point of view of somebody who still remembers the influence pop music can have on someone's thinking.

Anyone remember George Michael's "I Want Your Sex?" Talk about a guy who apparently can't take 'no' for an answer...

(Yes I know I'm dating myself on that one.)

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone with a good relationship with his/her parents is necessarily going to make a point of telling them, just that I think it's more likely in that situation. I also think it's much more likely for a teen who finds herself in trouble (STD/pregnancy/etc.) to go to a parent for help if that relationship is set up.

Absolutely, and I wasn't knocking what you said, I just feel like it was a point that could stand to be repeated a bunch. My own parents still have guilt issues about this sort of thing, even though they are freaking awesome, so I feel obligated to harp on it a little. :D

If you can't tell the difference from context I'm not going to waste time on a pointless syntax debate.

If you can't make yourself understood then don't bother trying to communicate with other people.

*It's cystitis, sometimes called "Honeymooner's Disease" or "Bride's Bladder." The vaginal wall lies very near the female bladder and urethra. For some women the act of intercourse exerts enough pressure on the bladder that they easily get bladder or UTI infections. This results in frequent need to pee and burning during urination. It's something that happens to many women who've just started having sex, particularly if they're in the "honeymoon" period of a relationship during which they're having lots of sex. Some people freak out because they think they've contracted an STD (a reasonable fear), but it's actually a minor problem and will usually go away on its own after a few days.

Cranberry juice helps with that. (Drinking it, that is)

If you can't make yourself understood then don't bother trying to communicate with other people.

Wah.

Sucks when people don't take the bait, doesn't it?

I've heard too many stories just l ike what you're refering to, where parents get so adamant and unapproachable about the topic that they actually do more harm than good. (I was raised Catholic)

I had a friend in high school who was sexually active and had some glaring misconceptions about sex (ie. you can't get pregnant if you have sex while menstruating). She wasn't all that promiscuous, but she did take unnecessary risks. At one point, I begged her to let me take her to Planned Parenthood so that she could get contraceptives.

Her response? "I can't. My parents might find them." She was so afraid of her parents' reaction to her being sexually active that she wouldn't take the steps to ensure her own safety. I still find that situation to be incredibly sad.

Ideally, the pills would be a waste of money because she'd never need to rely on them.

They'd be good for her skin and make her less PMSy *nodnod*

Seriously though, there are many people who will take their children to get contraceptives or who support comprehensive sex ed who don't generally approve of teen sex. But, as you said, making sure they know how to have safe sex, and have the resources to do so - even though you don't want them to actually do it, is infinitely better than them engaging in riskier sexual behavior because they don't have that knowledge or access.

To be fair, I don't think - even when I was a teen - I've ever met anyone who bought into that mythos. There were a lot of people who believed a lot of crap, but that's one I never heard.

Sadly, I did know people who believed that nonsense as a teen and in college. The overwhelming majority of them were deeply stupid people whose opinions I didn't respect anyway, but they did exist. :(

I do get troubled, too, by the subtler stuff - the tacit expectation promulgated by peers and the media that one has to have done things (been kissed, dated, had sex, whatever) by some arbitrary deadline, for example - which I think teens and children are a lot more prone to care about than adults. Nowadays, I don't care in the least that I didn't have my first kiss until I was in college, but as a teenager, it made me feel like some sort of failure, because I kept hearing that "sweet sixteen and never been kissed" was a shockingly unusual state. Had I been a different sort of person, that could have driven me to do something stupid just to make sure I met the "deadline," and that's really rather sad.

My mom was supportive and open and honest with me, too, but I still didn't tell her when I had sex.

Ditto, though my parents were less (read: hardly) open and honest.


Sorry for harping on this, but I really think it's a mistake for any parent to think that being a great parent will result in your kid telling you everything. Your kid is certainly more LIKELY to talk with you if they feel good about your relationship, but they still might not tell you everything. I think a lot of parents beat themselves up about this and think they must have been a bad parent because their kid didn't tell them about something important.

I think it ties into the idea that the parent is supposed to be the "first line of defense" for the child, when the reality is by the time these things are likely to happen they've built up their own support structure, possibly one that doesn't even include their parents at all.

Even the best parent should act under the assumption that their kid isn't going to tell them everything. No matter how great your kid is. No matter how great a relationship you have with them. For the sake of caution, don't assume you're going to know when your kid has sex for the first time, or when they try smoking the first time, or anything else like that.

Conversely, don't expect them to want you to ask, poke, or otherwise attempt to find out.

Keep that in mind when talking to your kid about sex.

They might not come to you if they suspect they have an STD. They might not want to talk to you if they suspect they're pregnant. They might not want you to be the one to answer questions like, "Why did it hurt to pee the day after I lost my virginity?"

Personally, I'd rather the child go to a doctor first, just skip the middleman altogether.

They'd be good for her skin and make her less PMSy *nodnod*


I'm glad you said that. (As opposed to a guy ;) )


Seriously though, there are many people who will take their children to get contraceptives or who support comprehensive sex ed who don't generally approve of teen sex. But, as you said, making sure they know how to have safe sex, and have the resources to do so - even though you don't want them to actually do it, is infinitely better than them engaging in riskier sexual behavior because they don't have that knowledge or access.

Yes. That's why (and if I've given the opposite impression let me clarify) I don't necessarily advocate abstinence-only sex ed. People should know these things for the same reason they're taught everything else in high school: how to handle adult life. My only gripe is that abstinence isn't really taken seriously by educators and many parents so there's little wonder the kids don't, either.

I'm glad you said that. (As opposed to a guy ;) )

I was too busy typing a reply :D



Yes. That's why (and if I've given the opposite impression let me clarify) I don't necessarily advocate abstinence-only sex ed. People should know these things for the same reason they're taught everything else in high school: how to handle adult life. My only gripe is that abstinence isn't really taken seriously by educators and many parents so there's little wonder the kids don't, either.

I think it's not taken seriously by the educators because they don't want to be seen as teaching abstinence-only, which is what it seems like the first thing people think when someone starts advocating it. There's just so much baggage attached to the word and concept that fighting those battles just isn't worth it.

I was too busy typing a reply :D

hehe


I think it's not taken seriously by the educators because they don't want to be seen as teaching abstinence-only, which is what it seems like the first thing people think when someone starts advocating it. There's just so much baggage attached to the word and concept that fighting those battles just isn't worth it.

That's unfortunate, because the kids are the ones being hurt as a result.

