NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't agree they're equivalent, because sex, desirable as it may be, is NOT necessary for a teenager's survival.
Neither is literacy. There are plenty of illiterate teens who grow up to be illiterate adults and do not die of it. Do you think, therefore, that it is irresponsible for teenagers to finish high school? The "it's not necessary to survival" argument is bunk, actually, NB.

By the way, abstinence is also not necessary for a teenager's survival. I would hazard to guess that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in the world today who started having sex while they were teenagers but did not have their ability to survive harmed by it.

All you are doing here is placing two not-necessary-to-survival choices side by side and saying that one is more responsible than the other because it is the one you prefer.

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.
Well, of course, that assertion is false, as I pointed out earlier. Puberty happens when it happens for a reason. The practical reasons for introducing sex into human life at some point during the teen years is dictated by nature, not society. The question is not whether humans should start preparing for sex during their teen years. The question is only how they will prepare for it.

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.
That is absolutely nothing but your opinion. I consider it highly irresponsible to unquestioningly obey the dictates of someone else's opinion as if it were fact.

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.
I know a ton of kids who used abstinence as a means of avoiding taking any responsibility for their sexual decisions. They jumped on board the abstinence-only train because it provided a simple answer that they wouldn't have to think about. It meant getting approval from church groups, parents, and peers within their sub-community, and all they had to do was...well, nothing.

I don't know a single one of those teens who managed to make it through high school without having sex, of course, which kinda goes to show that if you are abstaining for the wrong reasons it's probably not going to last long.

Not true. It's only effective in 99.999% of cases. After all, wasn't Mary a virgin?

Moreover, wasn't Mary chosen to bear the Son of God when she did because she was so pure and everything?

So, telling kids to abstain is pretty risky, since it increases the odds that God will choose to knock them up with a child that He will later have tortured to death. I'd say that's a pretty rotten fate (being a teen parent who later sees their own child brutally murdered).

Fuck like weasels, kids, or the Lord will get you preggers!

Fuck like weasels, kids, or the Lord will get you preggers!

Is this available on a t-shirt?

Is this available on a t-shirt?

It is now!

Neither is literacy. There are plenty of illiterate teens who grow up to be illiterate adults and do not die of it. Do you think, therefore, that it is irresponsible for teenagers to finish high school? The "it's not necessary to survival" argument is bunk, actually, NB.


It's not bunk at all. Literacy has a clear and definable benefit to those who acquire it. What's the clear and definable benefit, in your mind, of having sex early?

But my comments were directed more toward those who DO act as if sex really were necessary for survival. They way they argue it you'd certainly think so...


By the way, abstinence is also not necessary for a teenager's survival. I would hazard to guess that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in the world today who started having sex while they were teenagers but did not have their ability to survive harmed by it.


Irrelevant, considering nobody has claimes that sex was harmful to individuals in and of itself. What's been claimed is that 1)It increases the risk of STDs. 2)It risks teen pregnancy 3)Generally, such behavior has been shown to increase the risk of teen suicide and contributes to self-esteem issues.


All you are doing here is placing two not-necessary-to-survival choices side by side and saying that one is more responsible than the other because it is the one you prefer.


No. I'm comparing action 'A' that carries with it some risks and isn't necessary with action 'B' that has no risk whatsoever and carries its own set of benefits. Therefore, Action 'B; is more responsible. It's that simple.


Well, of course, that assertion is false, as I pointed out earlier. Puberty happens when it happens for a reason. The practical reasons for introducing sex into human life at some point during the teen years is dictated by nature, not society. The question is not whether humans should start preparing for sex during their teen years. The question is only how they will prepare for it.


My assertion is that there's no practical need for teen sex. If you disagree, then what is the practical reason?


That is absolutely nothing but your opinion. I consider it highly irresponsible to unquestioningly obey the dictates of someone else's opinion as if it were fact.

This entire thread is about opinion. That's the point. My opinion is based on a very simple premise (which I'll restate for convenience: I'm comparing action 'A' that carries with it risks and isn't necessary with action 'B' that has no risk whatsoever and carries its own set of benefits. Therefore, Action 'B; is more responsible. It's that simple.

It's not bunk at all. Literacy has a clear and definable benefit to those who acquire it. What's the clear and definable benefit, in your mind, of having sex early?
OK, let's point out two small but significant weaknesses in your argument contained in just this one paragraph:

1) You used the word "survival" as in, "sex is not necessary for teenage survival." Now you are talking about a "benefit." I challenge you to show me how not having that "benefit" harms "survival." Please try to remember the actual standard dictionary meanings of those words.

The fact is that illiterate people survive just fine. They may not be able to attain the same high standard of living that literate people may attain, but that does not equate to not surviving. If you say different, then I challenge you to show me death statistics that show that illiteracy has a negative impact on survival, and to account for the continuing lives of all the illiterate people in the world.

Having done that, I then challenge you to show me how literacy is necessary to survival, rather than just to maintaining a desirable standard of living.

The bottom line is that literacy is a universal social good in the modern world, but it is NOT necessary to human survival, as evidenced by the majority of human history.

In terms of survival, neither literacy nor illiteracy is necessary. Likewise, neither sex nor abstinence is necessary to survive (as an individual, of course). You do not have to have either in order to survive. So your statement that says sex is not necessary for survival so it should not be done is meaningless, because the opposite choice (abstinence) is not any better (i.e. any more necessary). They cancel each other out with their mutual lack of necessity.

Thus, the necessity argument fails.

2) You make mention of "early sex." What does that even mean? I have pointed out more than once that puberty signals the beginning of the biological process of sexual maturation. When the process becomes complete enough for sexual activity to begin will vary from individual to individual, but I fail to see how you can claim that the teen years (as a blanket concept) are too early for sex. Nature obviously disagrees with you, or else puberty would happen later. So according to the simple facts of biology, you are wrong. Teenage sex is not early sex, in and of itself. The only question is whether it is too early for any given individual teenager.

Like the necessity argument, this notion that teen sex is "early sex" is also based on a biased misuse of terms. "Necessary for survival" is not a term that has any appropriateness to this debate, because neither sex nor abstinence is necessary for survival. Likewise, you are using the phrase "early sex" inappropriately, as a pejorative label against a certain kind of behavior you personally do not approve of. But your disapproval aside, biology and psychology determine the right age for starting sex, not you.

But my comments were directed more toward those who DO act as if sex really were necessary for survival. They way they argue it you'd certainly think so...
So, you think you can justify a nonsensical argument by claiming that others are making nonsensical arguments too? This is NSG, not Wonderland, Alice.


Irrelevant, considering nobody has claimes that sex was harmful to individuals in and of itself. What's been claimed is that 1)It increases the risk of STDs. 2)It risks teen pregnancy 3)Generally, such behavior has been shown to increase the risk of teen suicide and contributes to self-esteem issues.
So do lots of things, including abstinence-only education programs.

Does it occur to you that maybe sex isn't the problem? Maybe the problem is the way our society treats sexual issues -- and teenagers?


No. I'm comparing action 'A' that carries with it some risks and isn't necessary with action 'B' that has no risk whatsoever and carries its own set of benefits. Therefore, Action 'B; is more responsible. It's that simple.
No, it's that off the mark. As Neo Art (I think?) tried to point out to you, avoidance is not a taking-responsibility stance. It is a responsibility-neutral stance. It only becomes a taking-responsibility stance under certain circumstances. If crossing the street is dangerous, it does not necessarily follow that staying home is the more responsible choice. It only becomes responsible if I am fulfilling some need by doing it.

So, what need is fulfilled by abstinence that is not fulfilled by being sexually active? For whom or what is the teenager being responsible by abstaining from sex? Why is the teenager under any expectation or obligation to avoid risk in their own life, which would make it responsible for them to choose to abstain?

I have pointed out again and again -- and you have chosen to ignore this fact -- that sex naturally becomes a part of human life during the teen years. This does not mean that teens should have sex at that time, only that it is the appropriate time to start dealing with sexual issues in their lives, because nature dictates that their sex organs will be brought fully online (as it were) during those years, along with all the hormones preparing them to have sex and all the changes to their place in society that come with sexual activity.

There may be many, many reasons for a teenager to choose to abstain, but you have failed to show how "responsibility" dictates that abstinence is a better choice than sex, because you have failed to show how the circumstances of teen's life require abstinence.


My assertion is that there's no practical need for teen sex. If you disagree, then what is the practical reason?
I have already told you several times that there is neither a need for teen sex, nor a need against teen sex.

There are only two practical concerns when it comes to teen sex, and they are as follows:

1) Nature brings sex into the picture during the teen years, and therefore there is a practical need for teens to be educated about sex and to start making their own informed decisions about what to do about it.

2) The practical needs of each individual teenager's life will determine whether sex should be a part of it or not.

Period. And I am tired of telling you this. Ignoring my points will not make them change or go away. Please do not ask me to answer the same question, phrased different ways, over and over.


This entire thread is about opinion. That's the point. My opinion is based on a very simple premise (which I'll restate for convenience: I'm comparing action 'A' that carries with it risks and isn't necessary with action 'B' that has no risk whatsoever and carries its own set of benefits. Therefore, Action 'B; is more responsible. It's that simple.
Yet you claim a foundation of fact for your opinon that simply does not exist. You claim practical considerations which actually do not apply. You claim the existence of a responsibility that also does not apply. Yes, there are practical considerations and responsibilties attached to teen sex issues, but they are not the ones you are basing your argument on.

You are also distorting your own argument by fuzzy language use, talking about such things as "necessity" and "survival" when in fact you are really just talking about simplicity and ease of living, which are significantly less urgent sounding.

I'm trimming the text for length, not to leave anything out, just FYI.

OK, let's point out two small but significant weaknesses in your argument contained in just this one paragraph:

1) You used the word "survival" as in, "sex is not necessary for teenage survival." Now you are talking about a "benefit." I challenge you to show me how not having that "benefit" harms "survival." Please try to remember the actual standard dictionary meanings of those words.


Because, as I said, that comment was directed toward those who were beginning to discuss it as though it WERE a matter of survival. When responding to you directly, who had not done so, I addressed the issues of benefit as a way of trying to acknowledge this.


Having done that, I then challenge you to show me how literacy is necessary to survival, rather than just to maintaining a desirable standard of living.


At no time have I indicated that literacy is necessary for survival. I was very careful about this. That's part of the downgrade to 'benefit.' Remember, it was you who introduced the topic of literacy, not I, and it is nothing more than a benefit, as opposed to a necessity for survival. That's how I referred to it.

To suggest that I portrayed literacy as a need to survive is to set up a strawman argument. Now, I can understand if there was a misunderstanding here, because I followed that up with a note that my original argument (sex =/= necessary to survive) was directed toward those who seemed to suggest that it was. I will be more clear in the future.


In terms of survival, neither literacy nor illiteracy is necessary. Likewise, neither sex nor abstinence is necessary to survive (as an individual, of course). You do not have to have either in order to survive. So your statement that says sex is not necessary for survival so it should not be done is meaningless, because the opposite choice (abstinence) is not any better (i.e. any more necessary). They cancel each other out with their mutual lack of necessity.

Thus, the necessity argument fails.

The "necessity argument" as you're describing it does not exist.

I've never said "people shouldn't have sex because it's not necessary to survive." Rather, I have indicated that it's not necessary for survival, thus abstinence is not a harmful thing. There is an important difference between the two, wouldn't you agree?



2) You make mention of "early sex." What does that even mean?


At some point the thread began to drift toward a focus on teen sex, as opposed to sex in general. That's what I mean.


I have pointed out more than once that puberty signals the beginning of the biological process of sexual maturation. When the process becomes complete enough for sexual activity to begin will vary from individual to individual, but I fail to see how you can claim that the teen years (as a blanket concept) are too early for sex. Nature obviously disagrees with you, or else puberty would happen later. So according to the simple facts of biology, you are wrong. Teenage sex is not early sex, in and of itself. The only question is whether it is too early for any given individual teenager.


It isn't that simple. Teenagers are physically mature enough but not generally emotionally mature enough. (This is why we have age of consent laws.) This is why it gets a special category. We don't hear about "twentysomething pregnancy" statistics as a problem or "thirtysomething pregnancy." We hear about "teen pregnancy" and avoiding it. We hear about teen suicide rates. We hear about teen depression. We hear about teen sex parties. We hear about Teen STD rates and controversy regarding vaccinations and so forth. So yes, "early sex" or "teen sex" is an important distinction. Younger teenagers aren't young adults they're kids. Even at 18 they still have some growing to do although legally they are regarded, at that point, as adults. (except in the case of alcohol consumption)


So, you think you can justify a nonsensical argument by claiming that others are making nonsensical arguments too? This is NSG, not Wonderland, Alice.


That's based on a misinterpretation of my argument.


So do lots of things, including abstinence-only education programs.


I know how much people hate abstinence-only programs (I'm not fan of them myself, as I indicated earlier.) but they're not THE cause of such problems. A much bigger factor, IMIHO is parental lack of involvement and/or communication.


Does it occur to you that maybe sex isn't the problem? Maybe the problem is the way our society treats sexual issues -- and teenagers?


Of course it's occurred to me. I was a teenager once too and I held that view. I've matured since then. Teenagers aren't ready for it. That's my opinion. Disagree? Fine. We agree to disagree. But the thread is about levels of responsibility, and even for adults abstinence is more responsible than a behavior that carries risk, however slight.

(Obviously that last applies to non-monogamous relationships.)


No, it's that off the mark. As Neo Art (I think?) tried to point out to you, avoidance is not a taking-responsibility stance. It is a responsibility-neutral stance. It only becomes a taking-responsibility stance under certain circumstances. If crossing the street is dangerous, it does not necessarily follow that staying home is the more responsible choice. It only becomes responsible if I am fulfilling some need by doing it.


Exactly. Fulfilling a need. You can't claim responsibility if you refuse to cross the street to get grogeries from the market that you require to survive. Since NA's comments were regarding my assertion that teens don't need sex to survive: I'm asking you, again, what's the practical need for teenagers to have sex (especially among younger people/teenagers)?


