• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Young adults and being sexually responsible [slight rant]

Tickle_Fiend05 said:
You may think I presented myself that way, but it's far from the truth. I have sympathy for the baby, I understand what's going on. However, I just don't have the same feelings for an unborn baby as I would for someone already born. I have sympathy but I'm apathetic at the same time. It's a legal, safe method and I'm just okay with it. It's just a choice/method that I agree with.
Now, I am not passing judgment... I just find this attitude REALLY unique. Usually, the pro-choice person, doesn't think its a "baby" in any meaningful sense, and therefore they are ok with abortion... and the pro life person typically thinks its a baby - therefore it's murder therefore are opposed to it.
Your saying, you think it's a baby... worthy of sympathy... not just sympathy for the mother, or sympathy for the potential, but sympathy for the baby, but not based on an argument of science (different characteristics of early development fetus)... just based on physical location, abortion is ok. So out of curiosity you would think abortion was acceptable if the woman was in labor, but the baby wasn't born yet? I mean there are good arguments on both sides of this debate, but this is a completely new one to me if that's what your actually saying.
 
Tickle_Fiend05 said:
You may think I presented myself that way, but it's far from the truth. I have sympathy for the baby, I understand what's going on. However, I just don't have the same feelings for an unborn baby as I would for someone already born. I have sympathy but I'm apathetic at the same time. It's a legal, safe method and I'm just okay with it. It's just a choice/method that I agree with.
So...I'm confused. You said you don't care, but now you do, but you really don't, but you do. I'm afraid I'm not following, as this post right here is one giant contradiction. You can't have sympathy and still be apathetic, as apathy by its very nature cancels out sympathy. So...then...what?
 
Midnight Circus said:
So...I'm confused. You said you don't care, but now you do, but you really don't, but you do. I'm afraid I'm not following, as this post right here is one giant contradiction. You can't have sympathy and still be apathetic, as apathy by its very nature cancels out sympathy. So...then...what?

I have no problem with abortion. If I had to ever have someone do this, it would be on my mind for a little while, but I'd get over it. I have no problem if anyone else has the procedure done. My emotions toward an unborn aren't the same for "real people."
 
GodlessTickler said:
Now, I am not passing judgment... I just find this attitude REALLY unique. Usually, the pro-choice person, doesn't think its a "baby" in any meaningful sense, and therefore they are ok with abortion... and the pro life person typically thinks its a baby - therefore it's murder therefore are opposed to it.
Your saying, you think it's a baby... worthy of sympathy... not just sympathy for the mother, or sympathy for the potential, but sympathy for the baby, but not based on an argument of science (different characteristics of early development fetus)... just based on physical location, abortion is ok. So out of curiosity you would think abortion was acceptable if the woman was in labor, but the baby wasn't born yet? I mean there are good arguments on both sides of this debate, but this is a completely new one to me if that's what your actually saying.

That's how I feel. I understand that there is a life but it's not a "real" life.
 
Tickle_Fiend05 said:
That's how I feel. I understand that there is a life but it's not a "real" life.
I sort of understood that, what I was trying to understand was if your definition of reality (as in "real" life) is based completely on location?
 
Mairead 's got a very good point about the modern teenager: not necessarily dumb, but completely clueless about impulse control and cause-and-effect comprehension. In fact, I would argue that that is the basis for almost every single condemnation about kids the world over for millennia.

Impulse control is something we learn as we get older. Part of that is experience, but another is biological; a teenage brain is practically drowning in fluctuating chemicals and recent studies have shown they respond diametrically different ways to stress than adults do. Comparing myself now to 15 I'm amazed that I was ablet o drive to school safely the state my head was in...and I was sober!

Historically, there's always been enough psychology in the world to manipulate people, but not enough to understand them. Marketing people know more about human responses than the people themselves do. Our TV shows, movies, advertising, etc. are LOADED with content specifically designed to manipulate our emotions but we have ABSOLUTELY NO institutions instructing people how to interpret them. Most kids grow up without ANY training about how to make decisions or even how to handle responsibilities.

