Young adults and being sexually responsible [slight rant]

[GodlessTickler]

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.

Like I said I am interested in your view point and how you come to it... there are latter quotes that I think explain... your answer to me is fairly consistent with a more traditional view of abortion (except for the fact that were not "fully grown" for some time, but I don't think you really believe in killing partial grown... say 8 year olds), it becomes more interesting if you look at what you said to other people in this thread such as...

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.

Again all that stopping the growth stuff is like the traditional argument... but the phrase "IMO, life begins when the baby is born." Well this is a somewhat unique argument and I am interested in that. The thing is it doesn't seem logically congruent with "at some point it's too late to have the abortion done, up until that point it's cool" - unless you mean up until the baby is BORN, well, that just means you don't indorse the murder of infants in their cribs, and that's nice but hardly needed to be stated. Now also since you are talking about development, while there is a very large difference between a 1 week old fetus, and a born baby, there is essentially no difference whatsoever developmentally between a 9 month old baby and a born baby.
So by this it would seem that you either don't believe there is a point where one should have abortion, or you don't believe life begins at birth. If you believe that life begins at birth then it seems very unlikely that your argument can really be based on a concept of development and not location, unless you find the single relevant factor of human life that we are currently breathing air on our own... now of course the 9 month developed baby inside its mother CAN breath air, it just isn't currently doing so.
It just seems this whole argument is rather logically inconstant with itself, which brings me to my last comment on something you 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.

Well, I think we can change what we feel... or at least what we think. We are fairly complex thinkers, human beings, and able to exert a lot of free will over the process. Now of course the validity or non validity of a life shouldn't have anything to do with you being attached to it... but what I really think is going on here is just kind of a changing somewhat self involved morality (and despite popular belief there is nothing wrong with being self involved so that's not meant as an insult). That is actually what I found interesting as I read what you posted. Most people aren't willing to admit such things (and you didn't in so many words) but it is interesting to me when people have that kind of flexible morality that is involved with themselves. Its curious, because since there are no significant differences between a fetus at 9 months and a baby at 1 day, it could be extrapolated LOGICALLY that if it weren't for the fact that society would frown on you, if you would be ok with killing the 1 day old as well. Now I don't think you would necessarily, because you seem to have a more "out of sight out of mind" attitude about the moment of birth. Like I said, this isn't meant to be judgmental, especially moral systems that seem to be based on the "pleasure principle" or systems that are completely about the self, tend to be hidden because they aren't popular with society, but they are curious to me from a philosophical standpoint. Or perhaps I am reading to much into it, and you aren't aiming for any kind of morality or logic in what you do or think, but that would be interesting in it's own right.

 

[GodlessTickler]

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?

That is always a very convenient argument to shut people up I suppose if they will respect it, and of course we can go around dismissing each other... but I don't think that is very good for reasonable discussion. I CERTINALLY agree with you, 110% that the woman's perspective is unique, and important. It absolutely is. I will be the first to concede that I haven't and wont go through with it, but then for that reason to say your opinion becomes irrelevant I find to be more than a bit flawed. For one thing, in an essence as a man has gone through a situation relevant to the abortion debate... we might not remember it, but we were at some point all fetuses. For another thing, you will never go through the experience of having someone unilaterally decide to terminate a pregnancy that if carried to term would certainly be considered "your" child, but I would never dismiss your opinion, just because your perspective is different. Lastly, there is more to it than just personal experience, there are lots of things we known medically where a male (or female) doctor knows a GREAT deal more about a woman's body and the fetus inside it than she does. That's a relevant opinion, it isn't from the same perspective, not every opinion has to be, but we don't get anywhere in understanding each other by just being dismissive. Though in this particular situation it is common.