1)So, what need is fulfilled by abstinence that is not fulfilled by being sexually active? 2)For whom or what is the teenager being responsible by abstaining from sex? 3)Why is the teenager under any expectation or obligation to avoid risk in their own life, which would make it responsible for them to choose to abstain?


1) The need to avoid risky (and immoral, depending on your view) behavior that can only serve as a distraction from more important concerns like education and social development.
2)To him/herself. (And God, depending on your view)
3)The same expectation that one always has to avoid non-necessary behaviors that carry such risk. Why forbid teens from drag racing? Why forbid them from taking drugs (even something as relatively harmless as pot) Why force them to wear seatbelts or eat their dinner?


I have pointed out again and again -- and you have chosen to ignore this fact -- that sex naturally becomes a part of human life during the teen years.

When did I ignore that? (Unless you're defining 'ignore' as failed to agree.)


This does not mean that teens should have sex at that time, only that it is the appropriate time to start dealing with sexual issues in their lives, because nature dictates that their sex organs will be brought fully online (as it were) during those years, along with all the hormones preparing them to have sex and all the changes to their place in society that come with sexual activity.

That's exactly right. This is the age at which these issues must be dealt with. That gets back to my posts way back when about talking with and teaching my teenage son.


There may be many, many reasons for a teenager to choose to abstain, but you have failed to show how "responsibility" dictates that abstinence is a better choice than sex, because you have failed to show how the circumstances of teen's life require abstinence.


Then I suggest either you haven't been reading my answers or you're equating a lack of agreement with a failure to present arguments.


There are only two practical concerns when it comes to teen sex, and they are as follows:

1) Nature brings sex into the picture during the teen years, and therefore there is a practical need for teens to be educated about sex and to start making their own informed decisions about what to do about it.

2) The practical needs of each individual teenager's life will determine whether sex should be a part of it or not.


1)Is why sex ed occurs. 2)Is an ambiguous statement. Can you give an example?


Period. And I am tired of telling you this. Ignoring my points will not make them change or go away. Please do not ask me to answer the same question, phrased different ways, over and over.


Good. Please stop then.


Yet you claim a foundation of fact for your opinon that simply does not exist. You claim practical considerations which actually do not apply. You claim the existence of a responsibility that also does not apply. Yes, there are practical considerations and responsibilties attached to teen sex issues, but they are not the ones you are basing your argument on.


This is a very nonspecific statement. Please elaborate.


You are also distorting your own argument by fuzzy language use, talking about such things as "necessity" and "survival" when in fact you are really just talking about simplicity and ease of living, which are significantly less urgent sounding.

This has been addressed.

Fuck like weasels, kids, or the Lord will get you preggers!
or

"Abstain and be 'pure' and as his Parents, you can give God a time out!"

or

"Abstain and be 'pure' and as his Parents, you can give God a time out!"

Now it's all very confusing, didn't God order us to go forth and multiply?

Now it's all very confusing, didn't God order us to go forth and multiply?

I never did like God, now i hear he wants me to do more mathematics? Oh of course to design his new universe, where there isn't a race of incredibly annoying, stupid, clever, hateful, loving human beings, and a world of volcanos, as they are easier to control, than those psychotic humans.

He said to go forth and to preach to all nations.

Why do you think Convents stress chasity?

It strikes me that people say she said a lot of things, most of which contradicts each other. People huh!:D

Now it's all very confusing, didn't God order us to go forth and multiply?

He said to go forth and to preach to all nations.

Why do you think Convents stress chasity?

It strikes me that people say she said a lot of things, most of which contradicts each other. People huh!:D

"Get thee to the nunnery!" :D

Yah know... Nuns consider themselves "married to Jesus"... so wouldn't that make Jesus a Polygamist? :confused:

"Get thee to the nunnery!" :D

Yah know... Nuns consider themselves "married to Jesus"... so wouldn't that make Jesus a Polygamist? :confused:

Heh on a more personal note, and please excuse my vulgarity, my dad fucked a nun! No honestly, he really did!

I hate condoms. Girl got to use a pill

I hate condoms. Girl got to use a pill

Said the few million Africans before contracting HIV.
Your life, do you want it to end so soon?

Said the few million Africans before contracting HIV.
Your life, do you want it to end so soon?

I think this would make more sense.

I'm trimming the text for length, not to leave anything out, just FYI.



Because, as I said, that comment was directed toward those who were beginning to discuss it as though it WERE a matter of survival. When responding to you directly, who had not done so, I addressed the issues of benefit as a way of trying to acknowledge this.
And as I was trying to say, because of the reasons I mentioned (several times), arguments that sex is necessary to the survival of an individual and therefore should be decided in favor of, are just as nonsensical as your argument that sex is not necessary to survival and therefore should be decided against. Nonsense versus nonsense -- reminds me of Tweedledee versus Tweedledum. That battle didn't go anywhere, either, and neither combatant came out looking less foolish at the end.


At no time have I indicated that literacy is necessary for survival. I was very careful about this. That's part of the downgrade to 'benefit.' Remember, it was you who introduced the topic of literacy, not I, and it is nothing more than a benefit, as opposed to a necessity for survival. That's how I referred to it.

To suggest that I portrayed literacy as a need to survive is to set up a strawman argument. Now, I can understand if there was a misunderstanding here, because I followed that up with a note that my original argument (sex =/= necessary to survive) was directed toward those who seemed to suggest that it was. I will be more clear in the future.
Yes you did, and no it isn't. Please do try to keep up with your own statements. It will make this go much more smoothly.

1) You said sex is not necessary for survival.

2) I said neither is literacy.

3) You came back and said that literacy is too necessary. If you meant to change the subject of your own point and abandon your "survival" claims, you should have said so. As written in this thread, you most certainly were saying that literacy is necessary for survival, even if you didn't realize it.


The "necessity argument" as you're describing it does not exist.
I know. That's why I could not understand why you tried to make it.

I've never said "people shouldn't have sex because it's not necessary to survive." Rather, I have indicated that it's not necessary for survival, thus abstinence is not a harmful thing. There is an important difference between the two, wouldn't you agree?
No, actually, I would be more likely to see that as a weak backpedal on your part. Until this time, you have consistently framed abstinence as "better" choice than sex (not just a non-harmful one), and you have consistently described sex as having bad effects on teens, and you have stated clearly that, since sex is not necessary for survival, there is no reason for teens to run the risks of it. If you would like to abandon that position now, feel free to do so -- honestly.



At some point the thread began to drift toward a focus on teen sex, as opposed to sex in general. That's what I mean.
Mm-hmm.


It isn't that simple. Teenagers are physically mature enough but not generally emotionally mature enough. <snip>
Yadda, yadda, no kidding, really? Astounding, the way you managed to repeat my own point back at me, just as if you had heard it from me and comprehended its meaning.

Different parts of human bodies and brains mature at different rates. THAT IS WHY I SAID MATURITY/READINESS FOR SEX VARIES FROM TEEN TO TEEN. I put that in capitals in the (vain?) hope that you will not make me repeat it again. (*starting to get annoyed*)



That's based on a misinterpretation of my argument.
Feel free to make yourself clear any time now.


I know how much people hate abstinence-only programs (I'm not fan of them myself, as I indicated earlier.) but they're not THE cause of such problems. A much bigger factor, IMIHO is parental lack of involvement and/or communication.
I dispute that, of course, but it hardly matters, since you are not actually addressing the point.


Of course it's occurred to me. I was a teenager once too and I held that view. I've matured since then. Teenagers aren't ready for it. That's my opinion. Disagree? Fine. We agree to disagree. But the thread is about levels of responsibility, and even for adults abstinence is more responsible than a behavior that carries risk, however slight.
Again, you present your opinion as if it were fact. The simple addendum "in my opinion" will make your debates (a) less tense and (b) shorter. Please keep that in mind. The disclaimer that I am allowed to disagree with you is not enough, because you have failed to prove, as a matter of fact, that risk avoidance = responsibility in all cases. So your assertion that, because abstinence is lower risk, that alone makes it more responsible is nothing but your opinion. As such, it is nice for you that you have your opinion, but the fact that you believe this is not persuasive to anyone else.

(Obviously that last applies to non-monogamous relationships.)
Oh, so if teens only ever have sex with one person while they are teens, you would be okay with it?



Exactly. Fulfilling a need. You can't claim responsibility if you refuse to cross the street to get grogeries from the market that you require to survive. Since NA's comments were regarding my assertion that teens don't need sex to survive: I'm asking you, again, what's the practical need for teenagers to have sex (especially among younger people/teenagers)?
And I ask you again (repetitiveness is a really annoying habit, NB; please stop it), where is the practical need for teens NOT to have sex? What groceries are not gotten, what rent is not paid, what job is not kept or class not attended, if teens are sexually active?

If there is no practical reason NOT to do it, then choosing not to do it is not a question of practical responsibility.


1) The need to avoid risky (and immoral, depending on your view) behavior that can only serve as a distraction from more important concerns like education and social development.
2)To him/herself. (And God, depending on your view)
3)The same expectation that one always has to avoid non-necessary behaviors that carry such risk. Why forbid teens from drag racing? Why forbid them from taking drugs (even something as relatively harmless as pot) Why force them to wear seatbelts or eat their dinner?
Items 1 and 2 are not your concern, and you have no business dictating such things to anyone, including teenagers. You might be able to get away with it for a few years if you are their parent, but for other people's kids, your opinion on this is just so much chin-music.

The fact is, it is their life and their body and, ultimately, their decision to make, not yours (even if you are their parent). Another fact of the teen years is that they are the period during which humans transition from being children to being adults. The end result of that process will be that other adults, including their parents, will lose all authority to tell them what to do. Even if they totally fuck up their lives, they will be in charge of themselves, not you. During the teen years, one by one, different parts of life will pass from parental/adult control to the control of the soon-to-be-non-child. Sex is one of those things. Ultimately, whether they will abstain or engage in sex, it does not matter if you think other things are more important. It is up to them to make those priorities, not you.

As for item 3, all those things you list are things that directly affect ability to survive. Are we back to arguing over whether sex and abstinence are equally or unequally irrelevant to that?


When did I ignore that? (Unless you're defining 'ignore' as failed to agree.)
No, I am defining "ignore" as not respond to and continue to push a point of argument that was directly addressed by the thing you are not responding to.


That's exactly right. This is the age at which these issues must be dealt with. That gets back to my posts way back when about talking with and teaching my teenage son.
Mm-hmm.


Then I suggest either you haven't been reading my answers or you're equating a lack of agreement with a failure to present arguments.
No, I am not making that equation.



1)Is why sex ed occurs. 2)Is an ambiguous statement. Can you give an example?



Good. Please stop then.



This is a very nonspecific statement. Please elaborate.
All of these are asking me to repeat things I had already said in that post and in earlier posts to you. Per your request, I will not type them again. Read the thread if you want to know what my argument is.


This has been addressed.
Poorly addressed, unfortunately.

I hate condoms. Girl got to use a pill
Thank you for presenting the argument in favor of comprehensive sex education, both for abstinent and sexually active young people. This kind of stupid has to be trained out of people, because waiting until marriage will not make it not be a problem.

You know, going back and forth with you used to irritate me, because I always wanted to believe that on some level you were genuinely interested in communicating. After this last couple, I just can't accept that possibility anymore. Now it's just fun to see you figuratively jumping up and down like an angry Donald Duck, continually insisting that I'm somehow forcing you to repeat arguments.

(Just for fun, I bolded each incidence)

It's almost like you think that by repeating an erroneous statement enough times, it will somehow become true by sheer brute force. Case in point: Assertions about things you claim I said, but never actually did. You repeat that over and over, maybe thinking that sooner or later the sheer volume of repetition will force me to acknowledge a statement I never actually made.

Does that normally work for you?

And as I was trying to say, because of the reasons I mentioned (several times), arguments that sex is necessary to the survival of an individual and therefore should be decided in favor of, are just as nonsensical as your argument that sex is not necessary to survival and therefore should be decided against. Nonsense versus nonsense -- reminds me of Tweedledee versus Tweedledum. That battle didn't go anywhere, either, and neither combatant came out looking less foolish at the end.


No, that isn't the point I've been making. See, M, this is why I can't really take this particular exchange seriously anymore... because it doesn't take a classically trained genius to get my actual point. Others in this thread got it just fine. Now, I don't think you're stupid, so I can only conclude that you're either pathologically obstinate, or willfully mischaracterizing it in order to try and save face at this point. My argument has been, all along, that sexual abstinence is a more responsible approach than any amount of 'safe sex' or planning. The whole survival thing only came up in order to illustrate a complete lack of NEED to have sex that counterbalances the risk.


Yes you did, and no it isn't. Please do try to keep up with your own statements. It will make this go much more smoothly.

1) You said sex is not necessary for survival.

2) I said neither is literacy.

3) You came back and said that literacy is too necessary. If you meant to change the subject of your own point and abandon your "survival" claims, you should have said so. As written in this thread, you most certainly were saying that literacy is necessary for survival, even if you didn't realize it.


Ok go find the quote and post it. Go on. If you can, it'll be a conclusive slam-dunk. I haven't deleted any of my own posts in this thread so there's no way I could hide it.


No, actually, I would be more likely to see that as a weak backpedal on your part. Until this time, you have consistently framed abstinence as "better" choice than sex (not just a non-harmful one), and you have consistently described sex as having bad effects on teens, and you have stated clearly that, since sex is not necessary for survival, there is no reason for teens to run the risks of it. If you would like to abandon that position now, feel free to do so -- honestly.

Not a backpedal at all.. it's actually what I've been saying all along. So you said 'no' in response to my question which means you can't see the significant difference in meaning between the following two statements:

"People shouldn't have sex because it's not necessary to survive."
and
"It's not necessary for survival, thus abstinence is not a harmful thing."


Yadda, yadda, no kidding, really? Astounding, the way you managed to repeat my own point back at me, just as if you had heard it from me and comprehended its meaning.