I'm glad you said that. (As opposed to a guy ;) )

Well, I was including cramping and the like in "PMSy", whereas a guy might use it just to mean "bitchy", but yeah. =)

Well, I was including cramping and the like in "PMSy", whereas a guy might use it just to mean "bitchy", but yeah. =)

Oh I know better. Remember, I have a pregnant wife. At no time in a man's life is it more critical to mind his P's and Q's more carefully than when he is co-habitating with a pregnant female.

I think it's not taken seriously by the educators because they don't want to be seen as teaching abstinence-only, which is what it seems like the first thing people think when someone starts advocating it. There's just so much baggage attached to the word and concept that fighting those battles just isn't worth it.
Holy crap yes.

When I was a teen, I felt like I couldn't make any choice about sex without it being some kind of political statement. If I abstained from sex, I was an uptight bitch aligning myself with Republicans. If I had sex, I was an immoral slut aligning myself with Democrats. If I decided to have sex with my partner, I was (a) throwing away my purity and value as a female, (b) demonstrating my empowerful sexuality, (c) being a sheep for caving to the pressure to have sex, and (d) being a rebel for rejecting the pressure to be chaste.

Oy.

It's tough enough to figure out how you feel about sex, without also feeling like your personal sexual choices are at the center of some massive national debate.

*Starts humming "Love is a Battlefield*


I was thinking "The Warrior."

Oh I know better. Remember, I have a pregnant wife. At no time in a man's life is it more critical to mind his P's and Q's more carefully than when he is co-habitating with a pregnant female.

*Starts humming "Love is a Battlefield*

Holy crap yes.

When I was a teen, I felt like I couldn't make any choice about sex without it being some kind of political statement. If I abstained from sex, I was an uptight bitch aligning myself with Republicans. If I had sex, I was an immoral slut aligning myself with Democrats. If I decided to have sex with my partner, I was (a) throwing away my purity and value as a female, (b) demonstrating my empowerful sexuality, (c) being a sheep for caving to the pressure to have sex, and (d) being a rebel for rejecting the pressure to be chaste.

Bit different on my end. The overly heavy political undercurrent didn't hit until college, one of the advantages of being a guy I guess :rolleyes:. I high school I was either a) gay, or b)...well, no I think that was about it. Then college came and I was surrounded with people who's IQ's were above that of your average houseplant, but for some reason this crap was still around in the form of either being a stereotypical objectifying male pig or well, gay (some folks just don't grow up I guess.)

And they wondered why I was such a loner.


It's tough enough to figure out how you feel about sex, without also feeling like your personal sexual choices are at the center of some massive national debate.

Especially when some people are trying to make our choices the center of a national debate.

Both actions are responsible.

However, the question is which is more responsible.

simple. Abstinence.

Does that mean that those who have safe sex are iresponsible? no.
Does that mean Abstinence ONLY education should be taught? no.

I follow Abstinence.
Does that mean I don't know any safe sex methods? no.
Does that mean I won't do any safe sex methods should I find myself with someone special? no.


Why do I feel that Abstinence is more responsible than safe sex? simple, it shows control, it shows not taking chances that can have life changing consequences for either or both partners.

sure you can take precautions, but there is still that 1% chance of failure. with Abstinence, it's all about control and being 100% risk free.

of course this does not say that solo play isn't allowed to... er... releave the pressures...

but that's for another thread.

No option for "both equal". Poll fails.

No option for "both equal". Poll fails.

You got a point there, in fact there's a false dilemma.

You got a point there, in fact there's a false dilemma.

Assuming, of course, that the two are equivalent.

Which seems to be the under discussion.

Both actions are responsible.

However, the question is which is more responsible.

simple. Abstinence.

Does that mean that those who have safe sex are iresponsible? no.
Does that mean Abstinence ONLY education should be taught? no.

I follow Abstinence.
Does that mean I don't know any safe sex methods? no.
Does that mean I won't do any safe sex methods should I find myself with someone special? no.


Why do I feel that Abstinence is more responsible than safe sex? simple, it shows control, it shows not taking chances that can have life changing consequences for either or both partners.

sure you can take precautions, but there is still that 1% chance of failure. with Abstinence, it's all about control and being 100% risk free.

Therein lies the problem. You say you are equipped to deal with the risk if you find yourself in a position of wanting sex with "someone special". So you recognize that you might actually want to have sex, and do it with someone.

Can that really be called an "abstinance" position? Is merely not having sex right now mean you're abstinent? I'm not having sex at this moment, does that mean I'm abstinent. I might have sex tonight, am I abstinent until then?

If you recognize that you might have sex with someone you desire to have sex with, is that really abstinance, or is that just "I'm not having sex at this moment"?

Therein lies the problem. You say you are equipped to deal with the risk if you find yourself in a position of wanting sex with "someone special". So you recognize that you might actually want to have sex, and do it with someone.

Can that really be called an "abstinance" position? Is merely not having sex right now mean you're abstinent? I'm not having sex at this moment, does that mean I'm abstinent. I might have sex tonight, am I abstinent until then?

If you recognize that you might have sex with someone you desire to have sex with, is that really abstinance, or is that just "I'm not having sex at this moment"?

Very few people plan on abstinence forever. It's generally "abstinence until [criteria for having sex]."

Therein lies the problem. You say you are equipped to deal with the risk if you find yourself in a position of wanting sex with "someone special". So you recognize that you might actually want to have sex, and do it with someone.

Can that really be called an "abstinance" position? Is merely not having sex right now mean you're abstinent? I'm not having sex at this moment, does that mean I'm abstinent. I might have sex tonight, am I abstinent until then?

If you recognize that you might have sex with someone you desire to have sex with, is that really abstinance, or is that just "I'm not having sex at this moment"?

because people think "Abstinence" is "Never Going to have sex". wrong. Abstinence is "not having sex". the difference is everytime I say "no" I am practicing Abstinence. I stop practicing abstinence the moment I say 'yes' and do the deed.

Abstinence is not saying "I WILL ALWAYS SAY no." that's that stupid "oath" thing that people swear to make them look good. and for the record. I never took any of those "oaths" or promises you read about.

so yes. "I'm not having sex at this moment" is practicing abstinence as long as that "moment" is before one's "first time".

after all, "I'm not having sex until marriage" is also a form of Abstinence.

Forcing? How does that happen then I wonder? Some kids have sex, contract an STD and then come around to your house with the ropes and the hosepipe until you agree to pay for their treatment?