And this applies most strongly I think to parents. Parental skills are predicated on POWER, not INTELLIGENCE; Mom & Dad get their rule from AUTHORITY not WISDOM. A 2-parent household is pretty much a domestic variation of a dictatorship: Mom/Dad is always right even when their wrong, and if you call them on it, you will be penalized with restrictions on your liberties. Parents have to make a lot of decisions for kids because the kids don't have the knowledge to make them themselves, but I think after you spend 10 years or so arbitrating every little decision for someone, it starts to shape your relationship with them. Eventually, children start to grow up and learn things, but parents spend so much of the formative period with an incapable that they start to resent it when the relationship changes. And when kids start figuring out that the people they trust for information have been feeding them biased knowledge, they tend to distrust them...unfortunately it tends to be around 10-13 years old, when mom & dad's advice would HELP for a change.

The dictatorship parallel continues along the lines of information control. We often have to withhold information from children to avoid traumatizing them, but as they get older, we start doing it to keep them dependent on us for decisions. Regimes control opinion and belief by controlling information, and so too do parents do the same with their children by restricting what they learn. But eventually, it catches up to us and dishonesty and maniuplation catch up to us. We don't trust them to make the right decisions because we know they won;t make them...and we know that because we've KIND OF (not all the way) made them that way. If they DID KNOW how to make the right deicisons, then a parent wouldn't have to be the central authority in their lives by necessity would they? As a parent do you think you could just up and let that go after 15 years of routine? Inmates who spend that much time in prison have trouble adjusting to a new life too.

Added to which, teenagers have very little actual knowledge of the real world; everything they know comes from television, friends and family, advertising, and the limited environment around them. Sure we want our kids to have all teh advantages we never did, but in our frenzy to boost the advantages and remove objectionable/scandalous material, we're also eliminating any reference to a life before those advantages or any experience outside their own. Of course they have trouble dealing with real-life problems, they don't even know what the fuck they are much less how to resolve them! Taking responsibility is as much preventative as it is other, but we seem to equate "responsibility = consequences" in our society rather than "responsibility = thinking ahead". Sure being responsible is hard until you get used to it...but you need practice.

As far as Western attitudes toward sex, we play the ostrich complex: if we can't see it, it isn't there. If we don't tell kids about sex, they won't know its there and wont go after it. We took that attitude in WWI when we refused to distribute prophylactics to our troops in the hpes that we wouldn't be promoting the idea of casual sex with foreign women; the result was returning U.S. troops had the highest levels of syphillis of any other European nation. That also applies to our prevention. I tried to get a vasectomy years ago at the age of 22, but they wouldn;t give me one because I didn't have any kids yet at my age. I protested and offered to sign a waiver protecting the doctor from a malpractice suit, but he pulled the Hippocratic Oath on me. I'm going to try again this year, but even at 27, I might not get it.

On the condom issue, you might be able to get more guys to use them if you taught them this simple trick that I learned long ago and tell everybody I can if the issue comes up: put 2 drops of water-based lube inside the condom before you slip it on, and you get about 60% of the sensation back. I've tried it, and it works. But that would mean giving away information...OOOOH, knowledge bad!

But as for guys like drew70 who make the whole absitence argument, I'm in conflict with that. Abstinence DOES NOT EQUAL IMMUNITY! If we took that attitude with other pandemics like polio or small pox by saying "don't hang around sick people/do sick people things" we'd all be fucking dead now. STIs can mutate and one day they might mutate into more contagious forms that don't necessarily need sexual contact to spread and then where will abstinecne help? We're humans, we built the pyramids, we split the atom, we should be able to build a better immune system! We shouldn't be putting up with this crap because we should be better than this.

Sure, avoiding the infected saved the lives of the aristocracy during the Black Death, but it was a medical student on the ground who survived the disease to figure out how it actually killed people; and guess who's actions helped defeat the Plague worldwide in the end?
 