Nice try!


Different parts of human bodies and brains mature at different rates. THAT IS WHY I SAID MATURITY/READINESS FOR SEX VARIES FROM TEEN TO TEEN. I put that in capitals in the (vain?) hope that you will not make me repeat it again. (*starting to get annoyed*)


My advice, if you're getting annoyed, is to read more carefully.

Here's the thing. You've been trying to use this as an excuse for suggesting that some undetermined subset of the teenage population is perfectly ready for sex and thus people like myself are in the wrong for suggesting that teens, in general, would be well advised to avoid sex entirely. In your hypothetical scenario, are you suggesting that some shouldn't? Because if so I presume you've devised some sort of system for separating the ready from the not ready, to help ensure that only those who are ready are out there doing it?

But that's impossible, isn't it? So what's the solution? You seem to be suggesting that the solution is to not do anything and to hell with those who aren't ready... They'll just have to cope while those who are ready enjoy hapy, fulfilling, adult type relationships? (Which, in case you hadn't noticed, our legal system defines such people as not-adults in the first place... so you seem to have an uphil battle there.)

I prefer my approach, thanks.


I dispute that, of course, but it hardly matters, since you are not actually addressing the point to my satisfaction, which will only come about by you admitting to everything I am arbitrarily accusing you of, then acknowledging the total rightness of my point.

Fixed.


Again, you present your opinion as if it were fact. The simple addendum "in my opinion" will make your debates (a) less tense and (b) shorter. Please keep that in mind. The disclaimer that I am allowed to disagree with you is not enough, because you have failed to prove, as a matter of fact, that risk avoidance = responsibility in all cases. So your assertion that, because abstinence is lower risk, that alone makes it more responsible is nothing but your opinion. As such, it is nice for you that you have your opinion, but the fact that you believe this is not persuasive to anyone else.


At least I've defined my assertion. And I do not see it as a matter of opinion unless you have a radically different understanding of the words 'risk' and 'responsibility.'

To me, it's a simple matter of a=a, unless you want to obfuscate it.


Oh, so if teens only ever have sex with one person while they are teens, you would be okay with it?


As I've indicated, I don't think teens are mature enough for marriage. As for adults, then the answer is obvious.


And I ask you again (repetitiveness is a really annoying habit, NB; please stop it), where is the practical need for teens NOT to have sex? What groceries are not gotten, what rent is not paid, what job is not kept or class not attended, if teens are sexually active?

If you don't want me to repeat answers, why do you repeat questions? (Incidentally, you didn't answer my question. I'll assume that you don't want to be a hypocrite and simply forgot. My question was, (and I asked you this a few posts back) what is the practical necessity for teen sex?)


If there is no practical reason NOT to do it, then choosing not to do it is not a question of practical responsibility.


I would agree, IF there were no practical disadvantage.


Items 1 and 2 are not your concern, and you have no business dictating such things to anyone, including teenagers. You might be able to get away with it for a few years if you are their parent, but for other people's kids, your opinion on this is just so much chin-music.

The fact is, it is their life and their body and, ultimately, their decision to make, not yours (even if you are their parent). Another fact of the teen years is that they are the period during which humans transition from being children to being adults. The end result of that process will be that other adults, including their parents, will lose all authority to tell them what to do. Even if they totally fuck up their lives, they will be in charge of themselves, not you. During the teen years, one by one, different parts of life will pass from parental/adult control to the control of the soon-to-be-non-child. Sex is one of those things. Ultimately, whether they will abstain or engage in sex, it does not matter if you think other things are more important. It is up to them to make those priorities, not you.


Absolutely wrong. As a parent I have every right to tell my children how to manage their bodies. To suggest otherwise is to suggest any parent who presses their kid to go to bed early or to eat his brussel sprouts is overstepping their rights. Telling my kids there's no way in hell they're bringing a girlfriend over to the house is part of my being a parent and raising them right, not some kind of civil rights violation.


As for item 3, all those things you list are things that directly affect ability to survive. Are we back to arguing over whether sex and abstinence are equally or unequally irrelevant to that?


You brought it up. You tell me.


No, I am defining "ignore" as not respond to and continue to push a point of argument that was directly addressed by the thing you are not responding to.


How ironic...


All of these are asking me to repeat things I had already said in that post and in earlier posts to you. Per your request, I will not type them again. Read the thread if you want to know what my argument is.


Actually, "Good. Please stop then." doesn't ask you to repeat anything...

Dude, no offense, but if you can't connect those simple dots, it's no wonder you're missing my points.

Good. Please stop then.
Poorly addressed, unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

IYHO

It's almost like you think that by repeating an erroneous statement enough times, it will somehow become true by sheer brute force. Case in point: Assertions about things you claim I said, but never actually did. You repeat that over and over, maybe thinking that sooner or later the sheer volume of repetition will force me to acknowledge a statement I never actually made.

Does that normally work for you?



No, that isn't the point I've been making. See, M, this is why I can't really take this particular exchange seriously anymore... because it doesn't take a classically trained genius to get my actual point. Others in this thread got it just fine. Now, I don't think you're stupid, so I can only conclude that you're either pathologically obstinate, or willfully mischaracterizing it in order to try and save face at this point. My argument has been, all along, that sexual abstinence is a more responsible approach than any amount of 'safe sex' or planning. The whole survival thing only came up in order to illustrate a complete lack of NEED to have sex that counterbalances the risk.


Um, actually, no.
I think the point you literally made a good few pages back was that it's not necessary for survival and might pose risks, which would be why in your opinion, it's better to not allow teens doing it.
What M was pointing out is that most of our lifes, both as teens and adults, consists of doing things that are not really necessary, but we enjoy them and take the risks, big or small as the case may be.

See, me, for example, I've never got a driver's licence because to me, the risk of actually hurting someone (or even get hurt myself) in a car crash is just not worth the enjoyment of being able to get wherever I want with a little less hassle and a bit faster. Yet I'm willing to bet that you won't tell your son that he can't get his driver's licence once he turns 17. Despite the fact that cars, too, tend to be a massive distraction for teenage boys and can in many cases lead them to neglect school work.

I'm not telling you how you should raise your kids, don't get me wrong there. I'm simply saying that I don't believe that concerns about school work or possible STDs are the main reason why you wouldn't want your son to have sex as a teenager. I get the impression that what you're doing is to try and rationalise basically irrational religious ideas.

Um, actually, no.
I think the point you literally made a good few pages back was that it's not necessary for survival and might pose risks, which would be why in your opinion, it's better to not allow teens doing it.
What M was pointing out is that most of our lifes, both as teens and adults, consists of doing things that are not really necessary, but we enjoy them and take the risks, big or small as the case may be.


Well, you're right in that you've cited one of my reasons. I'm not going to deny that religion does play a big part of it, but it's not the end-all and be-all answer.


See, me, for example, I've never got a driver's licence because to me, the risk of actually hurting someone (or even get hurt myself) in a car crash is just not worth the enjoyment of being able to get wherever I want with a little less hassle and a bit faster. Yet I'm willing to bet that you won't tell your son that he can't get his driver's licence once he turns 17. Despite the fact that cars, too, tend to be a massive distraction for teenage boys and can in many cases lead them to neglect school work.


You make a good point, but I'd point out that having access to a car and a license to drive it are very different from sexual activity because:
1)It carries an actual and obvious benefit. (Having independent transportation, learning responsibility by being held accountable for the car and its maintanence, perhaps insurance, etc.)
2)Letting my son drive doesn't require that someone else do it with him. In other words, if my kid is responsible enough (nominally) to have sex, it doesn't guarantee that his partner of choice is. Driving a car can be restricted to a solo activity.

(Solo sex is quite safe ;) )

3)I can take the car away should he prove unable to handle it. (Hopefully before disaster hits) Virginity is a non-refundable item, as it were.


I'm not telling you how you should raise your kids, don't get me wrong there. I'm simply saying that I don't believe that concerns about school work or possible STDs are the main reason why you wouldn't want your son to have sex as a teenager. I get the impression that what you're doing is to try and rationalise basically irrational religious ideas.

I can understand why you'd get that impression. The fact is, I believe there's a reason why morality guides us as it does. Maintaining a high moral standard has very real and significant practical benefits. As a side example, take something as relatively minor as the Mormon prohibition against certain kinds of drinks. By adhering to it, I miss the gratification of a morning cup of coffee or a pleasant buzz while watching a footbal game, but the benefits are that I have reduced risk of high blood pressure, liver damage, kindey damage, heart disease, and my risk of prostate cancer is drastically reduced. I don't have to worry about alcoholism nor drug addiction. So which is more responsible? The activity that provides gratification with no measurable benefit, or abstaining for the long-term benefits?

Now, sex DOES serve a number of practical purposes within a monogamous relationship with virtually no risk of STDs or other associated problems associated with, especially, teen sexual activity. Monogamous couples with a healthy sexual relastionship have lower stress, tighter emotional bonds, tend to be happier, and live longer. These do not apply to those who are not yet mature enough to be in such a relationship.

You know, going back and forth with you used to irritate me, because I always wanted to believe that on some level you were genuinely interested in communicating.

<snip a whole post's worth of condescension, near-insults, and off-point, non-responsive remarks>

Going back and forth with you has always irritated me, because I never really believed you were genuinely interested in communicating at any level, despite your protestations otherwise. I only respond to your posts for the sake of exploring certain aspects of the general topic.

But for now, I will decline to chase you around this particular circle any longer because it is boring, repetitive and pointless. I stand by my reading of your argument and my responses to it, and I leave it to other readers to judge whether you said what you said, and whether my remarks are reasonable or not.

Going back and forth with you has always irritated me, because I never really believed you were genuinely interested in communicating at any level, despite your protestations otherwise. I only respond to your posts for the sake of exploring certain aspects of the general topic.

But for now, I will decline to chase you around this particular circle any longer because it is boring, repetitive and pointless. I stand by my reading of your argument and my responses to it, and I leave it to other readers to judge whether you said what you said, and whether my remarks are reasonable or not.

Fair enough, but I do want to make one point, more for the benefit of observers than for any hope of improving things between us. First, for you to include this in your quote of me:

"<snip a whole post's worth of condescension, near-insults, and off-point, non-responsive remarks>"

is hypocrisy at best. There's a bunch of that nonsense in your post to me so check the mote in your own eye before you go for this sort of hyperbole. I too found your post to be loaded with condescention, hyperbole, evasions and irrelevance, but I at least gave it due response. Next time I won't.

Second, the next time you adamantly get on your high horse and insist that I said something that I insist I haven't, you'd better be ready to back it with a quote right up front, because next time we go at it I'm going to remember that when the time came to back up your accusations, you flinched, and I will simply ignore you otherwise.

Since the question keeps getting brought up:

Actual and obvious benefits to sex include an improved immune system. This has been concluded by recent medical studies.

I suggest that the benefit of an improved immune system is of more practical importance than the benefit of having access to a car. So if we are weighing the relative risk/benefit values of this or that activity, it would seem to me far more important to decide whether to have sex or not, than to decide whether to drive a car or not.

Another argument against sex falls by the wayside. There are indeed practical benefits to having sex, so the claim that there are none fails, on a point of fact.

NB says that religion is not the be-all/end-all of his argument, but none of his other claimed foundations can stand up to scrutiny, so I wonder what else can there be at the heart of his position?

Fair enough, but I do want to make one point, more for the benefit of observers than for any hope of improving things between us. First, for you to include this in your quote of me:

"<snip a whole post's worth of condescension, near-insults, and off-point, non-responsive remarks>"

is hypocrisy at best. There's a bunch of that nonsense in your post to me so check the mote in your own eye before you go for this sort of hyperbole. I too found your post to be loaded with condescention, hyperbole, evasions and irrelevance, but I at least gave it due response. Next time I won't.

Second, the next time you adamantly get on your high horse and insist that I said something that I insist I haven't, you'd better be ready to back it with a quote right up front, because next time we go at it I'm going to remember that when the time came to back up your accusations, you flinched, and I will simply ignore you otherwise.
You can insist you didn't say what you said all you like. It's in print, NB. You put it out there, and I am not the only person who can see it.

And as far as my attitude goes, I'll quote "The Big Sleep" (I think it was):

Villain: "I don't like your manners."

Humphrey Bogart: "That's all right. They're not for sale."

A while ago, you tg'd me with an olive branch kind of a message, and that was very nice of you, but I said to you then that it wasn't necessary. I also think now that there's no point to it. The friction between us has nothing to do with not understanding each other. Apparently it's because we just don't like each other. And that's fine, really. We don't have to like everybody.

Since the question keeps getting brought up:

Actual and obvious benefits to sex include an improved immune system. This has been concluded by recent medical studies.


It would be interesting to read such a study, not only to determine its veracity but also the extent of such a benefit, especially in an age where technology gives us access to all sorts of vaccinations.


I suggest that the benefit of an improved immune system is of more practical importance than the benefit of having access to a car. So if we are weighing the relative risk/benefit values of this or that activity, it would seem to me far more important to decide whether to have sex or not, than to decide whether to drive a car or not.


Depending on the results above, this is certainly a matter of opinion.


Another argument against sex falls by the wayside. There are indeed practical benefits to having sex, so the claim that there are none fails, on a point of fact.


Contingent on the above.


NB says that religion is not the be-all/end-all of his argument, but none of his other claimed foundations can stand up to scrutiny, so I wonder what else can there be at the heart of his position?

I wonder what that's supposed to mean, or whether you'll have the chops to say it.

You make a good point, but I'd point out that having access to a car and a license to drive it are very different from sexual activity because:
1)It carries an actual and obvious benefit. (Having independent transportation, learning responsibility by being held accountable for the car and its maintanence, perhaps insurance, etc.)
2)Letting my son drive doesn't require that someone else do it with him. In other words, if my kid is responsible enough (nominally) to have sex, it doesn't guarantee that his partner of choice is. Driving a car can be restricted to a solo activity.

