Young adults and being sexually responsible [slight rant]

[chicago]

Some of you are just trying to make this out to be the worst decision a person can make. Pulling out has it's advantages and disadvantages just like any other form of birth control.

What are the advantages? Please, enlighten us.

And if you're considering it a form of birth control, you need to go back to 8th grade.

For the love of Jesus, how old are you?

 

[storm7400]

Some of you are just trying to make this out to be the worst decision a person can make. Pulling out has it's advantages and disadvantages just like any other form of birth control.

Advantage: A False Sense of Avoiding Pregnancy

Disadvantage: Your a moron if you think pulling out is a safe form of birth control

 

[Tickle Fiend]

Here is something I found. You can read it and take whatever you want from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull_out_method

 

[LindyHopper]

What are the advantages? Please, enlighten us.

Presumably, requiring no special equipment, and no prior planning. That's why it's so popular among teenagers.

And if you're considering it a form of birth control, you need to go back to 8th grade.

It is a form of birth control: one-year pregnancy rates for withdrawal are about 25%, compared to 85% with no method at all. It's better than nothing - just not nearly good enough, at least as far as most people are concerned.

 

[storm7400]

Here is something I found. You can read it and take whatever you want from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull_out_method

"The advantage of coitus interruptus is that it can be used by people who have objections to or do not have access to other forms of contraception."

So who exactly in the 21st century in these United States doesn't have access to contraception? Besides wikipedia is a site anyone can access and change statistics so its not exactly the gospel.





If you can't afford a condom junior then you shouldn't be fucking!

 

[Bagelfather]

Better choice for statistics

Here is something I found. You can read it and take whatever you want from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull_out_method

There are more reliable sources than wikipedia:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/withdrawal.html
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html

 

[Tickle Fiend]

"The advantage of coitus interruptus is that it can be used by people who have objections to or do not have access to other forms of contraception."

So who exactly in the 21st century in these United States doesn't have access to contraception? Besides wikipedia is a site anyone can access and change statistics so its not exactly the gospel.





If you can't afford a condom junior then you shouldn't be fucking!

There are places you can get them for free. And they're just touching all the bases when they talk about people not having access. The objections to it should be the main focus.

 

[Bagelfather]

Cost of sensation

Most of my friends HATE condoms. Hardly any feeling AT ALL. they use the pull out rule. Not sure how I feel about that but from what I can gather most men have problems feeling with a rubber on.

There is sensation loss. However, I suggest shopping around and trying other brands. For example I had MUCH better sensation with the Kimono brand condom than other brands. Sure you lose some sensation but there is always a trade off in life.

One of my best friends was having sex with a woman without a condom and he was relying on the pill with her. Unfortunately she was in the army and figured out that she could get OUT if she was pregnant. Agreed he was stupid to still have unprotected sex with her after she mentioned this crazy notion. She was lying to him and of course got pregnant.

Now he does love his daughter but he is paying over $400 a month in child support which he set up through his lawyer and it is MORE than the law requires him to pay because he is a responsible person in the long run.

So a little loss of sensation vs: $400 x 18 x 12 = $86,400 not counting clothes, gifts, gas for the 4 hours of driving every two weeks to see her, etc.

He loves his daughter and wouldn't give her up for the world but is more sensation worth around $100,000?

Yes she COULD have still gotten pregnant but the risk isn't really worth it. You really should be on good honest terms with your partner before you go the less protection road!

 

[Icycle]

"The advantage of coitus interruptus is that it can be used by people who have objections to or do not have access to other forms of contraception."

So who exactly in the 21st century in these United States doesn't have access to contraception?

There are certainly a number of religious faiths in America that have objections to using condoms as a form of birth control. Of course, these same religions tend to have similar prohibitions against pre-marital sex as well. One would hope that if some who follows one of these faiths does decide to have pre-marital sex, that they will have the good sense to use a condom too, since they are sinning anyway.

I personally believe that condoms are not as easily available as they should be. I think condoms should be available in high school bathroom vending machines and for free from high school counselors, but anti-sex advocates usually block such access to condoms. You can still go to a drugstore to buy condoms, but once again the anti-sex advocates have done their best to block this too, by requiring young people to ask someone for condoms from behind the counter. Do you have any idea how hard it would be for most 16 or 17 year old kids to have to ask an adult for some condoms? I think many of them would rather try their luck with the pull out method.