Why are we discussing abortion? If you noticed my first post I didn't really want to just because the poster didn't, but I'll admit I got in once everyone else did... but it's not REALLY off topic, young adults being sexually responsible, it is SPECIFICALLY about a pregnancy scare... that pretty much brings up the abortion issue. For example if someone has a completely blase attitude about abortion they could say "why do young adults need to be sexually responsible, they can just get an abortion" (now obviously I am not advocating that ridiculous stand point) The point being, abortion is a subject that is essentially tied together with birth control, and this thread had a lot to do with birth control. That's why people have gotten "off-topic" I think.

 

[Redmage]

With today's birth control you do not have to abstain.

Right. If there was a pill that you could take to negate the harm from cigarettes, or a stomach-condom that you could swallow to prevent the nasty effects of high-fat foods, then people would not be encouraged to "abstain" from these things.

Moreover, the religionists who claim that they are advocating abstinence purely for health reasons are lying. They're grabbing a medical justification for a policy that they actually want to pursue for religious reasons. Most sensible people know that, so when they see a religious argument dressed up in a white lab coat they naturally resist it.

It's like the temperance movement of the early 20th century. Sure, there are health problems associated with alcohol. Everyone knows that. Reducing alcohol consumption can have many benefits. But everyone knew that the temperance movement was spearheaded by groups like the Women's Christian Temperance Union, so "health" arguments were generally seen (correctly) as thinly veiled religious arguments.

Thus even a policy that might have some medical benefit behind it is rejected because it's delivered dishonestly.

 

[Redmage]

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.

That is true, but it should be noted that the survival rate for infants that premature is on the order of 50%, and of the half that do survive a very high percentage have lifelong mental and physical developmental problems. The fraction of 26-week fetuses that will actually live "healthy normal lives" is probably on the order of 25-30%. We aren't talking truly viable births here.

Just pointing out that simply because it's possible that doesn't make it likely or wise. It simply complicates the ethical implications of late-term abortions.

 

[Dave2112]

First off, I just came onto this thread and have not really read all the posts. So, if I repeat something, please forgive me.

Mairead, the fact that you spoke up and said something speaks highly of your character. It also shows that you are probably not the only one thinking this. I feel that your generation does not often get the credit it deserves, and that there are plenty like you who think beyond thier years. I think yours is a generation of extremes. There's the "entitlement" sector, the kids these days who feel the world owes them and have little use for effort, the ones who, having been raised on reality-tv and electronic instant gratification, cannot understand it when life doesn't go thier way.

Then there's the other percentage that has access to more information and history than we ever did and has grown up far faster.

Ok, not that any of that makes sense in the cntext of this thread...but in a way it does. I think the mere accessability of things like the morning-after pill and all the other things in the 21st century that make life "easier" make people (especially young ones) make dumb decisions, or after-the-fact decisions. There are consequences for your actions, and far too many in this young generation fail to understand that.

And as far as the "women don't like condoms" thing I picked up on in the last few posts, I can only add one thing. I usually turn them inside-out. You know.....Ribbed for MY Pleasure.

 

[drew70]

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."

So, it seems reasonable to you to teach teenagers that abstinence is the only 100% reliable means of pregnancy prevention and then in the same class teach them how not to abstain? Seems rather counter productive to me.

Basically, teaching kids about abstinence without teaching them about contraception makes them more likely to get pregnant. And that's no good at all.

If you can demonstrate that a person practicing abstinence improves his or her level of protection against STD and pregnancy by also wearing a condum or other means of contraception, than I will agree it makes sense to teach both.

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.

The safest way is to not do it at all. We can best equip them by continuing to drive home this point. What you suggest is akin to telling people not to smoke and then passing out ash trays.

Comprehensive sex education, much like a condom, only works if you use it! 😀

Much like abstinence, which works better and precludes any need for "comprehensive sex education" OR condums. 🙂

 

[LindyHopper]

So, it seems reasonable to you to teach teenagers that abstinence is the only 100% reliable means of pregnancy prevention and then in the same class teach them how not to abstain? Seems rather counter productive to me.