(Solo sex is quite safe ;) )

3)I can take the car away should he prove unable to handle it. (Hopefully before disaster hits) Virginity is a non-refundable item, as it were.


1) I daresay not having a car has way more benefits - you remain fitter as you walk or cycle more, and you are reducing your carbon footprint by not using up more fossil fuel than necessary.
2) The fact that your kid might be a safe driver does not mean all other drivers he might encounter are. I'd say at least half the people dying in traffic accidents did not cause the accident. And I'd also like to point out that more people die each year in car crashes than because of STDs (just to get the prespectives right here ;))
3) How can you tell if he's unable to handle it? He might drive safely with you in the car, and happily race along when you're not.


I can understand why you'd get that impression. The fact is, I believe there's a reason why morality guides us as it does. Maintaining a high moral standard has very real and significant practical benefits. As a side example, take something as relatively minor as the Mormon prohibition against certain kinds of drinks. By adhering to it, I miss the gratification of a morning cup of coffee or a pleasant buzz while watching a footbal game, but the benefits are that I have reduced risk of high blood pressure, liver damage, kindey damage, heart disease, and my risk of prostate cancer is drastically reduced. I don't have to worry about alcoholism nor drug addiction. So which is more responsible? The activity that provides gratification with no measurable benefit, or abstaining for the long-term benefits?

That reminds me of a very old quote... "You don't necessarily live longer if you live healthily, but, boy, it will seem much longer to you".
You do take certain risks, and don't take others. From an ecological point of view, I could argue that by driving, you are causing health problems for yourself, your children and others, including increased risk of cancer, asthma and neurodermitis. Is that moral behaviour?
Sure, I have to wait for the bus each morning and evening, and I have to drag home heavy shopping bags. But the benefit is that I'm doing a small bit to reduce those risks for everyone.


Now, sex DOES serve a number of practical purposes within a monogamous relationship with virtually no risk of STDs or other associated problems associated with, especially, teen sexual activity. Monogamous couples with a healthy sexual relastionship have lower stress, tighter emotional bonds, tend to be happier, and live longer. These do not apply to those who are not yet mature enough to be in such a relationship.

So teens that have sex do not enjoy it, it does not lower their stress level, it does not improve the emotional bonds with their partners and it doesn't make them happier? I think you'll have a hard time backing this one up in any way or form.

It would be interesting to read such a study, not only to determine its veracity but also the extent of such a benefit, especially in an age where technology gives us access to all sorts of vaccinations.



Depending on the results above, this is certainly a matter of opinion.



Contingent on the above.
Google is everybody's friend. Here are the first two entries from a google search (http://search.earthlink.net/search?q=health+benefits+of+sex+medical+study&area=earthlink-ws&FD=0&channel=narrowband&abtcgid=87&abtli=1 -- in case you want to look for more):

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

The above article quotes:

-- "In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal..."

-- "2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above... the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D."

-- "2002 study of 293 women [by] American psychologist Gordon Gallup"

-- "Wilkes University in Pennsylvania"

-- "A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International"

-- "Dr. J. Francois Eid, a urologist with Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital"

-- "Dr. Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol"

-- "Dr. George Winch Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Elko, Nev."

And another:

http://nydailynews.healthology.com/sexual-health/sexual-health-information/article1201.htm

This article quotes:

-- "a study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health"

-- "study, published in the journal Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation ... study author Dr. Harvey J. Kliman, a research scientist at Yale University School of Medicine"

-- "a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association"

-- "Dr. Carol Rinkleib Ellison, a San Francisco-based psychologist and author of Women's Sexualities"

Both of the articles list the specific health benefits of sex covered by the studies and quoted experts.

So, all these doctors, scientists, universities and medical journals on one hand, and on the other hand, you. Hm, which do I find more convincing...


I wonder what that's supposed to mean, or whether you'll have the chops to say it.
It means that I think you are trying to disguise a religious argument as a secular one. Clear enough for you?

1) I daresay not having a car has way more benefits - you remain fitter as you walk or cycle more, and you are reducing your carbon footprint by not using up more fossil fuel than necessary.
2) The fact that your kid might be a safe driver does not mean all other drivers he might encounter are. I'd say at least half the people dying in traffic accidents did not cause the accident. And I'd also like to point out that more people die each year in car crashes than because of STDs (just to get the prespectives right here ;))
3) How can you tell if he's unable to handle it? He might drive safely with you in the car, and happily race along when you're not.


This is mostly a matter of opinion, so we will likely have to agree to disagree, but I will say that:
1)Fitter... maybe, assuming the distances involved can be traversed another way. Around here there is a lot of rural area where walking or even biking just isn't a practical option. (Even Mormon missionaries drive cars!)

The point about the carbon footprint... well I disagree but that's for another thread :)

2)True, but again, in an area like this one, a car is seen as something of a necessity.

3)He might... But it's like anything else. I dont know if you have any kids yet but part of raising them is teaching them as best you can and extending to them a certain level of trust. Sometimes they live up to your expectations, sometimes they don't. It's all a matter of how well you know them, and balancing it with the right level of trust and independence as they become able to handle it.


That reminds me of a very old quote... "You don't necessarily live longer if you live healthily, but, boy, it will seem much longer to you".


You might be interested to know: Statistically, Mormons live, on average, 11 years longer than the general population in the United States.


You do take certain risks, and don't take others. From an ecological point of view, I could argue that by driving, you are causing health problems for yourself, your children and others, including increased risk of cancer, asthma and neurodermitis. Is that moral behaviour?
Sure, I have to wait for the bus each morning and evening, and I have to drag home heavy shopping bags. But the benefit is that I'm doing a small bit to reduce those risks for everyone.


I'd much rather have my son inside a car than standing at a bus stop inhaling all that passing exhaust ;)

But in seriousness, that's also a matter of ecological debate which would fall outside the topic... but your point is taken. Again, it's a matter of weighing the risks vs. the benefits, and there's no useful benefit for teen sexual behavior that makes abstinence a less responsible option.


So teens that have sex do not enjoy it, it does not lower their stress level, it does not improve the emotional bonds with their partners and it doesn't make them happier? I think you'll have a hard time backing this one up in any way or form.

Hold on, let's be clear. That isn't exactly what I said (and obviously teens enjoy it!). What I said was that they aren't mature enough for such a relationship.

Google is everybody's friend. Here are the first two entries from a google search (http://search.earthlink.net/search?q=health+benefits+of+sex+medical+study&area=earthlink-ws&FD=0&channel=narrowband&abtcgid=87&abtli=1 -- in case you want to look for more):

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

The above article quotes:

-- "In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal..."

-- "2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above... the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D."

-- "2002 study of 293 women [by] American psychologist Gordon Gallup"

-- "Wilkes University in Pennsylvania"

-- "A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International"

-- "Dr. J. Francois Eid, a urologist with Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital"

-- "Dr. Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol"

-- "Dr. George Winch Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Elko, Nev."

And another:

http://nydailynews.healthology.com/sexual-health/sexual-health-information/article1201.htm

This article quotes:

-- "a study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health"

-- "study, published in the journal Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation ... study author Dr. Harvey J. Kliman, a research scientist at Yale University School of Medicine"

-- "a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association"

-- "Dr. Carol Rinkleib Ellison, a San Francisco-based psychologist and author of Women's Sexualities"

Both of the articles list the specific health benefits of sex covered by the studies and quoted experts.

So, all these doctors, scientists, universities and medical journals on one hand, and on the other hand, you. Hm, which do I find more convincing...


Very good. That coincides nicely with what I said to Cabra about monogamous adult relationships. I have no problem condeing that point in cases of adult monogamous relationships generally.

It doesn't, however, prove an advantage for sexually active teenagers over ones that choose abstinence.


It means that I think you are trying to disguise a religious argument as a secular one. Clear enough for you?

Yes, thank you. And you're wrong. Have a nice day! :)

Interesting. I would like to focus on this Muravyets, and not the rest of the stuff you and Neo B are going back and forth on.

now some questions. the improvements to the Immune system are due to actual mixing of body fluids? or is it the chemical reactions the body undergoes when orgasm is reached?

the question is asked because if it does require the mixing of body fluids, then safe sex won't help the immune system.

if it's due to orgasm, then mastrubation would be enough. All the articles I could find only mention 'Sexual Activity' which can and does include masturbastion (solo or mutual) and does not mean penetrative sex.

If I may,

I believe many of those benefits derive from the emotional well-being of a committed and secure relationship that is part and parcel of a healthy sex life with one's significant other. I haven't the time to read each and every one of those links but I have read about this elsewhere.

Interesting. I would like to focus on this Muravyets, and not the rest of the stuff you and Neo B are going back and forth on.
Since the question keeps getting brought up:

Actual and obvious benefits to sex include an improved immune system. This has been concluded by recent medical studies.

I suggest that the benefit of an improved immune system is of more practical importance than the benefit of having access to a car. So if we are weighing the relative risk/benefit values of this or that activity, it would seem to me far more important to decide whether to have sex or not, than to decide whether to drive a car or not.

Another argument against sex falls by the wayside. There are indeed practical benefits to having sex, so the claim that there are none fails, on a point of fact.

NB says that religion is not the be-all/end-all of his argument, but none of his other claimed foundations can stand up to scrutiny, so I wonder what else can there be at the heart of his position?
now some questions. the improvements to the Immune system are due to actual mixing of body fluids? or is it the chemical reactions the body undergoes when orgasm is reached?

the question is asked because if it does require the mixing of body fluids, then safe sex won't help the immune system.

if it's due to orgasm, then mastrubation would be enough. All the articles I could find only mention 'Sexual Activity' which can and does include masturbastion (solo or mutual) and does not mean penetrative sex.

Very good. That coincides nicely with what I said to Cabra about monogamous adult relationships. I have no problem condeing that point in cases of adult monogamous relationships generally.

It doesn't, however, prove an advantage for sexually active teenagers over ones that choose abstinence.
I think it does. I think your entire argument -- that it's okay for adults to have sex (so long as they do so in the right kind of relationship, according to you), but it is never okay for teenagers to have sex -- fails because you fail to prove that teenagers are ALWAYS, in every case, not mature enough for sex.

You have consistently ignored my point that the onset of puberty signals the beginning of the process of becoming mature enough for sex, and that the speed of this process varies from individual to individual. You cannot deny that this is true (not without making yourself look foolish). This being the case, there is no way you can argue that teens cannot be mature enough for sex just because they are teens. Teen maturity levels MUST be judged on a case by case basis, because the rate of individual variation is so great, it makes a real difference.

This is why several people have argued that simply saying teens shouldn't have sex, period-done-end-of-discussion, is nothing more than drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, without reference to reality. It has nothing to do with teenagers' responsibilities, or with risk/benefits, or anything, because teens are not standardized enough to apply the same rules to all of them.

That is my point. Feel free to ignore it or deny it or belittle it, but I stand by it.

Yes, thank you. And you're wrong. Have a nice day! :)
So you say. Just as with the rest of your arguments, I leave it to others to judge for themselves.

I think it does. I think your entire argument -- that it's okay for adults to have sex (so long as they do so in the right kind of relationship, according to you), but it is never okay for teenagers to have sex -- fails because you fail to prove that teenagers are ALWAYS, in every case, not mature enough for sex.

Not to mention that the use of the word "teenager" is quite inaccurate. When I was 19, still a teenager, I was a junior in college living by myself in London with a regular girlfriend.

The idea that "teenagers" are not ready to have sex forgets that the phrase "teenager" incompasses everyone older than twelve and younger than twenty, and to suggest that seventeen, eighteen, nineteen year olds are universally not sufficiently mature to gain these supposed benefits of sex...is absurd.

If you are talking about high school aged teenagers, please say so.

Interesting. I would like to focus on this Muravyets, and not the rest of the stuff you and Neo B are going back and forth on.
Gladly, and thank you. ;)

now some questions. the improvements to the Immune system are due to actual mixing of body fluids? or is it the chemical reactions the body undergoes when orgasm is reached?

the question is asked because if it does require the mixing of body fluids, then safe sex won't help the immune system.

if it's due to orgasm, then mastrubation would be enough. All the articles I could find only mention 'Sexual Activity' which can and does include masturbastion (solo or mutual) and does not mean penetrative sex.
Take a look at the articles I linked to. They go into more detail. It is unfortunate that the studies themselves are often not readily available online, but as general lay readers, we probably would not be able to make much use of them anyway.

Apparently, some of the benefits come from orgasm, making masturbation just as beneficial. However, others come from the bodily fluids, so that requires actual sex. Others come from physiological responses to intercourse, which can be gotten with a partner or without. I think I have exhausted what can be said comfortably in a public forum, so I refer people to the articles.

If I may,

I believe many of those benefits derive from the emotional well-being of a committed and secure relationship that is part and parcel of a healthy sex life with one's significant other. I haven't the time to read each and every one of those links but I have read about this elsewhere.
Your beliefs are less interesting than facts, but thank you for admitting that you are continuing to press your argument without looking at the counter-arguments/information.

Yes, there are psychological benefits, with related physiological benefits, to being in a happy relationship, but those benefits are not related to other benefits that just come from having sex itself.

If I may,

I believe many of those benefits derive from the emotional well-being of a committed and secure relationship that is part and parcel of a healthy sex life with one's significant other. I haven't the time to read each and every one of those links but I have read about this elsewhere.

however, I did read somewhere that the best headache cure was an orgasm. so I'm thinking the chemicals released during orgasm can have an impact on the body's chemestry.

if that's the case, then sex with a partner isn't necessary since orgasm is more often acheived (in the woman's case) through mastrubation than partnered sex.

By "teenager" I mean any POST-PUBESCENT person less than 20 years old, so that would generally mean 15/16 - 19. In general, I find that most US states' age of consent laws follow this same rule of thumb, and make sex legal from age 16.

Yes, I know, but my criticism wasn't with you.