This was in relation to how a person could be forced to pay for another's irresponsibility that ended up in their contraction of a disease.

The primary way is through government. If the treatment of this person's STD is done through tax dollars (via a universal health care system or otherwise) then we, the tax payers, are being forced by the government to pay for this individual's treatment.

Basically then, you screw around and act irresponsibly, contract some horrible disease, the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for it. You acted irresponsibly and you should have to pay the price for that, not everyone else.

because people think "Abstinence" is "Never Going to have sex". wrong. Abstinence is "not having sex". the difference is everytime I say "no" I am practicing Abstinence. I stop practicing abstinence the moment I say 'yes' and do the deed.

Abstinence is not saying "I WILL ALWAYS SAY no." that's that stupid "oath" thing that people swear to make them look good. and for the record. I never took any of those "oaths" or promises you read about.

so yes. "I'm not having sex at this moment" is practicing abstinence as long as that "moment" is before one's "first time".

after all, "I'm not having sex until marriage" is also a form of Abstinence.

Well, if this is the criterium, most of the human population are practicing abstinence for almost their entire life... we spend on average, what, 100 days of our lives in total having sex. (Assuming we have sex on average twice a week, get sexually active at 15 and live to age 65)

because people think "Abstinence" is "Never Going to have sex". wrong. Abstinence is "not having sex". the difference is everytime I say "no" I am practicing Abstinence. I stop practicing abstinence the moment I say 'yes' and do the deed.

Then it's a nonsensical definition, because, under it, at this very moment I am practicing abstinence. In fact, by that definition, anybody who is not having sex right now is abstinent. A hooker in new york who is at this moment not having sex is abstinent

so yes. "I'm not having sex at this moment" is practicing abstinence as long as that "moment" is before one's "first time".

Ohhh, so now we're going to make the definition more nonsensical. So you can only abstain if you have never had sex before? So you, a virgin, is abstinent merely because at this exact moment you're not having sex, but me, not a virgin (soooo not a virgin) who is also, at this very moment not having sex, is not abstinent.

What about a virgin who really wants to get laid but can't? Is he "abstinent"? He's not having sex, but only because nobody wants to have sex with him.

The problem with this quesiton is, as I said, it's nonsensical. If all you define abstinence by is that not having sex at any given moment makes you abstinent, then abstinence isn't a virtue, it isn't something that shows "responsibility". Every single perosn on the planet who isn't fucking right now, by that definition, is "abstinent".

You're going to have to define your terms a whole hell of a lot better before anyone can piece together what it is you're trying to say.

true. it can be said that one refraining from sex after their first time is also abstaining.

Say, I do get married and have a WONDERFUL honeymoon. then after a couple of years, we either divorce or she dies. I could, once more, abstain until my second marriage.

Call me unromantic, but I think it's an awful lot of hassle, and extremly expensive, getting married each time you want a shag ;)

Well, if this is the criterium, most of the human population are practicing abstinence for almost their entire life... we spend on average, what, 100 days of our lives in total having sex. (Assuming we have sex on average twice a week, get sexually active at 15 and live to age 65)


true. it can be said that one refraining from sex after their first time is also abstaining.

Say, I do get married and have a WONDERFUL honeymoon. then after a couple of years, we either divorce or she dies. I could, once more, abstain until my second marriage.

Is abstinence something you have to choose, or can it be thrust (but not in the good way) upon you?

Well, if this is the criterium, most of the human population are practicing abstinence for almost their entire life... we spend on average, what, 100 days of our lives in total having sex. (Assuming we have sex on average twice a week, get sexually active at 15 and live to age 65)


well let's see here....100 days is 2400 hours...if you have sex twice a week that's 100 times a year, over 50 years, means 5000 times, a little under half an hour.

It only takes you half an hour? That's a shame...

well let's see here....100 days is 2400 hours...if you have sex twice a week that's 100 times a year, over 50 years, means 5000 times, a little under half an hour.

It only takes you half an hour? That's a shame...

I thought lawyers don't do math.

Abstinence. Looks like I'm in the minority here. I demand AA. Joke doods.

But! My abstinence answer is primarely to those that choose this path over another which is designed to allow sex but cut down on pregnancy and vd. Best path would actually be to not even know of sex or think about having sex at all until they are older. But .. that is not gonna happen in this perverted day in age.
Sure.. try to raise your kid on those ideals and you will be labeled a nut job.

Perverted day in age? Sorry sir, by the time we dare to start considering talking about the remote posibility of something scarcely resembling sex most of everyone's greatgreatgreatgrannies were already pregnant. No matter what you do kids will start getting interested. They just will not admit it if told loudly enough they have plenty of time to be.

Then it's a nonsensical definition, because, under it, at this very moment I am practicing abstinence. In fact, by that definition, anybody who is not having sex right now is abstinent. A hooker in new york who is at this moment not having sex is abstinent actually it would be abstinance if one says no. so yea, if you are offered right now, to have sex with someone but you say no then you are technically abstaining. even tho you had sex last week.



Ohhh, so now we're going to make the definition more nonsensical. So you can only abstain if you have never had sex before? So you, a virgin, is abstinent merely because at this exact moment you're not having sex, but me, not a virgin (soooo not a virgin) who is also, at this very moment not having sex, is not abstinent.

The practice of abstinance under the situation given is not having sex until a specific set condition, like say Marriage. so it's not as you try to say "the exact moment"

What about a virgin who really wants to get laid but can't? Is he "abstinent"? He's not having sex, but only because nobody wants to have sex with him. if he really want's to have sex, then there are prostitutes he can hire. however is that being 'responsible'?

The problem with this quesiton is, as I said, it's nonsensical. If all you define abstinence by is that not having sex at any given moment makes you abstinent, then abstinence isn't a virtue, it isn't something that shows "responsibility". Every single perosn on the planet who isn't fucking right now, by that definition, is "abstinent". no, you are defining abstinance as "not having sex at this moment" I defined abstinence in choosing not to have sex when the opportunity for sex comes and not what you are trying to push, is that one is NEVER going to have sex (as in those oaths that you sometimes read about.)

forcing a chasity belt on a girl won't make her chaste.

Oh I agree, heartily.

Is abstinence something you have to choose, or can it be thrust (but not in the good way) upon you?

intersting point. I would say no.

forcing a chasity belt on a girl won't make her chaste. But if she chooses to be chaste, then she is.

which is also why I'm against Abstinance ONLY education. by not teaching Safe Sex practices one is not allowing the students a choice and thus in a way, forcing abstinance on them.

no, you are defining abstinance as "not having sex at this moment" I defined abstinence in choosing not to have sex when the opportunity for sex comes

I can go into roxbury and get a hooker. By declining to, am I abstinent at this moment?