I try to avoid telling my students what to think. I believe that education is, at it's heart, about providing students all the information they need to make their own informed choices.

If I'm teaching a U.S. Government class, I don't tell my students who to vote for, even though I'm quite sure I know what the "best" answer is. Instead, I provide them detailed information about each party's position on many important issues, enabling them to make their own choices.

When I'm teaching about psychoactive drugs, I explain the biological mechanisms, the risks of addiction, and the legal consequences. I acknowledge, for example, that tobacco is far more addictive and kills many more people than marijuana, because it's true. I don't bury that fact under a blanket "JUST SAY NO!" because I know that in the end, I'm not the one who's going to decide whether or not they'll use drugs - that's their choice to make. The best thing I can do for them is to provide practical, factual information about the various effects and comparative risks of different drugs, so when they face those decisions in their own lives, they're doing so with eyes open.

Much like abstinence, which works better and precludes any need for "comprehensive sex education" OR condums. 🙂

Abstinence works. Abstinence-only education does not. As educators and parents, we only have control over the latter; we do not, in the end, have control over whether or not our young people have sex. Therefore, the responsible thing to do is to provide them with all the information they need to make their own informed personal choices.

 

[Iggy pop]

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.

I certainly would not do that. Just like I would not tell a woman whose husband died in Airplane crash that air plane crashes are rare, and I would not tell the swimmer that lost his leg to a shark that shark attacks are rare. Even though statistically speaking both events are rare.

 

[simulated]

I've seen many comparisons of sex ed to telling people to eat healthy, not smoke, not do drugs, etc. All of these comparisons are invalid in this argument.

The desire to reproduce is hardwired into each and every one of us; indeed, you could argue that it is our sole purpose in life. As such, there will always be a drive to sleep with as many good looking people as possible in our lives. This is universal through the human race.

We have no hardwired desire to smoke cigarettes, eat unhealthy foods, or do drugs. When someone tells me "if you smoke cigarettes, you'll probably get lung cancer and die," I say sure, I won't smoke cigarettes. I'm not going to get drunk at a party and wake up the next morning in a pile of ashes and cigarette butts, because there's no desire to smoke in the first place. In all of these cases, teaching 'abstinence' works, because there is both no reason and no desire to partake built into our bodies.

Sex is completely different. As I mentioned above, the desire to sleep with people is universal and hardwired into our body. This is why abstinence only education fails. I've definitely had times where I've fought a little battle in my head: "Sex! No, I can't really get involved further here, think of the con... Sex! But then she'll expec... Sex!" Generally the logical part of my brain wins these, but I've never run this through my head while under the influence of anything which would affect my judgment.

Now, the sex education that I've had has been fairly explicit by some people's standards, though I think of it as comprehensive. Because of this, I know that even if the logical part of my brain loses out someday I'll have a full understanding of how to protect myself against consequences that can come from sex.

People who have abstinence only education go through the same mental wrangling that I described above, and its pretty much a given that someday they'll fail to choose abstinence as well. However, when that day comes they'll have no knowledge of the birth control and protection that exists. Because of this, they're much more likely to become/get their partner pregnant, contract STD's, etc.

I'd really like to see someone argue this point, because I truly cannot see a flaw in my logic here. All humans have an innate desire to have sex, and sooner or later that desire will win out against any amount of abstinence training; therefore, abstinence only sex ed is strictly inferior to sex ed which covers birth control and such.

 

[BellaRisa]

This is a very, very interesting thread.