Rather my point is, to argue that "teenagers" are never mature enough to handle sex is to argue that eighteen, nineteen year olds are never mature enough to have sex and gain these benefits. To claim that "teenagers" lack the maturity to have sex is to argue that ninteen year olds lack the maturity, and that's ludicrus.

Not to mention that the use of the word "teenager" is quite inaccurate. When I was 19, still a teenager, I was a junior in college living by myself in London with a regular girlfriend.

The idea that "teenagers" are not ready to have sex forgets that the phrase "teenager" incompasses everyone older than twelve and younger than twenty, and to suggest that seventeen, eighteen, nineteen year olds are universally not sufficiently mature to gain these supposed benefits of sex...is absurd.

If you are talking about high school aged teenagers, please say so.
By "teenager" I mean any POST-PUBESCENT person less than 20 years old, so that would generally mean 15/16 - 19. In general, I find that most US states' age of consent laws follow this same rule of thumb, and make sex legal from age 16.

Gladly, and thank you. ;) no problem

Apparently, some of the benefits come from orgasm, making masturbation just as beneficial. However, others come from the bodily fluids, so that requires actual sex. Others come from physiological responses to intercourse, which can be gotten with a partner or without. I think I have exhausted what can be said comfortably in a public forum, so I refer people to the articles.
that's what I got from the articles I read also.

now the counter point. Mastrubation is a form of Safe sex. granted. in some minds, it's also allowed under abstinance since the person doesn't view it as 'sex' per se.

however, the exchange of body fluids could also be the same reaction that the flu shot has (some studies show the chemical/cells released in huge quantities duing orgasm are the same that attack foreign invaders.) basically the body views the foreign fluids as invaders and ups the immune system. the Flu Shot is a weakened flu virus that is introduced into the body.

so it can also be argued that exposing yourself to viruses also improves your immune system. (an extreme, but extremes have been argued on NSG ;) .)

also safe sex removes contact with body fluids unless deep kissing and oral is used and even then oral can be done safely, so that benefit is removed. however, if such protection from safe sex is removed, the body is open to invasion from viruses of which there is no defense, HIV for one, most STD's for common references.

so with safe sex, you get the same benefits from masturbation (solo or mutual) as well as the psychological benefits from being in a healthy, non physical relationship.

and for benefit of this, I'm assuming a healthy relationship of a sexual nature is exclusive one partner. this is not touching upon those that... er... bed hop.

<snip>

You still have failed to provide proof when directly challenged to do so of your accusations. They would be ridiculously easy to prove, mind you, but you've consistently failed to meet the challenge. That speaks volumes, and far more eloquently than I can.

Yes, I know, but my criticism wasn't with you.

Rather my point is, to argue that "teenagers" are never mature enough to handle sex is to argue that eighteen, nineteen year olds are never mature enough to have sex and gain these benefits. To claim that "teenagers" lack the maturity to have sex is to argue that ninteen year olds lack the maturity, and that's ludicrus.
Yes, I understood that. I should have said so, sorry.

Yes, I know, but my criticism wasn't with you.

Rather my point is, to argue that "teenagers" are never mature enough to handle sex is to argue that eighteen, nineteen year olds are never mature enough to have sex and gain these benefits. To claim that "teenagers" lack the maturity to have sex is to argue that ninteen year olds lack the maturity, and that's ludicrus.

Actually, no it's not.

Our ages of consent for things differ by age, and those guidelines are based on experiential evidence. It's not until recently that we've really understood the biology behind maturity... how the brain is still a developing entity, and how teenagers simply don't have the same mechanisms for assessing the risks of their actions... but still, we tend to have an implicit experiential understanding that 'maturity' is complex.

For some teenagers, sixteen might be mature. Others might be mature at 21. The mechanisms in our brains form differently. Not all 19 year olds are really 'mature'.

no problem


that's what I got from the articles I read also.

now the counter point. Mastrubation is a form of Safe sex. granted. in some minds, it's also allowed under abstinance since the person doesn't view it as 'sex' per se.

however, the exchange of body fluids could also be the same reaction that the flu shot has (some studies show the chemical/cells released in huge quantities duing orgasm are the same that attack foreign invaders.) basically the body views the foreign fluids as invaders and ups the immune system. the Flu Shot is a weakened flu virus that is introduced into the body.

so it can also be argued that exposing yourself to viruses also improves your immune system. (an extreme, but extremes have been argued on NSG ;) .)

also safe sex removes contact with body fluids unless deep kissing and oral is used and even then oral can be done safely, so that benefit is removed. however, if such protection from safe sex is removed, the body is open to invasion from viruses of which there is no defense, HIV for one, most STD's for common references.

so with safe sex, you get the same benefits from masturbation (solo or mutual) as well as the psychological benefits from being in a healthy, non physical relationship.

and for benefit of this, I'm assuming a healthy relationship of a sexual nature is exclusive one partner. this is not touching upon those that... er... bed hop.

Perhaps 'safe sex' isn't really ideal. Perhaps the therapy effect of sex is maximised by UN-safe sex. But it's a balance - what benefit you can gain, versus what risk is worth accepting.

It does look like the most optimal form of teenage sex (if it is to happen) is probably (varieties on) same-sex intercourse with disease-free partners.

Actually, no it's not.

Our ages of consent for things differ by age, and those guidelines are based on experiential evidence. It's not until recently that we've really understood the biology behind maturity... how the brain is still a developing entity, and how teenagers simply don't have the same mechanisms for assessing the risks of their actions... but still, we tend to have an implicit experiential understanding that 'maturity' is complex.

For some teenagers, sixteen might be mature. Others might be mature at 21. The mechanisms in our brains form differently. Not all 19 year olds are really 'mature'.

Do please read what I said.

Rather my point is, to argue that "teenagers" are never mature enough to handle sex is to argue that eighteen, nineteen year olds are never mature enough to have sex and gain these benefits. To claim that "teenagers" lack the maturity to have sex is to argue that ninteen year olds lack the maturity, and that's ludicrus.

Bolded for emphasis. I was saying that stating teenagers are never mature is an idiotic statement. As you said, it varies, and many are.

Yes, I know, but my criticism wasn't with you.

Rather my point is, to argue that "teenagers" are never mature enough to handle sex is to argue that eighteen, nineteen year olds are never mature enough to have sex and gain these benefits. To claim that "teenagers" lack the maturity to have sex is to argue that ninteen year olds lack the maturity, and that's ludicrus.

My wife and I were recently talking about the phenomenon of how the age of maturity has changed so much over the centuries. The question: Has humanity become slower to mature?

What we came up with was that humanity has probably always reached adulthood at the same relative rate, but back in the old days there ws so much less to life that a certain amount of maturity wasn't so necessary.

Think about how it was for women (for example) in medieval Europe. They got married off to become baby factories virtually as soon as they were able to conceive, then spent prettymuch the rest of their life being what amounts to a nanny and house servant. Doesn't take a whole lot of growing up to start on tasks like that, especially when their life prior to marriage probably wasn't so different, with the only difference being they would be birthing their own babies instead of taking care of siblings.

These days, at the age where women used to become wives they're only about halfway through their education, even less if they choose college. With a world that's vastly more complex and with more opportunities, it's natural that to get caught up and fully mature a person of either sex simply requires more time.

Do please read what I said.



Bolded for emphasis. I was saying that stating teenagers are never mature is an idiotic statement. As you said, it varies, and many are.

We live in a society where practically everything is decided by arbitrary numbers. We arbitrarily decide that once you're 21 years old you can legally drink. Once your'e 18 years old you can vote. Once your'e 17 you can enlist in the army. Once your'e 16 you can get a driver's license (in some states).

To start quibbling over an arbitrary line is pointless, especially when there has been so much int his thread about parental control. A 19 year old is beyond their parent's authority in any case, so the question is academic. It's also on the extreme end of yet another arbitrary designation, being "teenager."

We, as a society have determined that they're too young to drink, so clearly on some level there is a consensus that there's still some maturing yet to be done. Are there individuals out there who are exceptional and would do just fine? Sure, but that's not how policy is made in our society. We try to affix these arbitrary judgements to balance the majority of those who AREN'T mature enough against the minimum possible who must wait even though they are.

no problem


that's what I got from the articles I read also.

now the counter point. Mastrubation is a form of Safe sex. granted. in some minds, it's also allowed under abstinance since the person doesn't view it as 'sex' per se.

however, the exchange of body fluids could also be the same reaction that the flu shot has (some studies show the chemical/cells released in huge quantities duing orgasm are the same that attack foreign invaders.) basically the body views the foreign fluids as invaders and ups the immune system. the Flu Shot is a weakened flu virus that is introduced into the body.

so it can also be argued that exposing yourself to viruses also improves your immune system. (an extreme, but extremes have been argued on NSG ;) .)

also safe sex removes contact with body fluids unless deep kissing and oral is used and even then oral can be done safely, so that benefit is removed. however, if such protection from safe sex is removed, the body is open to invasion from viruses of which there is no defense, HIV for one, most STD's for common references.

so with safe sex, you get the same benefits from masturbation (solo or mutual) as well as the psychological benefits from being in a healthy, non physical relationship.

and for benefit of this, I'm assuming a healthy relationship of a sexual nature is exclusive one partner. this is not touching upon those that... er... bed hop.
First of all, the reason I posted that information was not to promote sexual activity per se, but to counter the assertion that there is no practical need or benefit to sex. As a matter of fact, there is, so the assertion that there is not is patently false.

However, the mere existence of those benefits does not imply that it is bad/wrong/irresponsible to abstain from sex. It just means that abstaining will either deny one those benefits or make one find them from some other source. It does not change my original argument that neither sex nor abstinence is necessary for a human to survive, and that neither sex nor abstinence is a better or worse choice based solely on practical considerations.

So, having placed the information into the context of my original statements to NB, let me continue:

My original statement in response to the OP was that the most responsible decision about sex is the one that is right for the individual. The fact that sex carries many healthful benefits will not matter if the individual is not physically and psychologically ready for sex. The fact that abstaining from sex is sure protection from STDs and pregnancy will not matter if the individual has reached the appropriate level of maturity to deal with a sexual relationship and desires such a relationship. Because sex is a normal and healthy part of human life and a person at the right level of maturity will be able to cope with the risks involved, choosing to start sex cannot be considered any more irresponsible before age 20 than it would be after age 20, for such a person.

In support of this argument, on the topic of teen sex in particular, I pointed out that the wild variation of maturity from teen to teen, from year to year, means that it is impossible to say, as a blanket policy, that all teens are too immature for sex and that, therefore, all teen sex is irresponsible.

Also, on the topic of responsible sexual activity in general, I further do not agree that all non-monogamous sex is necessarily irresponsible. Being a responsible person implies fulfilling certain obligations for the sake of others or at least behaving in a way that takes the needs of others into account. One manages one's money responsibly in order not just to benefit oneself, but to avoid being a burden on others, for instance. If I hurt no one but myself with gambling or over-shopping, and never expect anyone else (any friend, relative, or financial institution) to bail me out, and never default on my debts, why should I be labeled "irresponsible" because I spend my money the way I like, even if it means I will always be in debt?

Likewise, if I take the right kinds of safety measures -- always use condoms, get frequently tested for STDs, choose my partners carefully, etc -- and never hurt anyone else by my behavior, then why should I be labeled "irresponsible" just because I am not monogamous?

I would agree that people who bed-hop without protection of any kind are being irresponsible, but that is because their behavior hurts others by increasing the risk of spreading disease and unwanted pregnancy. But to say that everyone who is not monogamous is irresponsible about sex (if a person were to say that) is just as false as saying no teenager can ever be mature enough for sex or that there is no practical benefit to sex.

As Neo Art tried to explain, responsibility is not just about avoiding risk. Often -- maybe more often -- it is about taking on risk and handling the risk in an appropriate manner, with appropriate safeguards. If it were not so, then getting pregnant and giving birth would be an irresponsible act, because it involves a series of risky behaviors that affect 2 to 3 people, often in unpredictable ways. Also, as I tried to point out, responsibility is not just about safeguarding oneself. It is more about safeguarding others, and if others are not at risk, then questions of "responsibility" become less pressing, as responsibilities to oneself alone are really optional. If no one is dependent upon me and no one else is put in danger because of me, then I am under no obligation to safeguard my own life even, and may run any risks I please.

By the way, before anyone assumes I am arguing in defense of my own lifestyle, I do not own a credit card, have no debts, practice serial monogamy, and remain celebate between relationships. I also do not presume to judge others as "irresponsible" only because they live differently from me.

By the way, before anyone assumes I am arguing in defense of my own lifestyle, I do not own a credit card, have no debts, practice serial monogamy, and remain celebate between relationships. I also do not presume to judge others as "irresponsible" only because they live differently from me.

I wonder why some people absolutely insist on taking every dissenting opinion as a personal attack. Especially when they have to try and jazz it up by exagerrating the original argument.

Hm...

Perhaps the world will never know.

You still have failed to provide proof when directly challenged to do so of your accusations. They would be ridiculously easy to prove, mind you, but you've consistently failed to meet the challenge. That speaks volumes, and far more eloquently than I can.
It speaks volumes that I presented evidence of the academic and scientific support for my arguments, which you admitted before you did not look at, and which you now claim does not exist. Also it speaks volumes that the proof of you saying what I said you said is right here in this thread, yet you deny its existence. Do I really need to throw it in your face for you? If I do that, will you apologize to me?

First of all, the reason I posted that information was not to promote sexual activity per se, but to counter the assertion that there is no practical need or benefit to sex. As a matter of fact, there is, so the assertion that there is not is patently false.
not arguing that. just saying that the benefits appear to not be just with a partnered sexual act. tho some might use the benefit as a rallying cry... so to speak.

However, the mere existence of those benefits does not imply that it is bad/wrong/irresponsible to abstain from sex. It just means that abstaining will either deny one those benefits or make one find them from some other source. It does not change my original argument that neither sex nor abstinence is necessary for a human to survive, and that neither sex nor abstinence is a better or worse choice based solely on practical considerations. true, and not arguing survivability or what not.