People act as if sex is somehow hard to find. I could probably, if I wanted to, get laid any day of the week, without spending a dime. Which is what I keep saying, "abstinence" is a useless term. It has no real meaning. I promise you I could get laid within an hour if I wanted to. I don't because it's risky, I have other things to do, and would result in a really pissed off girlfriend.

But for the most part, unlesss someone is completely socially inept or horrendously ugly, that person could probably find someone to have sex with in short order. At any given moment I have options I could pursue that would get me laid by someone. By your definition, chosing not to pursue those options right now makes me abstinent.

Which, as I said, makes it a totally useless definition.

The practice of abstinance under the situation given is not having sex until a specific set condition, like say Marriage. so it's not as you try to say "the exact moment"

So if my condition is "I'm not having sex until my girlfrined gets home" am I abstinent, up until the point my girlfriend gets home? What if I could get laid by other people prior ot that, is declining to pursue sex with someone else make me abstinent, until my girlfriend gets home?

Oh I agree, heartily.

It would be damned hot though *nods*

It would be damned hot though *nods*

Yeah, leather tends to be warm, and chafey :P

Safe sex & sensible use of contraception is just as responsible as abstinence (IMO). Bearing in mind that complete abstinence takes a very strong will & one lapse is very irresponsible.

Even if one uses protection during that lapse it is still irresponsible?

I think that Abstinence is more responsible. Not that Using protection isn't responsible, it definately has responsibility, hwoever it is harder to get pregnant, or diseases when on is abstinent, because nothing (except abstinence) is completely effective.

So in other words Junii, you really can't answer the question, huh? If I have the option to have sex with another person, but I do not pursue that option, instead decide to wait until my girlfriend comes over tonight, am I abstaining from sex at this moment. You were the person who said someone is "abstaining" if they choose not to have sex even when the option is available, and instead wait until certain conditions are satisfied.

So, by choosing not to call over this skanky hoe I know, and instead choose ot wait until the certain conditions are satisfied (my girlfriend comes over) am I abstaining? A simple yes or no would suffice.

I can go into roxbury and get a hooker. By declining to, am I abstinent at this moment? no, but it does shoot down your example of "virgin by the fact that no one wants to have sex with you."

People act as if sex is somehow hard to find. I could probably, if I wanted to, get laid any day of the week, without spending a dime. Which is what I keep saying, "abstinence" is a useless term. It has no real meaning. I promise you I could get laid within an hour if I wanted to. I don't because it's risky, I have other things to do, and would result in a really pissed off girlfriend.

But for the most part, unlesss someone is completely socially inept or horrendously ugly, that person could probably find someone to have sex with in short order. At any given moment I have options I could pursue that would get me laid by someone. By your definition, chosing not to pursue those options right now makes me abstinent.

you are the only one arguing "right now" and "at this moment".

So if my condition is "I'm not having sex until my girlfrined gets home" am I abstinent, up until the point my girlfriend gets home? What if I could get laid by other people prior ot that, is declining to pursue sex with someone else make me abstinent, until my girlfriend gets home?nice strawman. is that how you plan on arguing all your legal cases? by sticking to the extremes?

Yeah, leather tends to be warm, and chafey :P

oil... the leather needs to be well oiled and the fit has to be right.



>.>




<.<



or so I supposed.

Both are responsible, I don't see it as a either/or situation. I suppose it could be argued unprotected sex is just as responsible in some instances. And I also don't think abstinence is "bullshit" as mentioned in the OP, many people are happy simply to love themselves as it were.

So in other words Junii, you really can't answer the question, huh? If I have the option to have sex with another person, but I do not pursue that option, instead decide to wait until my girlfriend comes over tonight, am I abstaining from sex at this moment. You were the person who said someone is "abstaining" if they choose not to have sex even when the option is available, and instead wait until certain conditions are satisfied.

So, by choosing not to call over this skanky hoe I know, and instead choose ot wait until the certain conditions are satisfied (my girlfriend comes over) am I abstaining? A simple yes or no would suffice.
actually, after thinking about it, it comes down to definition of "a moment".

if your girlfriend left this morning and is coming home/over that night, then no. I don't consider that Abstaining, even if your job was in a brothel where you get 'freebies' as a perk.

however, if your girfriend is leaving for a study abroad where she'll be gone for 1-4 years and you practice no sex until she returns, then yes. it's abstaining.

Abstaining isn't just saying no once, but excerting control over impulses. it's not a set period of time (minutes, hours, days, etc.) but the act of control under circumstances where normally one would give in.

Granted I used to think that once one has sex, one cannot be considering abstaining, but one can depending on the situation.

the key element of Abstinance is control. setting a goal and meeting it.

Twice a week... good gawd you need more vitamins... or whomever you're doing it with needs more... assuming you have a regular...

I'm gonna shut up now and go to my D&D game.

Cheers!

Well, if this is the criterium, most of the human population are practicing abstinence for almost their entire life... we spend on average, what, 100 days of our lives in total having sex. (Assuming we have sex on average twice a week, get sexually active at 15 and live to age 65)

actually, after thinking about it, it comes down to definition of "a moment".

if your girlfriend left this morning and is coming home/over that night, then no. I don't consider that Abstaining, even if your job was in a brothel where you get 'freebies' as a perk.

however, if your girfriend is leaving for a study abroad where she'll be gone for 1-4 years and you practice no sex until she returns, then yes. it's abstaining.


Ahhh, so what matters is how long it is, you just can't say how long it is that matters.

So you "know it when you see it" huh? As I said, it's a useless definition.

Ahhh, so what matters is how long it is, you just can't say how long it is that matters.

So you "know it when you see it" huh? As I said, it's a useless definition.

well, what's your definition of Abstinance?

Edit: and actually I said more than that. but YOU focused only on time.

well, what's your definition of Abstinance?

My definition is exactly what it means. TO abstain from something is to refrain from having it. Thus I condent every single person who could be having sex right now and is not having sex right now is abstaining from sex. Which means, that assigning any virtue or value to abstinance is stupid, because there is no virtue or value to the fact that I do not, at this moment, have my penis inside a woman.