A few brief thoughts:

I grew up in inner city NY, Bed-Stuy to be exact, in the '80's and very early '90's. Seemed like every other girl over the age of 13 had a baby; I went to a great High School geared for future law students, and yet part of our 4th floor had to be a daycare center so the young moms could finish school . *That* was the best form of pregnancy and STD prevention possible for myself and teens like me; just seeing what unsafe sex could mean for the next 18 yrs of your life locked the legs and zippers of a great many of us through high school (though not nearly enough ). And, when we did feel ready, usually in college, we just did what they'd taught us in sex-ed class back in High School; we used condoms and the pill, and some of us even added spermicide on top of all that. And we didn't have babies until we wanted to. It wasn't rocket science and we didn't need to be married first. Hell, to be blunt I married my first lover and we used all of the above for the first three yrs of marriage; we weren't ready for kids at the time and we knew it. And it never took away from the passion, we never forgot 'in the heat of the moment' (which is bull in my opinion) even when I was just 19...we did what needed to be done because our future was more important than condom-free shagging. It's just not that difficult to protect yourself.

Bella

 

[jugner]

So right now he's been playing the pull-out game. Which is a game often lost.

It also does not always work. Sperm comes out before ejaculation. It's called pre-cum, a clear liquid,and it has a few sperm in it, so pulling out is not going to always prevent pregnancy.

 

[chicago]

It also does not always work. Sperm comes out before ejaculation. It's called pre-cum, a clear liquid,and it has a few sperm in it, so pulling out is not going to always prevent pregnancy.

Which is why I called it "a game often lost"

 

[Icycle]

The desire to reproduce is hardwired into each and every one of us; indeed, you could argue that it is our sole purpose in life. As such, there will always be a drive to sleep with as many good looking people as possible in our lives. This is universal through the human race.

I would agree that the drive to reproduce is the single fundamental, universal characteristic of all live, from virus and bacteria, to plants, animals, and humans. From a certain perspective, the entire point of life is to reproduce ones genes. It is no coincidence that sex and orgasms are some of the most pleasurable physical sensations we can experience.

We have no hardwired desire to smoke cigarettes, eat unhealthy foods, or do drugs. When someone tells me "if you smoke cigarettes, you'll probably get lung cancer and die," I say sure, I won't smoke cigarettes. I'm not going to get drunk at a party and wake up the next morning in a pile of ashes and cigarette butts, because there's no desire to smoke in the first place. In all of these cases, teaching 'abstinence' works, because there is both no reason and no desire to partake built into our bodies.

Many mind-altering drugs actually highjack the very same pleasure centers in the brain that make sex such a pleasurable and compelling activity. The difference is that many of these drugs actually shortcut all the hard work to get to the pleasure center reward, and give a more powerful pleasurable sensation than is normally available. The result can be very powerful physical and psychological addition.

And I would agrue that we are hardwired to eat "bad" foods too. In pre-agricultural humanity, foods that are sweet or fatty were highly desirable, since they pack a lot of calories. Therefore, our bodies respond very favorably to these kinds of foods. The problem is that in modern industrial societies, there isn't really any shortage of food, so the drive to consume foods that pack in the most calories possible is maladaptive.

Sex is completely different. As I mentioned above, the desire to sleep with people is universal and hardwired into our body. This is why abstinence only education fails. I've definitely had times where I've fought a little battle in my head: "Sex! No, I can't really get involved further here, think of the con... Sex! But then she'll expec... Sex!" Generally the logical part of my brain wins these, but I've never run this through my head while under the influence of anything which would affect my judgment.

And this is where human beings differ from most other living creatures. Although we experience most of the same basic desires as other animals, we have the ability to think and reason, and decide to not act upon these desires. We may crave sex and high calorie foods, but we can choose not to partake of them. Given the prevalence of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and overweight people, clearly our ability to set aside these desires is not perfect. On the other hand there are at least a few people who manage to live a completely celebate life, so it can be done.

I'd really like to see someone argue this point, because I truly cannot see a flaw in my logic here. All humans have an innate desire to have sex, and sooner or later that desire will win out against any amount of abstinence training; therefore, abstinence only sex ed is strictly inferior to sex ed which covers birth control and such.