Tickle_Fiend05 said:
I have no problem with abortion. If I had to ever have someone do this, it would be on my mind for a little while, but I'd get over it. I have no problem if anyone else has the procedure done. My emotions toward an unborn aren't the same for "real people."

Right, we've established that you'd have no problem whatsoever with killing your own child as long as it makes things more convenient for you. But what puzzles me is the idea that your morality seems to be based solely on the semantics of geography...again, the idea of "it's okay to kill him as long as you do it in the kitchen, but don't kill him in the dining room." Once it's out of the mother, it's "real" to you and therefore sacred as a human life? I guess I just don't understand because it makes no logical sense to me.
 
GodlessTickler said:
I sort of understood that, what I was trying to understand was if your definition of reality (as in "real" life) is based completely on location?

Those babies aren't fully grown humans. It takes nine months for the baby to develope and come out. I'm not saying it's okay to kill a baby because of it's location, rather because of it's stage of developement. At some point it's too late to have the abortion done, up until that point it's cool.
 
Midnight Circus said:
Right, we've established that you'd have no problem whatsoever with killing your own child as long as it makes things more convenient for you. But what puzzles me is the idea that your morality seems to be based solely on the semantics of geography...again, the idea of "it's okay to kill him as long as you do it in the kitchen, but don't kill him in the dining room." Once it's out of the mother, it's "real" to you and therefore sacred as a human life? I guess I just don't understand because it makes no logical sense to me.

IMO, life begins when the baby is born. Essentially, abortion is killing a life. However, I feel that killing is too strong of a word to describe it for me. Stabbing someone and legally killing someone are different. I think of abortion as more of stopping their growth before they become a "real" human.
 
Tickle_Fiend05 said:
IMO, life begins when the baby is born. Essentially, abortion is killing a life. However, I feel that killing is too strong of a word to describe it for me. Stabbing someone and legally killing someone are different. I think of abortion as more of stopping their growth before they become a "real" human.

Studies show that a fetus can feel pain as early as 26 weeks.
 
ticklishgiggle said:
Studies show that a fetus can feel pain as early as 26 weeks.

I know science contradicts my feelings but I just can't help feeling the way I do. At this point in my life, I can't get too attached to an embryo or fetus. This is how I feel now and I'm sure it will change in the future. Right now though, I would want an abortion w/o hesitation. Now I don't want anyone to take this as me saying I'm running around and could possibly have this problem, because that's not the case. I'm just speaking on this subject.
 
Amnesiac said:
But as for guys like drew70 who make the whole absitence argument, I'm in conflict with that. Abstinence DOES NOT EQUAL IMMUNITY! If we took that attitude with other pandemics like polio or small pox by saying "don't hang around sick people/do sick people things" we'd all be fucking dead now.
What a curious attitude. As a society, we're encouraged to abstain from smoking tobacco in order to avoid lung cancer and heart disease. We're admonished to abstain from transfats and highly caloric foods to avoid unfavorable health conditions. We're legally required to abstain from the use of heroine, LSD, and cocaine. Abstinence for health reasons is a widely accepted and encouraged practice in America, and few have problems with it. But then a mere suggestion of abstaining from sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy or STD and suddenly it's absurd, unreasonable, or "delusional."

Very curious, indeed.

STIs can mutate and one day they might mutate into more contagious forms that don't necessarily need sexual contact to spread and then where will abstinecne help?
So the answer is to promote sexual promiscuity and allow the STD's to flourish unabated?? That will surely lead to the mutation you fear. And if it does, it's no longer a STD, and hence no longer applies to this conversation. It certainly does little to change the fact that abstinence is the most effective deterrant to unwanted pregnancy and STD.

We're humans, we built the pyramids, we split the atom, we should be able to build a better immune system! We shouldn't be putting up with this crap because we should be better than this.
We're not, though. Dispite our achievements we're still highly flawed and always will be. We have limitations and there's no shame in recognizing them.
 
ticklishgiggle said:
Studies show that a fetus can feel pain as early as 26 weeks.
Which seems mainly like an argument for painless methods of abortion if possible, but not an argument against abortion itself. The ability to feel pain doesn't make something a person.
 