So, a debate has grown on another forum that I visit about Sex Education. They're actually debating which is the more responsible thing to do when teenagers are confronted with the choice of sex. Should they practice abstinence and not have sex, or should they have sex, but use condoms, birth control pills, you know stuff that they should teach you in Sex Ed.

Abstinence is safer than any form of birth control. Because of that, if someone is not willing to at least deal with the chance of pregnancy or getting a STD, they should remain abstinent. Most people still in school are in this category.

But that's not going to happen. Thus, it is more responsible for schools to teach about birth control. They should still certainly encourage abstinence, but should also realize it won't make that huge a difference and cut their losses.

So, a debate has grown on another forum that I visit about Sex Education. They're actually debating which is the more responsible thing to do when teenagers are confronted with the choice of sex. Should they practice abstinence and not have sex, or should they have sex, but use condoms, birth control pills, you know stuff that they should teach you in Sex Ed.

Personally for me, I have tried abstinence, and all it did was make me sexually frustrated, I didn't get any relief until I made love with one of my friends and we both did take precaution, I wore a condom, she took the pill. Abstinence is bullshit, all it does is create sexually frustrated kids who are taught they should be ashame of their body and ashame that they want to do something with another consenting person. I highlighted consenting for a reason. Teenagers and kids are going to have sex, that's just a fact, the least we can do is give them the proper education on how to deal with it and how to protect yourself and the person you're having sex with.

((Poll Coming))

Neither is more responsible. It doesn't even make sense to use the phrase more responsible here. People are responsible, behaviors demonstrate responsibility. If you have sex, using a condom demonstrates responsibility.

The idea that not having sex demonstrates responsibility presupposes and obligation not to have sex and the desire to have it. Not having sex only demonstrates responsibility if there is a particular reason why an instance of not abstaining is potentially harmful.

The question is like saying "which is more responsible. Only telling the truth, or never talking?" If anything, never undertaking the fundamentally human act of having sex means you are aware that you are not a very responsible person and can't do some things that are pretty basic to the human condition.

so even with your definition, practicing abstinance is more responsible since the alternative is that people are choosing to have sex at every possible moment even tho they are practicing safe sex.

after all them moment they stop to say "not now" they are practicing abstinance, control and being responsible. ;)

Quite right. All other things being equal, someone who is not having sex at every possible moment is a more responsible person than someone who has sex at every single opportunity.

By the same token a person who refrains from dipping his genitals in bleach is likely a more responsible person than someone who does. However to place some level of value on abstinance is absurd, because it would equate a value that every single person on the planet would have.

My definition is exactly what it means. TO abstain from something is to refrain from having it. Thus I condent every single person who could be having sex right now and is not having sex right now is abstaining from sex. Which means, that assigning any virtue or value to abstinance is stupid, because there is no virtue or value to the fact that I do not, at this moment, have my penis inside a woman.

except the question is which is more responsible.

so even with your definition, practicing abstinance is more responsible since the alternative is that people are choosing to have sex at every possible moment even tho they are practicing safe sex.

after all them moment they stop to say "not now" they are practicing abstinance, control and being responsible. ;)

Quite right. All other things being equal, someone who is not having sex at every possible moment is a more responsible person than someone who has sex at every single opportunity.

By the same token a person who refrains from dipping his genitals in bleach is likely a more responsible person than someone who does. However to place some level of value on abstinance is absurd, because it would equate a value that every single person on the planet would have.

exactly.

just like those who abstain from breaking the law are more responsible than those who cannot control their law breaking urges.

tho those probably make the best clients. :p

however, I think most people here veiw abstinance as one that abstains for a long length of time. preferably set to a goal that is not set in any time in the future. such as "marriage" or "death".

however, I think most people here veiw abstinance as one that abstains for a long length of time. preferably set to a goal that is not set in any time in the future. such as "marriage" or "death".

fair enough. And if we're talking about THAT idea, then frankly, I don't see how abstaining from actions until some vague indeterminant time in the future which may or may not occur (except, I suppose, for death) is in any way responsible.

In fact, it's the opposite of responsible. It's complete avoidance of the situation in which you could be called on to exercise responsibility. I don't see how avoidance of a situation can be considered dealing with it "responsibly"

fair enough. And if we're talking about THAT idea, then frankly, I don't see how abstaining from actions until some vague indeterminant time in the future which may or may not occur (except, I suppose, for death) is in any way responsible.

In fact, it's the opposite of responsible. It's complete avoidance of the situation in which you could be called on to exercise responsibility. I don't see how avoidance of a situation can be considered dealing with it "responsibly"

one strives to avoid bankruptcy. so is that not being responsible? One avoids abusing their children, is that also not being responsible?

sometimes the act of Avoiding a situation is a sign of responsibility.

one can CHOOSE to be frivolous with their money and risk bankruptcy, is that being responsible because they are not choosing to avoid the situation?

one can CHOOSE to be frivolous with their money and risk bankruptcy, is that being responsible because they are not choosing to avoid the situation?

A very poor analogy. If you handle your money, and handle it well, still spend, still save, take steps to mitigate risk and handle your money smartly that's not comparable to abstaining. You're not abstaining from spending anything. You are merely managing your spending in a smart way. That's the equivalent of having sex, responsibly, with protection.

Comparing it to "abstinence", the example wouldn't be spending your money wisely, it would be putting all your money in a box, putting it in a hole in your back yard, then going off to live in a cave in the mountains.

If going bankrupt is the result of badly managing your money, responsible choices would be to make smart choices about managing your money, not avoiding managing it at all.

Now let me elaborate some. I think it's a good choice to abstain from a situation, ANY situation, until you feel that you have the proper maturity, understanding, and ability to take the risks associated with the action.

To abstain from sex because you feel you are not ready for sex, that's a responsible choice. But to abstain from sex, not because you don't feel ready, but because of some arbitrary condition has not been met, that's not responsibility. That's not choosing to opt out because you're not ready. That's just avoidance. And there's no responsibility in that.

I say get with the fucking, but be SAFE about it. Condoms every time, birth control, tests for STDs, and the like

Assuming, of course, that the two are equivalent.

Which seems to be the under discussion.

If we think that the most responsible decision is the one that is right for the individual, then abstinence and sexual activity are equivalent. For some individuals abstinence will be the best possible choice. For others, starting sex is the best choice.

However, for both people, it is important to have all the necessary information about how sex works, what the risks are, how those risks are best handled, etc. Because as Dem pointed out, very few people plan to be abstinent forever.