I can't really disagree with you conclusions. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of people are going to have sex. Once people have made the choice to have sex, the subsequent choices they make, like whether or not to use a condom are heavily influenced by the type of sex education they have had. Those who have received comprehensive sex education are more likely to use a condom and use it correctly. It seems very clear to me to that comprehensive sex education is the superior choice. Why withhold information that could save someone's life?

 

[BigJim]

When it comes to sexual rtelationships and the guilt, fear and resistence to them, I find myself squarely in the camp of Valentine Michael Smith.

Grok that in fullness, water brothers.

 

[jugner]

Which is why I called it "a game often lost"

I thought you meant it is hard to do in time, which I'm a condom guy, so I wouldn't know, but I can imagine it would be. So I misunderstod.

 

[drew70]

I've never used a condom in my life. Tried it once, but by the time I got it on, the moment was lost. But by practicing common sense, I've avoided any and all STD and I've never caused a pregnancy, even through thirteen years of marriage. Even in my military days in the far east when I was fucking oriental babes rather frequently, I stayed clean and safe.

All it takes is some common sense and a little self control. Know who it is you're fucking, or don't fuck. There are plenty of alternatives to getting off without fucking, both for men and women.

But for whatever reason, some people insist on approaching the teen sex issue with a defeatist capitulating attitude that says, we dasn't tell them what to do, all we can do is beg and plead with them to please please please be safe. "Kids, you can fuck so long as you wear a condom." We shove condoms in teenagers' faces and tell them to "go fuck and be safe." Small wonder kids are fucking so much when adult teachers are sending a message that they can all fuck their little brains out safely.

Anybody offended yet at the repeated use of the term "fuck"? Perhaps you don't appreciate that word applied to what (your?) kids are doing? Good. Because it's pretty fucking offensive, and until we get serious and take a stand the problem will not go away. We can keep "educating" them and "letting them decide for themselves," and we'll continue to have high teen pregnancy rates, STI, and teen suicide. Or we can give them the firm hand they need, and TELL, NOT ASK them to cut the shit out or suffer the consequences.

'But drewwwww, they're "hard-wired" to want to fuck!'
Too freaking bad. They're also hard wired to feel a kick in the ass which is what a good parent would give them any time they are caught fucking.

'But drewwwww, they'll still fuck no matter what we say or do!'
Fine, let the stupid bastards get AIDS, HERPES, and pregnant. A few examples will send a powerful message to their peers that maybe, just maybe, fucking isn't all it's "cracked" up to be. THAT's the kind of teaching teenagers need, not this meely mouthed bullshit we're spoon feeding them.

 

[BellaRisa]

Which is why I called it "a game often lost"

Q: What do you call lovers who use the pull-out method?

A: Parents

Bella

 

[isabeau]

When it comes to sexual rtelationships and the guilt, fear and resistence to them, I find myself squarely in the camp of Valentine Michael Smith.

Grok that in fullness, water brothers.

could you repeat that, so i understand?????

 

[GodlessTickler]

I've never used a condom in my life. Tried it once, but by the time I got it on, the moment was lost. But by practicing common sense, I've avoided any and all STD and I've never caused a pregnancy, even through thirteen years of marriage. Even in my military days in the far east when I was fucking oriental babes rather frequently, I stayed clean and safe.

All it takes is some common sense and a little self control. Know who it is you're fucking, or don't fuck. There are plenty of alternatives to getting off without fucking, both for men and women. .