I was just interested in that point about the health benefits and wanting to head off any misconception that because sex improves the human immune system then sex (or irrisponsible sex to be specific) is a 'responsible' action... an Idea which some might get.

as I said, I only wanted to discuss that point. since I am not arguing abstinance only, just the value of abstinance in general... which is more along your lines of "if the choice fits the individual." :)

I wonder why some people absolutely insist on taking every dissenting opinion as a personal attack. Especially when they have to try and jazz it up by exagerrating the original argument.

Hm...

Perhaps the world will never know.
I wonder why you thought I was talking about you in that last sentence.

I wonder why you thought I was talking about you in that last sentence.I'll take "Unintentional Irony" for 500, Alex.

I wonder why you thought I was talking about you in that last sentence.

I'll take "Unintentional Irony" for 500, Alex.

I'll take "Ridiculously Obvious Allusions" for 800, Alex.

Woo it's the Daily Double!

I'll wager 2500, Alex.

Answer: It's what posts like that do when following a flamewar.

Um... what is 'Insulting our intelligence?'

Right!

It speaks volumes that I presented evidence of the academic and scientific support for my arguments, which you admitted before you did not look at, and which you now claim does not exist. Also it speaks volumes that the proof of you saying what I said you said is right here in this thread, yet you deny its existence. Do I really need to throw it in your face for you? If I do that, will you apologize to me?

You have been challenged over and over to show me where I made the assertion that literacy is necessary for survival. (That's where this B.S. started.) You have backed away again and again. Either do it or stop dancing around it. If you do, I'll never challenge you again. If you can't, I'll never take you seriously again. Your best bet is to quit now and cut your losses.

:grabs some popcorn to watch how M tries to worm out of this

Muravyets, posting this seperate because I think it deserves it's own focus. since I'm not planning on arguing the health benefits subject.

Also, on the topic of responsible sexual activity in general, I further do not agree that all non-monogamous sex is necessarily irresponsible. Being a responsible person implies fulfilling certain obligations for the sake of others or at least behaving in a way that takes the needs of others into account. One manages one's money responsibly in order not just to benefit oneself, but to avoid being a burden on others, for instance. If I hurt no one but myself with gambling or over-shopping, and never expect anyone else (any friend, relative, or financial institution) to bail me out, and never default on my debts, why should I be labeled "irresponsible" because I spend my money the way I like, even if it means I will always be in debt?

Likewise, if I take the right kinds of safety measures -- always use condoms, get frequently tested for STDs, choose my partners carefully, etc -- and never hurt anyone else by my behavior, then why should I be labeled "irresponsible" just because I am not monogamous?

I would agree that people who bed-hop without protection of any kind are being irresponsible, but that is because their behavior hurts others by increasing the risk of spreading disease and unwanted pregnancy. But to say that everyone who is not monogamous is irresponsible about sex (if a person were to say that) is just as false as saying no teenager can ever be mature enough for sex or that there is no practical benefit to sex.
if this is about the exclusive partners comment, my intent was not to call those with multiple partners Irrisponsible. but to only focus on one with single current partners because multiple current partners (even if one is very careful) multiplies the risk taken.

Sure you may have various amounts of intimate friends and/or you regularly attend orgies. that doesn't mean you're irrisponsible, but it also doesn't mean all your partners are taking the same precautions as you. A factor that will still affect you and perhaps others you are intimate with but is out out of your control (hence why I wasn't trying to focus on multiple partner sex.)

As Neo Art tried to explain, responsibility is not just about avoiding risk. Often -- maybe more often -- it is about taking on risk and handling the risk in an appropriate manner, with appropriate safeguards. Except what Neo Art was saying was that avoiding risk was NOT a responsible act.

By the way, before anyone assumes I am arguing in defense of my own lifestyle, I do not own a credit card, have no debts, practice serial monogamy, and remain celebate between relationships. I also do not presume to judge others as "irresponsible" only because they live differently from me. and Neither do I make such judgements.
Oh and Serial Monogamy isn't the same as multiple partners. and to clarify, when I say Multiple partners I do mean a series of one night stands while in a relationship and/or threesomes or more while Exclusive relationship is you only are intimate with that one person until you two 'break up'.

You have been challenged over and over to show me where I made the assertion that literacy is necessary for survival. (That's where this B.S. started.) You have backed away again and again. Either do it or stop dancing around it. If you do, I'll never challenge you again. If you can't, I'll never take you seriously again. Your best bet is to quit now and cut your losses.

:grabs some popcorn to watch how M tries to worm out of this

The fact that you have such an amusing sense of self satisfaction demonstrates that you either missed the point entirely, or wilfully ignored it.

The point, in case you just happened to miss it legitimatly, is that you argued against sex for teenagers because that teenage sex was not "necessary" for them. It has been pointed out that many things are not necessary, yet you certainly include those things in the unstruction of your children.

Like literacy, for example. Literacy is not necessary, yet you teach them to read.

You then backtracked, saying it "has no benefit". This was again demonstrably proven false because links were provided showing sex does have a benefit. You tried to sidestep again, claiming those benefits were not merely a product of sex, but rather "adult" sex in "committed and happy relationships" (ignoring again that the phrase teenage includes anyone up to 19, and it's questionable why you seem to believe teenagers are not capable of such relationships) or are in fact factors of things such as emotional satisfaction and stress relief (again sidestepping the question of why teenagers would not experience such things).

In short you tried to argue sex was not "necessary", then when pointed out that many things are not "necessary" but you feel the need to educate your children with, you tried to argue that that's not what you meant, and instead meant it was bereft of "benefit". Then when it was pointed out that sex does, indeed, have benefits, you tried to somehow make it appear that those benefits somehow, magically, do not apply to teenagers.

Then you went on about risks, about how there are risks associated with sex. It was pointed out that there are risks associated with a great many activities, including driving.

It was even pointed out that your son is more likely to die as a result of a car accident than he is as a result of an STD, yet you plan on letting him drive. A point you entirely avoided. You in fact let him engage in activities more risky than sex.

The fact is, pretty much everybody here is accepting one basic condition. People shouldn't have sex until they are ready. Where we have differed is what constitutes "ready". Many of us have argued that some teenagers, especially those 18, 19 years old, may well be ready to have sex, and to say that it's "irresponsible" for someone, especially if they're legally an adult, to no longer abstain from sex is...ludicrus, and that the sensible action is to take reasonable precautions, like we do with any activity that has some risk.

Where the rest of us differ is that we accept that asex has benefits, sex has risks, and that people should not engage in that until they have the maturity to accept those risks and evaluate those benefits.

You differ by somehow arguing that a general prohibition, no teen sex ever, is the more sensible position, and we have disagreed. You have tried to put up reasons for your arguments, and have not done very well.

Which has led many of us, including myself, to conclude that your position is not really because of any practical, real world considerations, but because of some religious position. Which, really, is fine. You're free to believe what you want, you're free (for the most part), to raise your children according to your beliefs. You're free to practice and preach abstinence to your heart's content.

What you really should not do however is try to pretend your religious reasons have any practical real world considerations, because every time you've put forward a reason for your belief in "no teen sex ever" that did not have to do with religion, it got smacked down pretty hard.

And frankly, if you had just said "I don't think people should have sex until they are ready" we would have all agreed with you. If you had just said "my religion teaches me that teenagers should not have sex" we, even if we didn't agree with thatperspective, would have at least accepted that as your religious belief.

Instead you tried to put forth some...foolish notion that it's always irresponsible for a teenager to have sex, and tried to come up with some real world justifications for it which...well..failed rather badly.

Except what Neo Art was saying was that avoiding risk was NOT a responsible act.

When you are ready to respond to what I said, rather than what you want to pretend I said, it'll be worth consideration. Until then, I will note that what I said was not "avoiding risks is not a responsible act". I said avoiding risks when one is not equipped to handle those risks is not a responsible act.

Avoiding risks until some magical time in the future when somehow you're expected to suddenly "be ready", however, is not a responsible choice, in the slightest.

As I said, when you're ready to consider what I actually said, let me know. The fact that you have to play "let's pretend" and make things up only suggests to me you are currently incapable of doing so.

<snip>

You have been challenged over and over to show me where I made the assertion that literacy is necessary for survival. (That's where this B.S. started.) You have backed away again and again. Either do it or stop dancing around it. If you do, I'll never challenge you again. If you can't, I'll never take you seriously again. Your best bet is to quit now and cut your losses.

:grabs some popcorn to watch how M tries to worm out of this
But you have not been challenged yet to stop trying to mislead the readers of this debate. I think maybe it's time to start that challenge.

This "bullshit" did not start with you saying that literacy is necessary for survival. It started with you saying that teens should not have sex because it is not necessary for their survival, and me pointing out that that was a nonsensical argument because there are other things not necessary for survival that you would not discourage, such as literacy.

You said:

Originally posted by Neo Bretonnia
Originally Posted by Muravyets
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.
<snip by me>
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.

<bolded by me>

To which I responded with:
Originally Posted by Muravyets
Neither is literacy. There are plenty of illiterate teens who grow up to be illiterate adults and do not die of it. Do you think, therefore, that it is irresponsible for teenagers to finish high school? The "it's not necessary to survival" argument is bunk, actually, NB.

<snipped/bolded by me>

To which you responded with:

Originally posted by Neo Bretonnia
It's not bunk at all. Literacy has a clear and definable benefit to those who acquire it. What's the clear and definable benefit, in your mind, of having sex early?

<snipped/bolded by me>

To which I responded with:

Originally posted by Muravyets
OK, let's point out two small but significant weaknesses in your argument contained in just this one paragraph:

1) You used the word "survival" as in, "sex is not necessary for teenage survival." Now you are talking about a "benefit." I challenge you to show me how not having that "benefit" harms "survival." Please try to remember the actual standard dictionary meanings of those words.

<snipped/bolded by me>

It may not be clear to you, but I invite all other readers to judge for themselves whether or not you cast literacy and sex in the same category of things that affect survival, and whether you were diluting (i.e. misusing) the word "survival" to mean simply desirable conditions for a comfortable standard of living, which is not what it means. YOU were the one who cited literacy in the context of survival, and YOU were the one who was revealed as speaking in hyperbole by the simple fact that neither sex nor literacy is necessary to survival, and YOU were the one who refused to back down from that ridiculous position.

And finally, YOU are the one who either could not follow your own line of conversation, or tried dishonestly to pretend you didn't say your own words, and thus forced the whole thread to sit through a repeat of what was already posted.

Deny this if you like. Here is my evidence, and I leave it to the judgment of others. But I will not continue to argue this particular chunk of your bullshit with you.

Deny this if you like. Here is my evidence, and I leave it to the judgment of others. But I will not continue to argue this particular chunk of your bullshit with you.

Good, because you left out a bunch of your own nonsense in that little summary. Admit it, you misinterpreted my words, you ran with them, and you've spent all day trying to save face rather than just admit it and move on.

Your interpretation is flat wrong, and even if somehow it was a reasonable misinterpretation, your complete lack of willingness to accept my efforts to clarify demonstrate that you have no desire whatsoever to exchange ideas civilly. You just want to be right and to hell with me and everybody else who has the audacity to disagree with you. You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Chicago, and that's your problem. Based on previous discussions with you I've seen how you wear it proudly. That's your malfunction, not mine.

You've accused me of lying, and even after the first few times, as you acknowledged, I did reach out to try and clear the air. You responded like a petulant little child. Until now, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you were just honestly misunderstanding. That's a helluva lot more consideration than you've ever extended in return. Again, that's your problem. I won't repeat that error, rest assured.

Go your way, I'll go mine. That's the only resultinon remaining.

/flamewar

<snip>

Except what Neo Art was saying was that avoiding risk was NOT a responsible act.

<snip>
I have no serious quibbles with anything you say except the one unsnipped remark. The way I read Neo Art's remarks was that avoiding risk, IN AND OF ITSELF, is not a responsible act, because whether an act is responsible or not depends on the reason it is done, which fits in with my points about what respnsibility is. There are plenty of irresponsible reasons to avoid risk, too.

By the way, I did not mean to criticize you with my remarks. I was merely adding my remarks to yours, and referring back to the OP question, which is about sexual responsibility in general. I did not mean to imply that you personally go about judging people.

Good, because you left out a bunch of your own nonsense in that little summary. Admit it, you misinterpreted my words, you ran with them, and you've spent all day trying to save face rather than just admit it and move on.

Your interpretation is flat wrong, and even if somehow it was a reasonable misinterpretation, your complete lack of willingness to accept my efforts to clarify demonstrate that you have no desire whatsoever to exchange ideas civilly. You just want to be right and to hell with me and everybody else who has the audacity to disagree with you. You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Chicago, and that's your problem. Based on previous discussions with you I've seen how you wear it proudly. That's your malfunction, not mine.

You've accused me of lying, and even after the first few times, as you acknowledged, I did reach out to try and clear the air. You responded like a petulant little child. Until now, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you were just honestly misunderstanding. That's a helluva lot more consideration than you've ever extended in return. Again, that's your problem. I won't repeat that error, rest assured.

Go your way, I'll go mine. That's the only resultinon remaining.

/flamewar
I admit nothing of the sort. You are the one trying to fan up a flamewar here, and you have done so in every thread in which you have argued with me so far. The pattern is consistent. I challenge a point of yours, we go round and round, I do not back down, and you start with the personal jibes and insults, speaking condescendingly towards me, questioning my intelligence and my honesty, and making insulting remarks about my personality and what "malfunctions" you think I have -- all classic ad hominem attacks.

If you want us to go our separate ways, then stop with the personal attacks against me. But do not expect me to let you spout any old, uninformed nonsense without challenging it on the facts. That is not going to happen. You want me to leave you alone? Easy -- check your facts before you post, and I will have little reason to respond to you at all.

The fact that you have such an amusing sense of self satisfaction demonstrates that you either missed the point entirely, or wilfully ignored it.
<snip>
Instead you tried to put forth some...foolish notion that it's always irresponsible for a teenager to have sex, and tried to come up with some real world justifications for it which...well..failed rather badly.