In my own case, I made a conscious decision about when I was ready to start sex based on what I had learned in sex ed in school and from my mother. With all the information I got from school, and all the advice I got from my mom, I was able to judge when I was ready to take that step into adulthood.

Because, as my mom made clear to me, that is a big part of what sex is -- a step into adulthood. When kids start having sex, they stop being kids in many ways. A whole host of non-sex issues, responsibilities, regular daily life chores, etc, come into one's life along with sex. When that truth is made as clear as it can possibly be, it makes the choice to start having sex less casual.

Whether a teenager chooses to start sex or stay abstinent at any point in their teen years, I believe they should still be given a full and comprehensive education about sex. The teens are the years when this decision is supposed to be made. Teens should be given the information they need to make it.

A very poor analogy. If you handle your money, and handle it well, still spend, still save, take steps to mitigate risk and handle your money smartly that's not comparable to abstaining. You're not abstaining from spending anything. You are merely managing your spending in a smart way. That's the equivalent of having sex, responsibly, with protection.

Comparing it to "abstinence", the example wouldn't be spending your money wisely, it would be putting all your money in a box, putting it in a hole in your back yard, then going off to live in a cave in the mountains.

If going bankrupt is the result of badly managing your money, responsible choices would be to make smart choices about managing your money, not avoiding managing it at all.
Striving to avoid a situation is still a responsible choice to make.

and how is putting money in a box a better analogy for abstinance? one isn't avoiding sex by hiding it. one avoid sex by concious choices.


Now let me elaborate some. I think it's a good choice to abstain from a situation, ANY situation, until you feel that you have the proper maturity, understanding, and ability to take the risks associated with the action.

To abstain from sex because you feel you are not ready for sex, that's a responsible choice. But to abstain from sex, not because you don't feel ready, but because of some arbitrary condition has not been met, that's not responsibility. That's not choosing to opt out because you're not ready. That's just avoidance. And there's no responsibility in that.
It doesn't matter what the reason is. the reason doesn't matter because it's your reason. now pushing your reason for doing something (or in this case NOT doing something) onto another person is stupid. but having whatever reason for doing or not doing something doesn't matter when it comes to your personal choices.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. the reason doesn't matter because it's your reason. now pushing your reason for doing something (or in this case NOT doing something) onto another person is stupid. but having whatever reason for doing or not doing something doesn't matter when it comes to your personal choices.

When discussing whether it is a responsible choice, the reasoning certainly does matter. Something done for an irrational or unresponsible reason is not a responsible choice.

And since we are discussing which is the responsible choice, then the reasoning most certainly matters.

Does it somehow mean you shouldn't be allowed to make your choice? Of course not, but if your reason is a bad one, it doesn't make it a responsible choice simply because it's "your choice." People are quite prone to making irresponsible choices for their own reasons.

Abstinence, by itself is not a "responsible" choice and it is not an irresponsible choice. Why you do so is what makes it responsible or irresponsible. So it's utterly nonsensical to say the reasons don't matter.

In fact, let me illustrate by example. You and I have both chosen to invest in a stock.

I research the companies, discuss with professionals, track prices over time, and after looking over all the data, I choose a particular company to invest in.

You tape the stock pages up on your wall and throw a dart.

By happenstance we both end up investing in the same stock. We thus committed the same action. Was my choice a responsible one? Was yours?

When discussing whether it is a responsible choice, the reasoning certainly does matter.

Indeed, the reasoning is the only thing that matters.

With the right objectives for our life, we can rationally reach the conclusion that we should engage in any given behavior to achieve them, within the limits of morality. No specific morally acceptable behavior, therefore, is in and of itself irresponsible.

Edit: That is the reason why the question posed in this thread's poll is unanswerable.

When discussing whether it is a responsible choice, the reasoning certainly does matter. Something done for an irrational or unresponsible reason is not a responsible choice.

And since we are discussing which is the responsible choice, then the reasoning most certainly matters.

Does it somehow mean you shouldn't be allowed to make your choice? Of course not, but if your reason is a bad one, it doesn't make it a responsible choice simply because it's "your choice." People are quite prone to making irresponsible choices for their own reasons.

Abstinence, by itself is not a "responsible" choice and it is not an irresponsible choice. Why you do so is what makes it responsible or irresponsible. So it's utterly nonsensical to say the reasons don't matter.
ok, so if it's reasoning, and not as you said 'arbirary goal' which isn't a reason but a goal, then "abstinance till marriage" is still a responsible choice. AS long as the person is not just relying on Abstinance by avoiding safe sex teachings.

In fact, let me illustrate by example. You and I have both chosen to invest in a stock.

I research the companies, discuss with professionals, track prices over time, and after looking over all the data, I choose a particular company to invest in.

You tape the stock pages up on your wall and throw a dart.

By happenstance we both end up investing in the same stock. We thus committed the same action. Was my choice a responsible one? Was yours?
considering that one experiment had a monkey choosing stocks via darts on a newpaper and he beat out stock analysts... :rolleyes:

infact, for economic class, that's what I did. and guess what. while other people LOST money, I actually stayed even.

the better illustration is
YOU choose to invest your stock using your method. (safe sex)

I choose to put my money into savings. (Abstinance)

How can I be accused of Avoiding responsibilty because I choose to hold my money in a normal savings account?

ok, so if it's reasoning, and not as you said 'arbirary goal' which isn't a reason but a goal, then "abstinance till marriage" is still a responsible choice. AS long as the person is not just relying on Abstinance by avoiding safe sex teachings.

Not in the slightest. "until marriage" is just as arbitrary a point as "until I'm thirty" or "until wednesday" or "until the aliens come".

Why? Because there is nothing to show that when you're married, or when you're thirty, or by wednesday, or when the aliens come, is the time when you are mature enough and wise enough and secure enough to accept the risks associated with sex.

It is a responsible choice to abstain if you feel that sex at that moment is not a good choice for you because you are not ready for whatever reason. Waiting until you are ready to deal with it is responsible. Picking some arbitrary date in the future is not responsible in the slightest, because nothing about that assumes that on that day you will be ready, or that you would not be ready before that.

If you're not ready willing and capable to take the risk, it's the responsible choice not to take the risk. That's the responsible choice. it is not the responsible choice to postpone it for any other reason. It is no more responsible to "wait until marriage" for the sake of waiting until marriage than it is to wait until the aliens come.

That's simply avoidance. And avoidance is not responsible.