Well... I assume I know what you are talking about, but lets clear this up... when you say so eloquently that you were "fucking oriental babes rather frequently" and stayed "clean and safe" Well for one thing I assume you are talking about non insemination sex, and that's not what most people think of when they hear "fucking" so I just wanted to clear that up. Now if you mean regular sex, and you have some "common sense" way to avoid pregnancy, please, by all means let us know, the scientific community is on the edge of it's seats (we already have a common sense way, birth control and condoms... but I'm sure that's not what you meant) but if you have the drew method for having intercourse without any risk of pregnancy then PLEASE enlighten the rest of it, did you keep complex ovulation calendars and take some kind of special herbal supplement we don't know about. If you had standard sex, without protection and didn't get anyone pregnant, you were LUCKY, that's all. That is like winning the lotto and advising others in financial planning (buy lotto tickets).
Now that is somewhat irrelevant, because I assume that when you say fucking, you mean non-insimanitory sex that you have mentioned in the past. Now if you had multiple partners, didn't get them tested, and exchange bodily fluids, then you were again... lucky. Not something I would advocate. Now if you were not exchanging bodily fluids in ANY way, then of course you were safe, and that may work for you, but is somewhat irrelevant, because it is safe by nature, and just means you made a personal choice.

But for whatever reason, some people insist on approaching the teen sex issue with a defeatist capitulating attitude that says, we dasn't tell them what to do, all we can do is beg and plead with them to please please be safe. "Kids, you can fuck so long as you wear a condom." We shove condoms in teenagers' faces and tell them to "go fuck and be safe." Small wonder kids are fucking so much when adult teachers are sending a message that they can all fuck their little brains out safely..

Well see drew, I know this seems to escape you (actually your a pretty bright guy, I think you just don't like it)... but that isn't defeatist or capitulating, it is the understanding, that children grow up. And then, no matter how much you wish it wasn't so, there is freedom. They get to make their own choices. And for the record please, tell me who is saying "go fuck and be safe" because I don't know much of any sex ed groups telling kids to have sex. That is your personal interpretation because you seem to think people aren't capable of having information without being told what to do. Telling people what to do is the realm of the abstinence only groups, don't act as if it is what the comprehensive sex ed groups are doing, suggesting perhaps, and usually that is in favor of abstinence.

Anybody offended yet at the repeated use of the term "fuck"? Perhaps you don't appreciate that word applied to what (your?) kids are doing? Good. Because it's pretty fucking offensive, and until we get serious and take a stand the problem will not go away. We can keep "educating" them and "letting them decide for themselves," and we'll continue to have high teen pregnancy rates, STI, and teen suicide. Or we can give them the firm hand they need, and TELL, NOT ASK them to cut the shit out or suffer the consequences. .

I'm not offended, but I think your using it oddly, because you use it to describe your fucking experiences, and the fucking of young people, but you at least claim to support non insemination, so a clear distinction should be made between the two. As far as telling people what to do, you might have some right up until there 18, then you have NOTHING, because thank goodness, we do live in a land of some degree of freedom instead of somewhere where you get to "TELL, NOT ASK" people what to do.

'But drewwwww, they're "hard-wired" to want to fuck!'
Too freaking bad. They're also hard wired to feel a kick in the ass which is what a good parent would give them any time they are caught fucking. .

Again simi-viable, up until the age of 18... you may or may not have meant it literally, but I hope that violence is the best thing you can come up with when a person would dare to express themselves in a way you didn't approve of, and again, it may work for a couple of years until they are 18 and have a perfect legal right to do anything... or anyone they want. Or until there big enough to give you a good kick in the face (but I'm sure your one of those Internet tough guys who can beat up anyone). That's not a long term intelligent solution, that's just something to entice children not to get caught. Because you can say "too bad" all you want, but the strongest biological imperative on the planet, is going to be there, no matter what your opinion. And wanting not to get caught, leads to not going to parents for help, they will still have sex... they just wont be able to be safe, but as we know, if someone chooses to have sex, you could care less about their safety.

'But drewwwww, they'll still fuck no matter what we say or do!'
Fine, let the stupid bastards get AIDS, HERPES, and pregnant. A few examples will send a powerful message to their peers that maybe, just maybe, fucking isn't all it's "cracked" up to be. THAT's the kind of teaching teenagers need, not this meely mouthed bullshit we're spoon feeding them.