Midnight Circus said:
I think that can be related, in part, to teenage psychology...by and large, teenagers are rebellious.
That might be part of it, but I don't think it's the whole story. Here's an interesting factoid: The Southern Baptist Convention has been pushing what it calls "Virginity Pledges." Basically a local church has a drive to get girls signed up to pledge that they will not have sex before marriage. It works, to an extent, but the extent is interesting. It's found that such programs can be very effective at delaying the girls' first sexual experiences (though they may or may not actually wait until marriage). However there are two big "buts..."

1) The program's effectiveness drops sharply if there are many "pledge girls" in the same community. It works best when those taking the pledge are few and form a self-reinforcing clique within a larger community that doesn't share their values. In other words "pledge girls" have to feel that they are somehow set apart from the larger community. If pledging becomes the social norm it collapses. This is an interesting case of turning teen rebellion to a useful purpose, but by the same token if it becomes normative then the girls rebel against THAT.

2) When a girl breaks her pledge, she is much less likely to use birth control than the average for her age and background.

I think the second point illustrates what's really wrong with abstinence-only programs, and why they actually increase teen pregnancy. Abstinence-only programs are just that: abstinence ONLY. They don't include any training about birth control, because the theory is that teaching kids about birth control encourages them to have sex. So not only does the abstinence training fail to prevent them from having sex, keeping them ignorant about birth control makes them much more likely to get pregnant when they do have sex.
 
drew70 said:
What a curious attitude. As a society, we're encouraged to abstain from smoking tobacco in order to avoid lung cancer and heart disease. We're admonished to abstain from transfats and highly caloric foods to avoid unfavorable health conditions. We're legally required to abstain from the use of heroine, LSD, and cocaine. Abstinence for health reasons is a widely accepted and encouraged practice in America, and few have problems with it. But then a mere suggestion of abstaining from sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy or STD and suddenly it's absurd, unreasonable, or "delusional."

Very curious, indeed..


With today's birth control you do not have to abstain. Did I just say that today's birth control is 100% percent perect? No. Just 99.9%.

Now if I told you that every time you drive you increase your risk of dying or being paralyzed in a car crash, which is true, and I kept on telling you that you should not drive ever would you consider that "reasonable." Or is this option more reasonable:

Don't drive drunk
Make Sure you car is good working mechanical condition
Drive defensively
Obey traffic laws
Don't drive distracted
Wear you seatbelt
Make sure your airbag is operational

DRIVE SAFELY.
 
Tickle_Fiend05 said:
I know science contradicts my feelings but I just can't help feeling the way I do. At this point in my life, I can't get too attached to an embryo or fetus. This is how I feel now and I'm sure it will change in the future. Right now though, I would want an abortion w/o hesitation. Now I don't want anyone to take this as me saying I'm running around and could possibly have this problem, because that's not the case. I'm just speaking on this subject.

It's really easy to feel that way considering you'll never have to carry one to term. This is the reason I don't get overly concerned about a man's opinion about abortion. Until he's capable of being in the position where he can get pregnant and be forced to make the decision whether to carry the fetus, xzygote (or however it's spelled), ball of tissue or whatever, his opinion is merely an opinion. He'll NEVER have to go through the process of abortion or birth so it's easy to armchair quarterback when you never have to play isn't it?

Then again, why are we discussing abortion on this thread anyway?
 
Redmage said:
Which seems mainly like an argument for painless methods of abortion if possible, but not an argument against abortion itself. The ability to feel pain doesn't make something a person.

Be a woman, get pregnant, then come tell me about the 26 week fetus (that can now live outside the mother's womb) isn't a person. You can use any so-called scientific legal, antiseptic argument you want; that mother that has a 26 week fetus in her womb feels there's a person inside her.

I happen to be pro-life and pro-choice. I personally don't like abortion under any circumstances, but at 26 weeks, that non-person can feel every bit of pain before he or she dies, I guarantee you.