NA, I'm not gonna continue this business that I was already going back and forth with Muravyets on. One of the downsides of a thread where one person argues against multiple opponents is that sometimes their arguments, tailored to respond to words spoken by individual opponents, sometimes get misinterpreted because everybody as a sort of egocentric tendency to think of each and every post as being directly directed toward them. Naturally, that can lead to some confusion in context.

If you want to challenge my assertion, namely, that Abstinence is a more responsible course than any amount of planning/contraception (for teenagers) then let's discuss it, but I'm not inclined to go back and clarify the context of any number of statements that could be perfectly easily read on your own.

As I understand it, you're a lawyer and in that profession, wording is everything. That's why it's understandable that a badly phrased response or a misconstrued context could make it appear that your opponent (in this case, me) is arguing a point when, in fact, they aren't. That can be further influenced by some of Muravyets' misconceptions from earlier, if you generally find yourself in agreement with him.

So I'll discuss it with you if you want, but not as a continuation of that previous flamewar.

I'm a poll whore...*has sex with thread*

I think that having sex with protection is more responsible, as it allows people to have sex without the risk of pregnancy (or an STD if they are using a condom) and not repress their libido. Teaching abstinence in sex ed with no other alternatives is just pointless interference by religion in education, and if teens don't keep to abstinence, most likeley they'll be ill informed about contraception.

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"
EDIT: then we shifted to the 'reasons' behind the choice.

When you are ready to respond to what I said, rather than what you want to pretend I said, it'll be worth consideration. Until then, I will note that what I said was not "avoiding risks is not a responsible act". I said avoiding risks when one is not equipped to handle those risks is not a responsible act. I did respond, i was waiting for you. Others also responded to your post. :p

Avoiding risks until some magical time in the future when somehow you're expected to suddenly "be ready", however, is not a responsible choice, in the slightest. and pray tell me when one knows one is ready?

Usually, Marriage (a very VERY big decision in one's life) is closely examined with all aspects taken into consideration and that includes raising a family. thus usually when one is ready for marriage, one is ready for sex and any results therein.

I have no serious quibbles with anything you say except the one unsnipped remark. The way I read Neo Art's remarks was that avoiding risk, IN AND OF ITSELF, is not a responsible act, because whether an act is responsible or not depends on the reason it is done, which fits in with my points about what respnsibility is. There are plenty of irresponsible reasons to avoid risk, too.the reason is only the force behind the action. taking the action is still the telling point.

Sure, many choose the wrong reason for taking certain actions. but if they take that action and that being the responsible course, then it won't matter what the reason is.

You can take in a child to raise, that is a very responsible action as long as you raise that child properly (the action). however as long as the child is raised properly and lovingly, then what matter if the reason for taking the child is to gain welfare credit, or to get control of the child's trust fund, or tax reasons, or even "I just want to prove them wrong about my childraising abilities."

The Reason behind the action does not define whether or not the action was responsible, but the planning and even how the action is excecuted that does.

Sure I made a promise to myself (not that silly public oath thing) and it was mainly baised on a Religous choice. but it was MY choice, no one elses. As hard as it got to keep that pledge, I found ways to distract myself and even releave pressure. but am still keeping that pledge. and yes, the reason of "giving to someone a peice of me that I can only give once" is one of the many reasons I am abstaining. so I am abstaining "Till Marriage" and while you may consider the reasons to be 'Irresponsible" the action itself is very responsible.

By the way, I did not mean to criticize you with my remarks. I was merely adding my remarks to yours, and referring back to the OP question, which is about sexual responsibility in general. I did not mean to imply that you personally go about judging people. me neither, but I wanted it clear that I wasn't being judgemental since alot of analogies and examples seems to be flying around this thread.

sorry if I seemed to be judgemental.

<snip>

the reason is only the force behind the action. taking the action is still the telling point.

Sure, many choose the wrong reason for taking certain actions. but if they take that action and that being the responsible course, then it won't matter what the reason is.

You can take in a child to raise, that is a very responsible action as long as you raise that child properly (the action). however as long as the child is raised properly and lovingly, then what matter if the reason for taking the child is to gain welfare credit, or to get control of the child's trust fund, or tax reasons, or even "I just want to prove them wrong about my childraising abilities."

The Reason behind the action does not define whether or not the action was responsible, but the planning and even how the action is excecuted that does.

Sure I made a promise to myself (not that silly public oath thing) and it was mainly baised on a Religous choice. but it was MY choice, no one elses. As hard as it got to keep that pledge, I found ways to distract myself and even releave pressure. but am still keeping that pledge. and yes, the reason of "giving to someone a peice of me that I can only give once" is one of the many reasons I am abstaining. so I am abstaining "Till Marriage" and while you may consider the reasons to be 'Irresponsible" the action itself is very responsible.
I see your point, but I disagree with it at least partially, because I think the context of the decision affects whether it is responsible or not. In understanding where I'm coming from, please keep in mind my view that responsibility to self is less pressing/more optional than responsibility to others.

So let's say you take in this child to raise, and your reason for doing so is only to prove to someone else that you can. There are many ways in which that self-centered approach can generate harm over time to you, the child, and your relationship with the child. I'm not saying that it necessarily will, but it can (and often does in families), so the self-centered motivation puts the responsibility level of the adoptive parent into question. Thus, if the person doing the action is being irresponsible, this undermines the responsible-ness of the action itself.

Another senario, specifically about risk avoidance: Let's say you are a doctor, and you are very aware of/nervous about the risk of HIV exposure through exposure to other people's blood. You are married. Would it be responsible of you to refuse to treat bleeding people in order to avoid HIV exposure for the sake of your safety and spouse's safety? Obviously not. You are a doctor and you are expected to take that risk, with appropriate precautions. Refusing to run that risk would be irresponsible of you as a doctor.

On the flip side, would it be responsible of you to abstain from sex with your spouse because you might be exposed to HIV? Again, no it would not, because the terms of marriage actually require a sexual relationship. If you refuse to engage in sex with your spouse for long enough, you will essentially annul your marriage for legal purposes. If you have a responsibility to maintain that relationship, then you have a responsibility to be sexually available to your spouse. Or else, end the marriage.

Another scenario: A firefighter with a wife and three children to support. Is it responsible or irresponsible of him to risk his life every day by running into burning buildings, thereby putting his family at risk of losing their income and his children at risk of losing their father? Or is it responsible of him to take on a job that involves severe risk but is meant to save others' lives?

So, context and reasons do matter, and both can render an act irresponsible even though it is generally considered responsible in principle or theory, and vice versa.

me neither, but I wanted it clear that I wasn't being judgemental since alot of analogies and examples seems to be flying around this thread.

sorry if I seemed to be judgemental.
All good. :)

I see your point, but I disagree with it at least partially, because I think the context of the decision affects whether it is responsible or not. In understanding where I'm coming from, please keep in mind my view that responsibility to self is less pressing/more optional than responsibility to others. I think we can agree that when it comes to sex... the focus is more on self. :p

So let's say you take in this child to raise, and your reason for doing so is only to prove to someone else that you can. There are many ways in which that self-centered approach can generate harm over time to you, the child, and your relationship with the child. I'm not saying that it necessarily will, but it can (and often does in families), so the self-centered motivation puts the responsibility level of the adoptive parent into question. Thus, if the person doing the action is being irresponsible, this undermines the responsible-ness of the action itself. ah, but at the same time, a person with a noble and responsible reason such as... say wanting to give a poor child a good home but doesn't plan it out properly can do just as much harm if not more because their reason is a responsible one but their actions were not.

Another senario, specifically about risk avoidance: Let's say you are a doctor, and you are very aware of/nervous about the risk of HIV exposure through exposure to other people's blood. You are married. Would it be responsible of you to refuse to treat bleeding people in order to avoid HIV exposure for the sake of your safety and spouse's safety? Obviously not. You are a doctor and you are expected to take that risk, with appropriate precautions. Refusing to run that risk would be irresponsible of you as a doctor.

On the flip side, would it be responsible of you to abstain from sex with your spouse because you might be exposed to HIV? Again, no it would not, because the terms of marriage actually require a sexual relationship. If you refuse to engage in sex with your spouse for long enough, you will essentially annul your marriage for legal purposes. If you have a responsibility to maintain that relationship, then you have a responsibility to be sexually available to your spouse. Or else, end the marriage. However that risk is explained and gone over during the training/education.

the same would be said for Sex Education that covers abstinance as well as Safe Sex.

the appropriate scenario would be the cash one I put forth with Neo Art. you and I both have $10,000. you can do all the research and take the risk on the stock market where you can increase your wealth by leaps and bounds or also lose your money faster than a falling lead balloon. and I can, after analysing the risk, decide to put my money in the bank where interest will slowly but gradually increase it and where I would be protected by the bank's insurance. would my refusing to take the risk on the stock market be counted as less responsible than your choice?

Another scenario: A firefighter with a wife and three children to support. Is it responsible or irresponsible of him to risk his life every day by running into burning buildings, thereby putting his family at risk of losing their income and his children at risk of losing their father? Or is it responsible of him to take on a job that involves severe risk but is meant to save others' lives? ah, but here it's his job to take that risk. should he decide to quit being a fireman because he has a wife and kids would you consider him Responsible or not?

Teens and Adolesents don't have to have sex. I think that's been pretty much gutted between you and Neo B. no one is paying adolesents to have sex... well, no one SHOULD BE paying them for sex.

as a Doctor or Firefighter, 1) they get paid for their risk. 2) they will/should be compensated should they be hurt or disabled by their job. 3) even they have their own reasons for doing what they do. some can be selfish (Doctors get LOTS of money) some can be irresponsible (I like fire, as a Fireman I get to get close to fire!) but as long as they do their jobs (saving lives and putting out fires) no one really questions their motives.

So, context and reasons do matter, and both can render an act irresponsible even though it is generally considered responsible in principle or theory, and vice versa.
never have I heard anyone say "yes that person did a great thing but too bad his reasons were selfish/irresponsible, that ruined his great act."

Another senario, specifically about risk avoidance: Let's say you are a doctor, and you are very aware of/nervous about the risk of HIV exposure through exposure to other people's blood. You are married. Would it be responsible of you to refuse to treat bleeding people in order to avoid HIV exposure for the sake of your safety and spouse's safety? Obviously not. You are a doctor and you are expected to take that risk, with appropriate precautions. Refusing to run that risk would be irresponsible of you as a doctor.

I have two qualms with this:
First, being a doctor greatly benefits society. Unless you're willing to, er, "share" with everyone, sex only benefits you and your partner. The doctor takes the risk because he knows the risk of him catching HIV is small compared to the chances of him helping save the lives of others.
Second, if a doctor was genuinely worried, to the point where he felt he had to choose between his job and his spouse, I don't think it would be irresponsible for him to quit the practice. There is nothing wrong with not being a doctor. I haven't been a doctor my whole life, and no one's ever been upset with me because of that.

I think we can agree that when it comes to sex... the focus is more on self. :p
Oh, really? Remind me never to have sex with you. :p

ah, but at the same time, a person with a noble and responsible reason such as... say wanting to give a poor child a good home but doesn't plan it out properly can do just as much harm if not more because their reason is a responsible one but their actions were not.
That's why I included the "vice versa" in my statement.

However that risk is explained and gone over during the training/education.

the same would be said for Sex Education that covers abstinance as well as Safe Sex.

the appropriate scenario would be the cash one I put forth with Neo Art. you and I both have $10,000. you can do all the research and take the risk on the stock market where you can increase your wealth by leaps and bounds or also lose your money faster than a falling lead balloon. and I can, after analysing the risk, decide to put my money in the bank where interest will slowly but gradually increase it and where I would be protected by the bank's insurance. would my refusing to take the risk on the stock market be counted as less responsible than your choice?
No, why should either one of those be considered irresponsible, unless they have a negative effect on others? In another post, I also gave a money example: Even if I waste every dollar I get my hands on, so long as I do not burden anyone else with my debts, then my choice of how to manage or not manage my money can't really be called irresponsible because, if no one is dependent on me, or put at risk/under burden by me, then I am under no obligation to run my life one way rather than another. I am allowed to harm myself if I want to. That is why I say responsibility to self is less pressing than responsibility to others.

ah, but here it's his job to take that risk. should he decide to quit being a fireman because he has a wife and kids would you consider him Responsible or not?
That's the same question, just approached from another angle. My point stands. The context and the intent and the effect upon others determines whether the choice of action is responsible or not. If he quits his job, he is being irresponsible to the community, but if he keeps his job, he is being irresponsible to his family. The choices are not as clear cut as some people like to think.

Teens and Adolesents don't have to have sex. I think that's been pretty much gutted between you and Neo B. no one is paying adolesents to have sex... well, no one SHOULD BE paying them for sex.
I was not making an analogy. I was talking about responsibility in general.

as a Doctor or Firefighter, 1) they get paid for their risk. 2) they will/should be compensated should they be hurt or disabled by their job. 3) even they have their own reasons for doing what they do. some can be selfish (Doctors get LOTS of money) some can be irresponsible (I like fire, as a Fireman I get to get close to fire!) but as long as they do their jobs (saving lives and putting out fires) no one really questions their motives.
But what about the family members who are put at risk by his job choices? Where is his responsibility to them?

never have I heard anyone say "yes that person did a great thing but too bad his reasons were selfish/irresponsible, that ruined his great act."
I have, often. For instance:

Julius Caesar was a great ruler who founded arguably the single most influential empire in history, which revolutionized life in Europe, connected East and West, and laid the groundwork for the modern world, but he was also a vicious bastard who betrayed, lied, manipulated and bullied his way to the top only because he wanted absolute power for himself, and he was ultimately murdered by enemies he made by his greed. Is he a hero or a dictator?