Right, because back before condoms no one fucked. In fact no one is fucking in Africa today since there are a "few examples". ANYONE besides drew interested in raising there hand to volunteer their child to be an example and get aids so everyone else will learn? Anyone ::crickets:: no one? But there not showing judgment up to drew70's standards.... surely the "stupid bastards" deserve the AIDS and the HERPES and the unwanted pregnancy, just sacrifice a few of your children for drews ideals... anyone?!?
Tough sell drew my friend, your ball.

 

[Redmage]

Abstinence works. Abstinence-only education does not. As educators and parents, we only have control over the latter; we do not, in the end, have control over whether or not our young people have sex. Therefore, the responsible thing to do is to provide them with all the information they need to make their own informed personal choices.

The only 100% certain way to avoid dying in a car crash is never to get into a car. But we don't think that's a realistic way to educate our kids, so we teach them how to drive safely. The only 100% sure way to avoid being hurt by someone you love is never to fall in love. But we don't think that's likely so we teach our kids good relationship skills.

The idea that it's "inconsistent" to acknowledge that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid STDs and pregnancy while still teaching kids about birth control is one of the silliest things I've ever run across. It's closing one's eyes to reality just a surely as keeping your kids out of Driver's Ed class.

Right, because back before condoms no one fucked. In fact no one is fucking in Africa today since there are a "few examples". ANYONE besides drew interested in raising there hand to volunteer their child to be an example and get aids so everyone else will learn? Anyone ::crickets:: no one? But there not showing judgment up to drew70's standards.... surely the "stupid bastards" deserve the AIDS and the HERPES and the unwanted pregnancy, just sacrifice a few of your children for drews ideals... anyone?!?

Actually, I give Drew a tip of the hat, for the most honest exposition of what's behind "abstinence only" that I've seen to date. On the surface, it's all about "what's best for the children." But scratch just a little and it's "Let a few of them get AIDS to scare the others into line."

It's not about what's best for the children. It's about control.

 

[BellaRisa]

On the surface, it's all about "what's best for the children." But scratch just a little and it's "Let a few of them get AIDS to scare the others into line."

It's not about what's best for the children. It's about control.

Thank you, I was thinking the same thing. You rarely hear such from folks who actually have children that they love and wish to see live a long life.

Bella

 

[BigJim]

could you repeat that, so i understand?????

Tis a literary reference, expressing my views on sex, marriage and personal guilt. You need to read a book called Stranger in a Strange Land to understand it. 😉

 

[drew70]

Well... I assume I know what you are talking about, but lets clear this up... when you say so eloquently that you were "fucking oriental babes rather frequently" and stayed "clean and safe" Well for one thing I assume you are talking about non insemination sex, and that's not what most people think of when they hear "fucking" so I just wanted to clear that up.

Dude, I'm talking down and dirty fucking; knockin' the bottom outta that thang, taking the skin boat to Tuna Town, pouring the coal to that hot oven; gettin laid, gettin some sugar, gettin lucky; taking junior on a spelunking expedition; doing the nasty, the horizontal watusi, and the wild thing, Depending on with whom I was indulging, I might go the traditional route of General Masengill, or for matters of security, I might attack from a rear approach; taking it down the Old Dirt Road; the Hershey Highway; the Chocolate Channel; the Cocoa Canal; the Bosco Boulevard; can you dig it? Oooooh, bad choice of words on my part! ~

Now if you mean regular sex, and you have some "common sense" way to avoid pregnancy, please, by all means let us know, the scientific community is on the edge of it's seats (we already have a common sense way, birth control and condoms... but I'm sure that's not what you meant) but if you have the drew method for having intercourse without any risk of pregnancy then PLEASE enlighten the rest of it, did you keep complex ovulation calendars and take some kind of special herbal supplement we don't know about. If you had standard sex, without protection and didn't get anyone pregnant, you were LUCKY, that's all. That is like winning the lotto and advising others in financial planning (buy lotto tickets).