Once again, this isn't the abortion thread. Can someone get this thread back to topic?? Obviously, it isn't going to be me.
 
Iggy pop said:
I have to admit it is not exactly an apples and apples comparison, but it's not completely unrelated. You are correct that if you are diagnosed with diabetes that you can, if you change your lifestyle live a relatively normal life. There still a higher possiblity of problem later in life, but it is not exactly the death sentence that AIDS is. Still, even with the fact, Childhood obesity and diabetes is a problem because of the amount Children facing this problem as compared to the AIDS virus. The truth is far far far more people are dying from diabetes and heart attack than from AIDS.

Yeah, go tell that to the teenager in the 15-25 age group who just got the positive AIDS test result. I'm sure they wouldn't be in agreement with you.
 
drew70 said:
But then a mere suggestion of abstaining from sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy or STD and suddenly it's absurd, unreasonable, or "delusional."
Not at all. Comprehensive sex education programs generally emphasize that the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs is abstinence. But in addition, they provide factual information about contraception and other safer sex techniques, because they acknowledge that we live in a nation where 95% of all people engage in premarital sex. Denying that reality just because we wish it were otherwise is, in my mind, "unreasonable."

BTW, what I referred to as "delusional" in an earlier post was your assertion that comprehensive sex education must not work, because we still have the highest abortion rates anywhere. Since you appear not to have been reading very carefully, I'll requote it here:

LindyHopper said:
Blaming comprehensive sex education for America's high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates is simply delusional, nothing more than wishful thinking that's completely inconsistent with the facts at hand. All the European nations with good figures in this area have comprehensive sex education. In contrast, abstinence-only sex education is pretty much unique to America. What conclusion would you draw?
Basically, teaching kids about abstinence without teaching them about contraception makes them more likely to get pregnant. And that's no good at all.

drew70 said:
Dispite our achievements we're still highly flawed and always will be. We have limitations and there's no shame in recognizing them.
Agreed. We should recognize that many teenagers will have sex, regardless of grownups opinion on the matter, and we should equip them as well as possible to do so safely. Comprehensive sex education, much like a condom, only works if you use it! 😀
 
Last edited:
ticklishgiggle said:
The fact is, he almost always uses a condom, but like some men he feels it takes away from the over-all sensation. So right now he's been playing the pull-out game. Which is a game often lost.


If he's breaking it, then he's probably not putting it on right.

But I agree with what you said above M. Once on the vinegar strokes it would take an Act of God to get my arse to move in that *pointing behind himself* direction.
 
BigJim said:
If he's breaking it, then he's probably not putting it on right.

But I agree with what you said above M. Once on the vinegar strokes it would take an Act of God to get my arse to move in that *pointing behind himself* direction.


Not to mention some women complain about the feel of condoms as well
 
ARGH!!! I'm a teapot! I'm a teapot!

Goodieluver said:
Not to mention some women complain about the feel of condoms as well


Really? I hadn't heard that, although on reflection, it shouldn't surprise me.
 
I can't be bothered quoting anyone but I just wanted to say that babies born at 26 weeks can and do survive and live perfectly healthy normal lives.
 
kis123 said:
It's really easy to feel that way considering you'll never have to carry one to term. This is the reason I don't get overly concerned about a man's opinion about abortion. Until he's capable of being in the position where he can get pregnant and be forced to make the decision whether to carry the fetus, xzygote (or however it's spelled), ball of tissue or whatever, his opinion is merely an opinion. He'll NEVER have to go through the process of abortion or birth so it's easy to armchair quarterback when you never have to play isn't it?

Then again, why are we discussing abortion on this thread anyway?

Well exactly how many women have abortions? There in the minority for certain. A man can't have an abortion but not all women will either. So in that sense, a mans opinion is just as valuable as a woman who hasn't had one. There is the possibility for all women but the chances aren't in that favor.
 
What's New
10/3/25
Check out the TMF Welcome Forum and say hello!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1704 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top