If we think that the most responsible decision is the one that is right for the individual, then abstinence and sexual activity are equivalent. For some individuals abstinence will be the best possible choice. For others, starting sex is the best choice.

However, for both people, it is important to have all the necessary information about how sex works, what the risks are, how those risks are best handled, etc. Because as Dem pointed out, very few people plan to be abstinent forever.

In my own case, I made a conscious decision about when I was ready to start sex based on what I had learned in sex ed in school and from my mother. With all the information I got from school, and all the advice I got from my mom, I was able to judge when I was ready to take that step into adulthood.

Because, as my mom made clear to me, that is a big part of what sex is -- a step into adulthood. When kids start having sex, they stop being kids in many ways. A whole host of non-sex issues, responsibilities, regular daily life chores, etc, come into one's life along with sex. When that truth is made as clear as it can possibly be, it makes the choice to start having sex less casual.

Whether a teenager chooses to start sex or stay abstinent at any point in their teen years, I believe they should still be given a full and comprehensive education about sex. The teens are the years when this decision is supposed to be made. Teens should be given the information they need to make it.

I don't agree they're equivalent, because sex, desirable as it may be, is NOT necessary for a teenager's survival. There's no reason to introduce an element into one's life that carried risk with it, and no useful reward apart from some physical pleasure that's more likely to distract kids from school and other activities they should be more focused on during those formative years. There's just no truly practical reason for teenagers to be having sex. None. We can go around and around all day about fulfillment or pleasure or even rights, but at the end of the day it's simply more practical (as well as religiously correct, in some cases) to abstain during the teenage years, as well as safer. That makes abstinence more responsible.

I don't agree they're equivalent, because sex, desirable as it may be, is NOT necessary for a teenager's survival. There's no reason to introduce an element into one's life that carried risk with it, and no useful reward apart from some physical pleasure that's more likely to distract kids from school and other activities they should be more focused on during those formative years. There's just no truly practical reason for teenagers to be having sex. None. We can go around and around all day about fulfillment or pleasure or even rights, but at the end of the day it's simply more practical (as well as religiously correct, in some cases) to abstain during the teenage years, as well as safer. That makes abstinence more responsible.

Do you ever eat unhealthy foods because you enjoy the taste?

OK, good, thought so. So you can spare us the "it creates a risk with no reward other than pleasure" nonsense.

Not in the slightest. "until marriage" is just as arbitrary a point as "until I'm thirty" or "until wednesday" or "until the aliens come".

Why? Because there is nothing to show that when you're married, or when you're thirty, or by wednesday, or when the aliens come, is the time when you are mature enough and wise enough and secure enough to accept the risks associated with sex. and using safe sex isn't a sign of maturity or wisdom or even knowing the risks of sex. most would use safe sex because they 'learned it that way in school'.

It is a responsible choice to abstain if you feel that sex at that moment is not a good choice for you because you are not ready for whatever reason. Waiting until you are ready to deal with it is responsible. Picking some arbitrary date in the future is not responsible in the slightest, because nothing about that assumes that on that day you will be ready, or that you would not be ready before that. the most 'arbirary date' for abstinance is "When I am Married". so if they are NOT ready for the responsiblity of sex when they are married, when would they be ready?

If you're not ready willing and capable to take the risk, it's the responsible choice not to take the risk. That's the responsible choice. it is not the responsible choice to postpone it for any other reason. It is no more responsible to "wait until marriage" for the sake of waiting until marriage than it is to wait until the aliens come.yes it is. why? Even using safe sex practices, it's not 100% effective. so it doesn't matter what the reason is as long as that person made his/her choice without it being forced on him/her.

By waiting until marriage, my wife can be assured 100% that I will be 1) STD free, 2) not have any kid from any previous girlfriend. 3) little to no emotional attachment to any 'former flames'.

That's simply avoidance. And avoidance is not responsible.again, taking risks for the sake of Pleasure, Entertainment, and/or uncontrolled urges is less responsible than avoiding the risk in the first place.

Not in the slightest. "until marriage" is just as arbitrary a point as "until I'm thirty" or "until wednesday" or "until the aliens come".

Why? Because there is nothing to show that when you're married, or when you're thirty, or by wednesday, or when the aliens come, is the time when you are mature enough and wise enough and secure enough to accept the risks associated with sex.

It is a responsible choice to abstain if you feel that sex at that moment is not a good choice for you because you are not ready for whatever reason. Waiting until you are ready to deal with it is responsible. Picking some arbitrary date in the future is not responsible in the slightest, because nothing about that assumes that on that day you will be ready, or that you would not be ready before that.

If you're not ready willing and capable to take the risk, it's the responsible choice not to take the risk. That's the responsible choice. it is not the responsible choice to postpone it for any other reason. It is no more responsible to "wait until marriage" for the sake of waiting until marriage than it is to wait until the aliens come.

That's simply avoidance. And avoidance is not responsible.

I think the wait until marriage idea springs from the fact that as people come closer to being married there will be a number of things changing that will put them in a more responsible mind set such as:

1) They're older. They've had more time to mature and learn responsibility, have a job, become fully trained etc.

2) They're getting married. Someone out there thinks that they're good enough to spend the rest of their life with. They aren't such a horrible person that no one can stand them, and hopefully are emotionally stable enough to handle interpersonal relationships.

3) Are ready to take care of a family. Its not necessary to have two people involved but it sure seems like it'll make the job that much more bearable.

Obviously theres numerous exceptions to these, but in general should hold true, a 10 yr old is generally less responsible than a 40 year old for instance.
Therefore, marriage isn't an arbitrary date (such as Wednesday) but a date at which someone may be more likely to properly handle the.consequences of sex.

Twice a week... good gawd you need more vitamins... or whomever you're doing it with needs more... assuming you have a regular...

I'm gonna shut up now and go to my D&D game.

Cheers!

*lol I'm getting more. I was talking about population averages ;)

*lol I'm getting more. I was talking about population averages ;)

Y-y-you're getting more what? Vitamins or... :D

Y-y-you're getting more what? Vitamins or... :D

Both, I guess... ;)
I'm eating lots and lots of fruit at the moment. Can't get enough of it.

:eek:

;)

I really should get my mind outta the gutter... but it's just so nice and comfortable down here... :p

I never saw the point in having a mind out of the gutter... there's nothing much interesting up there anyway ;)
And soooo much fun to be had in a gutter.

Both, I guess... ;)
I'm eating lots and lots of fruit at the moment. Can't get enough of it.