The scientific community??! And around here, that would be who? You and the "Bay of Pigs?" Sorry pal. You weren't there. I was. You see, at that time in Korea, all of the working girls were required to get a medical checkup once a week. Ahjimah pays for this. Also the girls were required to present a VD card stamped with their most recent test results upon request of any prospective client. Ahjimah will have all her girls inspected on the same day and pay a flat fee. For example, the girls from The Lion's Den went every Tuesday, while the girls from the Crown Club went every Thursday. So Tuesday nights I was at the Lion's Den, and Thursday nights I was at the Crown Club. I'd make sure they were checked that day plus I knew most of their history. All the girls were either on birth control or had hysterectomies, so pregnancy wasn't an issue.

Like I said. Common sense. No rocket science. Simply keeping in mind the potential consequences and never letting your dick take control. The other guys there were catching shit right and left because their dicks would lead and they would follow.

Well see drew, I know this seems to escape you (actually your a pretty bright guy, I think you just don't like it)... but that isn't defeatist or capitulating, it is the understanding, that children grow up. And then, no matter how much you wish it wasn't so, there is freedom. They get to make their own choices. And for the record please, tell me who is saying "go fuck and be safe" because I don't know much of any sex ed groups telling kids to have sex. That is your personal interpretation because you seem to think people aren't capable of having information without being told what to do. Telling people what to do is the realm of the abstinence only groups, don't act as if it is what the comprehensive sex ed groups are doing, suggesting perhaps, and usually that is in favor of abstinence.

You're a pretty bright guy too, Godless. But like many here, you see sex as the be-all-end-all of existance, and any suggestion of curtailing sex in any way is an anathema to everything for which you stand, even when it results in disease and unwanted pregnancy. We've been down this road before. You already know all my answers to the questions you ask, so let's just save some time and end it here.

Actually, I give Drew a tip of the hat, for the most honest exposition of what's behind "abstinence only" that I've seen to date. On the surface, it's all about "what's best for the children." But scratch just a little and it's "Let a few of them get AIDS to scare the others into line."

It's not about what's best for the children. It's about control..

Are you certain that's a hat? It looks more like a marsupial to me.

Actually it's about both. It's about controlling the epidemic of STD and unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion. Such control is undeniably in the children's best interests.

 

[BellaRisa]

There are so many 'pill babies' in the world it's not even funny. All it takes is for a woman to miss ONE pill, or take it at the wrong time, or for one of her pills to be defective (which happens more than people are comfy thinking) to risk pregnancy. And all it takes is for the ONE guy who slept with the prostitute earlier that week/day/hour to have a nasty disease for the next guy in to catch it. I asked several gentleman friends if they'd EVER sleep with a prostitute, or any other woman they hadn't known long-term, condom free. They're still shaking their heads with an aghast look 😱

Common sense means wrap it up every time, depending on the honesty and reliability of strangers is a fool's notion.

Bella

 

[LindyHopper]

*ranting, and getting scarier by the minute*

Godless: Thanks for taking care of the point-by-point - it was more than I felt like dealing with. Do I point out the overwhelming nonexistence of data showing that teaching kids about responsible sexual behavior causes them to have sex and then kill themselves? Or do I focus on the mind-boggling hypocrisy of boasting about "fucking oriental babes" while insisting that every other young person abstain (or else only have sex with uterus-free "clean" prostitutes), or feel the wrath of our ass-whooping and get the AIDS they deserve?

Or maybe I should highlight the difference in values that sits at the heart of this issue: the fact that some of us genuinely aren't horrified at the thought of young people exploring sex. I can think of many worse things that at child could become than a loving, responsible sexual partner. A judgmental nutjob who wishes AIDS and herpes on people comes to mind.

Drew: You've gone off the deep end. Please come back before you get eaten by sharks.

And FYI, rugs are Oriental. Human beings are Asian.