Vlad the Impaler was a great hero of Romanian history who saved his land and people from Turkish domination, but he was... well... the Impaler and accomplished his noble goal by the brutal and horrifying torture-murder of hundreds of prisoners of war. Why did he do that particular thing? Because he liked to. It was his "signature," as it were. He didn't have to do it. He wanted to because he liked the idea of people being afraid of him. Is he a defender of his people, or a murderer?

J. Edgar Hoover built the FBI into one of the premier law enforcement agencies in the world. Too bad he was a lying, closeted, corrupt, power-hungry, backstabbing bastard who dreamed only of putting himself at the right hand of an authoritarian government, and who hogged the media spotlight for his own ego gratification every chance he got. And look at the agency he created -- it took them decades to get around the secret-police-like walls of secrecy and domestic spying he built up to serve his own dreams of power. They are still not trusted, and possibly with good reason. Is he a model of law and order, or an egotistical, paranoid, power-whore?

So, are these men models of responsible choices and behavior? I would suggest that it is equally likely that the beneficial results of their actions have nothing to do with whether they were acting responsibly or self-servingly. In other words, you cannot come in after the fact and say this person acted responsibly because you like the results of the actions. You have to look at the person and their circumstances to determine whether they were being responsible or not. Even then, you cannot always be sure, because different people will have different ideas of what the responsible choice in that situation should have been.

I have two qualms with this:
First, being a doctor greatly benefits society. Unless you're willing to, er, "share" with everyone, sex only benefits you and your partner. The doctor takes the risk because he knows the risk of him catching HIV is small compared to the chances of him helping save the lives of others.
Second, if a doctor was genuinely worried, to the point where he felt he had to choose between his job and his spouse, I don't think it would be irresponsible for him to quit the practice. There is nothing wrong with not being a doctor. I haven't been a doctor my whole life, and no one's ever been upset with me because of that.
As I said to JuNii, I was not making an analogy between doctors and sex. I was talking about responsibility in general. My point was that the combination of circumstances and motive determine whether any given action is responsible or irresponsible.

Your opinion about the responsible course for the hypothetical doctor to follow is not really germane. The point was that such a situation is not necessarily clear cut, and what to one person may seem like the right choice might seem like a selfish and irresponsible one to someone else.

As I said to JuNii, I was not making an analogy between doctors and sex. I was talking about responsibility in general. My point was that the combination of circumstances and motive determine whether any given action is responsible or irresponsible.

Your opinion about the responsible course for the hypothetical doctor to follow is not really germane. The point was that such a situation is not necessarily clear cut, and what to one person may seem like the right choice might seem like a selfish and irresponsible one to someone else.
Sorry about that, I didn't see JuNii's until after I posted. We say more or less the same thing.

Thank you for clarifying; it does make more sense now. However, I still don't see how protected sex is more responsible than abstinence. I am assuming that no one currently writing on this forum is currently in the act of copulating, but I don't think that makes us less responsible.

Oh, really? Remind me never to have sex with you. :p Your choice, but I find that in social settings, I prefer those with me have a great time... even if it means I have work harder at it. ;)

No, why should either one of those be considered irresponsible, unless they have a negative effect on others? In another post, I also gave a money example: Even if I waste every dollar I get my hands on, so long as I do not burden anyone else with my debts, then my choice of how to manage or not manage my money can't really be called irresponsible because, if no one is dependent on me, or put at risk/under burden by me, then I am under no obligation to run my life one way rather than another. I am allowed to harm myself if I want to. That is why I say responsibility to self is less pressing than responsibility to others. but wether or not an action is deemed responsible is not due to the direct effects it has on others. I can choose to eat irresponsibly and the only one to suffer negative effects is me. I can choose to behave irresponsibly and still have the negative only affect me.

Sure I can waste every dollar I have, and not be a burden to anyone. that means I have nothing to retire on, but the burden is mine. (unless you count me relying on Social Security a burden on the government)


That's the same question, just approached from another angle. My point stands. The context and the intent and the effect upon others determines whether the choice of action is responsible or not. If he quits his job, he is being irresponsible to the community, but if he keeps his job, he is being irresponsible to his family. The choices are not as clear cut as some people like to think. so you're saying once a fireman, you cannot quit? his leaving is an irresponsible act on his community? He's forced to be a responsible fireman or an Irresponsible quitter?

I was not making an analogy. I was talking about responsibility in general.and the point I was making is that a firefighter who chose to be a firefighter accepts the risks as part of their job. however a teenager doesn't have to accept the risks with safe sex, they can choose abstinance.


But what about the family members who are put at risk by his job choices? Where is his responsibility to them? it's there with the option to quit. they have the choices they can make.


I have, often. For instance:

Julius Caesar was a great ruler who founded arguably the single most influential empire in history, which revolutionized life in Europe, connected East and West, and laid the groundwork for the modern world, but he was also a vicious bastard who betrayed, lied, manipulated and bullied his way to the top only because he wanted absolute power for himself, and he was ultimately murdered by enemies he made by his greed. Is he a hero or a dictator?

Vlad the Impaler was a great hero of Romanian history who saved his land and people from Turkish domination, but he was... well... the Impaler and accomplished his noble goal by the brutal and horrifying torture-murder of hundreds of prisoners of war. Why did he do that particular thing? Because he liked to. It was his "signature," as it were. He didn't have to do it. He wanted to because he liked the idea of people being afraid of him. Is he a defender of his people, or a murderer?

J. Edgar Hoover built the FBI into one of the premier law enforcement agencies in the world. Too bad he was a lying, closeted, corrupt, power-hungry, backstabbing bastard who dreamed only of putting himself at the right hand of an authoritarian government, and who hogged the media spotlight for his own ego gratification every chance he got. And look at the agency he created -- it took them decades to get around the secret-police-like walls of secrecy and domestic spying he built up to serve his own dreams of power. They are still not trusted, and possibly with good reason. Is he a model of law and order, or an egotistical, paranoid, power-whore?

So, are these men models of responsible choices and behavior? I would suggest that it is equally likely that the beneficial results of their actions have nothing to do with whether they were acting responsibly or self-servingly. In other words, you cannot come in after the fact and say this person acted responsibly because you like the results of the actions. You have to look at the person and their circumstances to determine whether they were being responsible or not. Even then, you cannot always be sure, because different people will have different ideas of what the responsible choice in that situation should have been.
ah, but therin lies the problem. YOU ARE focusing on the results as viewed by others. I am focusing on the action and the planning/thought put into that action.

all your examples are either or defender or murder, law and order or power whore, hero or dictator. you are focusing on the results i.e. ALL that they did through the course of their life.

You seem to think Responsible:Irresponsible - Good:Evil or Generous:Selfish

Acting Responsibly can be for a self-serving reasons, just like acting Irresponsiblly can be for a reason others would classify as Heroic. Which is why reason does not play a part when determining what action is responsible or not.

A Criminal mastermind who carefully plans a hiest to be effective and successful and carries it out without a hitch is more responsible to his goal because he has more control and put more thought into it than one who makes it up as they go along.

A dictator who plans his conquests carefully is more responsible to his goal because he has more control and put more thought into it than a leader who just yells "attack them".

A person who abstains, while abstaining, is taking complete control of his situation. thus he is more responsible because he is (supposidly) in control of a higher percentage of elements involved than one who practices safe sex. you yourself cannot take responsibility for your partners actions when (s)he is not with you. sure (s)he can say they always practice safe sex, but do they get the checkup? are they always using condoms (espcially if it's a non-exclusive partnership) and there is always that random chance of failure that one has no control over.

One responsible action for a person who abstains, would be to learn safe sex practices anyway because having a back up plan is always a responsible thing to have.

How much thought and planning that is put into the action is what makes the action responsible. How you handle safe sex is responsible (going by your description) how I handle abstinance is responsible (by my standards).

so to answer your examples. without knowing how they planned their actions, and only viewing the results. yes, Vlad, Ceasar, and Hoover all acted Responsibly for the most part.

Sorry about that, I didn't see JuNii's until after I posted. We say more or less the same thing.

Thank you for clarifying; it does make more sense now. However, I still don't see how protected sex is more responsible than abstinence. I am assuming that no one currently writing on this forum is currently in the act of copulating, but I don't think that makes us less responsible.

I think maybe the issue is that many people responding to the poll are seeing it as a binary question: One or the other is responsible, while the other is not. I think if you ask people, they'll almost universally agree that approaches to the question of sex (especially teenagers) come in varying degrees. Each person has their own idea of what and how wide that scale is, but nobody seems to have realized it.

All along I've been saying that the most responsible choice is abstinence. To me, that's a no-brainer but it occured to me that some of the people I've been debating with may have the idea that those who choose abstinence as the most responsible approach are somehow suggeting that 'safe sex' (as opposed to unprotected) is utterly irresponsible. I can only speak for myself, but I never said that but as I look back over the thread I found myself making arguments that seemed, over time, to be more and more aligned with such a position. Essentially, I allowed myself to be herded into the fallacy that the options were mutually exclusive.

So this post is an 'adjustment' if you will to make plain my initial argument despite any misconceptions that may have asrisen over the course of time. This is not backpedalling, this is not ass-covering. This is a simple clarification. If it seems to contradict anything said over the course of the discussion, then condier the paragraph above as the explanation.

(Of course the discussion assumes the context is outside of a stable, monogamous relationship)

The most responsible approach to sex, expecially in the case of teens, is abstinence. It carries no risk while conferring several clear benefits. Granted, it may be a difficult approach, but responsibility has never been said to be easy. 'Safe sex' while not irresponsible does carry a level of risk regardless of precautions used, and can lead to a number of issues currently being studied by psychologists. That makes it a less responsible approach to abstinence, on the scale of things. Obviously unsafe sex is much less responsible and at that point the only measurable responsibility is in the handling of damage control.

That is my opinion.

Sorry about that, I didn't see JuNii's until after I posted. We say more or less the same thing.

Thank you for clarifying; it does make more sense now. However, I still don't see how protected sex is more responsible than abstinence. I am assuming that no one currently writing on this forum is currently in the act of copulating, but I don't think that makes us less responsible.

I have never argued that either option is more responsible than the other.

My argument from the beginning has been that the most responsible choice is the one that is most right for the individual involved. For some people, that will be abstinence, for others it will be protected sex.

Your choice, but I find that in social settings, I prefer those with me have a great time... even if it means I have work harder at it. ;)

but wether or not an action is deemed responsible is not due to the direct effects it has on others. I can choose to eat irresponsibly and the only one to suffer negative effects is me. I can choose to behave irresponsibly and still have the negative only affect me.

<snip>
I'm not going to respond point by point, because you actually missed the point of what I was saying.

As a result, you have mostly repeated many of my own points back to me, apparently without realizing it, and I think you think we are disagreeing on things that we actually agree on. Also, I think you think I was making an argument that I was not, and kind of addressed an argument I have no interest in either making or defending.

I'm just going to remind you that my point was that the responsible-ness of any given action is situational. What might be the most responsible course in one situation, could be the most irresponsible course in another situation. For that reason I do not believe it is valid to simple declare a certain kind of action (be it abstinence or protected sex) as responsible or irresponsible, in and of itself.

In addition to that point, I was trying to explain that people often have to deal with conflicting responsibilities, and this further affects the responsible-ness of their actions and choices. If they prioritize one responsibility over another, they will displease someone and that party may likely denounce their decision as irresponsible. Or if they refuse to prioritize them, they may displease all parties, and be roundly denounced as irresponsible, and/or violate their responsibility to themselves as well. For this reason, I think it is invalid to claim that there is one course in life that a person can stick to in order to be a responsible person. To simply say "this choice is the responsible choice" is to ignore the fact that any given person may have other, equally important, responsibilities that might conflict with that choice, so that varying from that choice would not always be irresponsible.

This is why, as I pointed out to New Limacon, I have been arguing that the most responsible choice is the one that is right for the person, and I'd further add, the one that is right for the person's situation. Sometimes, for some people, that most responsible choice will be abstinence. Other times, for other people, that most responsible choice will be protected sex. Neither is inherently MORE responsible than the other, all by themselves.

This is why, as I pointed out to New Limacon, I have been arguing that the most responsible choice is the one that is right for the person, and I'd further add, the one that is right for the person's situation. Sometimes, for some people, that most responsible choice will be abstinence. Other times, for other people, that most responsible choice will be protected sex. Neither is inherently MORE responsible than the other, all by themselves.

Perhaps that would add this argument to those that fall under the general heading of objective vs. subjective. Just as some believe truth to be either subjective or objective, maybe it's also fair to say the same of responsibility.

Perhaps that would add this argument to those that fall under the general heading of objective vs. subjective. Just as some believe truth to be either subjective or objective, maybe it's also fair to say the same of responsibility.

Why are you talking to me again?

Why are you talking to me again?

I had a comment to make based on something in the thread. Nothing more.

I'm not sure how to interpret the question. Are you taking issue with the fact that I posted the comment, or merely curious?

I had a comment to make based on something in the thread. Nothing more.

I'm not sure how to interpret the question. Are you taking issue with the fact that I posted the comment, or merely curious?
I am wondering if you wanted to open a new dialogue between us, which would seem odd, considering the way all the other "dialogues" between us have gone. You may comment on anything you like, of course, but if you would like a response, please direct your comments to someone else. Thank you.

I am wondering if you wanted to open a new dialogue between us, which would seem odd, considering the way all the other "dialogues" between us have gone. You may comment on anything you like, of course, but if you would like a response, please direct your comments to someone else. Thank you.

Don't worry the comments were just there for the thread, not directed to you in particular.

I'm going to have to say abstinence on this one. I think that if sex is done, with precautions is obviously best, but I don't think sexual frustration is abstinence's fault, so much as it is the social demands that compel us to want sex all the time.

I used to feel that way myself, and still do, but the OP's suggested method isn't for everyone, I know it hasn't made me feel less frustrated, just... dirty and missing something.

So, if you're really sure that it's the right thing to do in your situation and you won't regret it, go for it. If you're even a little unsure, I recommend abstaining. What's truly responsible is to be aware of what you actually want and what your reason suggests for you to do. Temporary desire/pleasure is not the same thing as happiness.