:eek:

;)

I really should get my mind outta the gutter... but it's just so nice and comfortable down here... :p

Now let me elaborate some. I think it's a good choice to abstain from a situation, ANY situation, until you feel that you have the proper maturity, understanding, and ability to take the risks associated with the action.

To abstain from sex because you feel you are not ready for sex, that's a responsible choice. But to abstain from sex, not because you don't feel ready, but because of some arbitrary condition has not been met, that's not responsibility. That's not choosing to opt out because you're not ready. That's just avoidance. And there's no responsibility in that.

The problem is that you keep referring to the conditions that have not been met as "arbitrary," but I've never met anyone who chose to abstain until, say, "exactly 427 days from now," or "the next winter solstice" or "a month with 5 Wednesdays." I've met a lot of people who choose to abstain until "I'm in a committed, long-term relationship," or "I'm willing to potentially have kids," or "I'm married," or "I've gotten over my ex," or "I've recovered from the trauma of being raped," and so on and so forth - and, quite frankly, those conditions aren't arbitrary at all, but can drastically affect one's experience of sex. To use your investment example, it's like deciding not to invest your money until you have a steady source of income in case your investments don't pan out. You may not agree with that decision, or it may not be relevant to you, but that hardly makes it arbitrary or irresponsible.

(Personally, I always think the most responsible choice is the one that's right for YOU. I have friends who were boinking like bunnies in high school, and friends who didn't so much as kiss until their wedding day, and I respect both those decisions. Neither of them was for me, but that's what made those people happy, and I think it's the height of arrogance to declare that their sexuality should be dictated by my opinions on what's worth waiting for and what isn't.)

Do you ever eat unhealthy foods because you enjoy the taste?

OK, good, thought so. So you can spare us the "it creates a risk with no reward other than pleasure" nonsense.

You're equating the risk of a few extra calories with the risk of STDs, pregnancy, emotional difficulty, etc?

C'mon, NA... I know you can do better

*lol I'm getting more. I was talking about population averages ;)

Well than as long as you're well taken care of, my mission in life is fulfilled :D

I never saw the point in having a mind out of the gutter... there's nothing much interesting up there anyway ;)
And soooo much fun to be had in a gutter.

Good point.

*dives deeper*

So, a debate has grown on another forum that I visit about Sex Education. They're actually debating which is the more responsible thing to do when teenagers are confronted with the choice of sex. Should they practice abstinence and not have sex, or should they have sex, but use condoms, birth control pills, you know stuff that they should teach you in Sex Ed.

Personally for me, I have tried abstinence, and all it did was make me sexually frustrated, I didn't get any relief until I made love with one of my friends and we both did take precaution, I wore a condom, she took the pill. Abstinence is bullshit, all it does is create sexually frustrated kids who are taught they should be ashame of their body and ashame that they want to do something with another consenting person. I highlighted consenting for a reason. Teenagers and kids are going to have sex, that's just a fact, the least we can do is give them the proper education on how to deal with it and how to protect yourself and the person you're having sex with.

((Poll Coming))

I would have to say abstinence, since the question doesn't imply which is the easiest alternative to deal with, but the one which shows is indicative of the highest showing of responsibility... Since the only form of "protection" which is 100% effective and not causing pregnancy nor allowing for the transmission of any STD's is abstinence, nor is responsibility necessarily taking the easiest path, the most responsible is abstinence.

I would have to say abstinence, since the question doesn't imply which is the easiest alternative to deal with, but the one which shows is indicative of the highest showing of responsibility... Since the only form of "protection" which is 100% effective and not causing pregnancy nor allowing for the transmission of any STD's is abstinence, nor is responsibility necessarily taking the easiest path, the most responsible is abstinence.

Not true. It's only effective in 99.999% of cases. After all, wasn't Mary a virgin?

Not true. It's only effective in 99.999% of cases. After all, wasn't Mary a virgin?

Ok, so, short of an "act of God".... it's effective... which makes the ratio closer to 1/(the entire female population of planet earth since the beginning of time).... which is far more than 99.999%.... need a few billion more 9's after that...

Ok, so, short of an "act of God".... it's effective... which makes the ratio closer to 1/(the entire female population of planet earth since the beginning of time).... which is far more than 99.999%.... need a few billion more 9's after that...

You're more than welcome to come up with an actual number. It's still not 100%.

:D

Responsibility comes from thinking things through and accepting the consequences. Having unprotected sex simply because it feels good is not responsible. But if a person uses contraception (especially a condom) that is responsible. Choosing not to have sex is also a responsible option.

In my case, I am abstinent until marriage for religious reasons. While my choice of religion was dictated by my parents, my level of piety is my own. My parents have told me that they expect me to abstain until marriage. In my case at least, that is as much an admission of reality as it is a parental requirement. Nobody who knows me well thinks that I'll have sex before marriage. In fact, I have a dispute with my parents regarding dating outside of my religion. They think I should be OK with it. I am not.

I went to a Jewish high school, so I never felt pressure to have sex. We were taught that a) sex was intended for marriage, and b) having random sex means you can't control your desires. I have taken both of those teachings to heart.

You're more than welcome to come up with an actual number. It's still not 100%.

:D

No, but it's infinitesimally close to 100%.... I'd rather take my chances with an act of God in such situation... Of course, I'm married, we're both faithful, so I'm really not concerned with any of it.

Responsibility comes from thinking things through and accepting the consequences. Having unprotected sex simply because it feels good is not responsible. But if a person uses contraception (especially a condom) that is responsible. Choosing not to have sex is also a responsible option.

In my case, I am abstinent until marriage for religious reasons. While my choice of religion was dictated by my parents, my level of piety is my own. My parents have told me that they expect me to abstain until marriage. In my case at least, that is as much an admission of reality as it is a parental requirement. Nobody who knows me well thinks that I'll have sex before marriage. In fact, I have a dispute with my parents regarding dating outside of my religion. They think I should be OK with it. I am not.

I went to a Jewish high school, so I never felt pressure to have sex. We were taught that a) sex was intended for marriage, and b) having random sex means you can't control your desires. I have taken both of those teachings to heart.

True on that, I've always connected sex with love... Though I think the general populace these days cannot differentiate between love and lust...

True on that, I've always connected sex with love... Though I think the general populace these days cannot differentiate between love and lust...

No, I think most people can easily make that distinction. It's just that many enjoy lust without love as well as with love. The idea that love and lust must go together is somewhat dated, both can exists perfectly well without the other. It's just that the combination of the improves both quite a bit.