Besides wikipedia is a site anyone can access and change statistics so its not exactly the gospel.

True, wikipedia can be accessed by anyone, but there are also teams of volunteers who constantly monitor the site for vandalism and inaccuracies. Most vandalism is reverted within minutes or hours. And statistics which don't cite their sources are marked "citation required". If the statistics do cite a source, then you can just follow the link and verify it in the source yourself. I don't think you should dismiss Wikipedia out of hand simply because it is an open resource. It can be surprisingly accurate and timely.

 

[BigJim]

If I did it has kept me from having to worry about any situations that have been discussed in the thread. People can have sex w/o a condom and still be safe. Wearing a condom doesn't equal safe sex.

Alternatively, you may just have been incredibly lucky.

 

[BigJim]

No, because there's SPERM in the stuff that comes out of your PENIS before you cum. Do you understand?

Have you had sex with a woman?

I can't imagine someone over the age of 14 being serious about the "pull out method"

And I can't imagine my arguing with that person about it for this long.

So you keep "pulling out" my friend.

I'll look forward to the Baby Mama Drama thread. 😉

Give it up M, you may as well be talking to an echo.

Personally I advocate the bisuit tin method.

Sadly, it only works if she's six foot four, he's five foot six, and they do it standing up with him standing on the tin to make up for the height difference. When his face turns purple, she kicks it out from under him...

Can't get any more scientific than that. 😀

 

[BigJim]

Here is something I found. You can read it and take whatever you want from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull_out_method

Wikipedia is an authority on nothing squared, because the sources are nearly always people who just log on and type. Most times any corrections are done because the person doing it disagrees, not because they're right and the first was wrong.

 

[BigJim]

There are more reliable sources than wikipedia:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/withdrawal.html


A failiure rate of nearly 1 in 5 just about says it all.

 

[isabeau]

Give it up M, you may as well be talking to an echo.

Personally I advocate the bisuit tin method.

Sadly, it only works if she's six foot four, he's five foot six, and they do it standing up with him standing on the tin to make up for the height difference. When his face turns purple, she kicks it out from under him...

Can't get any more scientific than that. 😀

lol...if you want to hear something funny..or maybe not so funny...ii used to think that if you jumped up and down really hard right after sex, all the sperm would come back out, and you couldn't get pregnant..or taking a bath right away...wrongaroonie as i found out...

 

[Redmage]

Wikipedia is an authority on nothing squared, because the sources are nearly always people who just log on and type. Most times any corrections are done because the person doing it disagrees, not because they're right and the first was wrong.

No, that's actually not true. Wikipedia requires posters to have citable sources for their information, not just their own opinions. Articles that consist of demonstrable nonsense or unsupported opinion tend to get caught and revised quickly if they're on topics that anyone cares about.

Case in point: the sites Bagelfather linked to agree in large measure with the Wikipedia article.

 

[BigJim]

Have you ever addressed me WITHOUT trying to correct me RM?

No, that's actually not true. Wikipedia requires posters to have citable sources for their information, not just their own opinions. Articles that consist of demonstrable nonsense or unsupported opinion tend to get caught and revised quickly if they're on topics that anyone cares about.

Case in point: the sites Bagelfather linked to agree in large measure with the Wikipedia article.

Not in my experience it isn't. I've corrected un-facts and wrong items in several articles that have, to my knowledge, been there for a long time. The articles themselves weren't "nonsense", but facts and individual items within them were. From what I've seen Wikipedia consists of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of individual articles, and I would be stunned if the US Government itself, should it drop the business of state and concentrate soley on correcting Wikipedia mistakes (with all the individual experts it has at its command), could inspect every line of each one and correct every wrong entry.

 

[Redmage]

Not in my experience it isn't. I've corrected un-facts and wrong items in several articles that have, to my knowledge, been there for a long time.

I'm not always completely sure of your facts, BJ. But if you've corrected them with proper citations then you're making my point.

From what I've seen Wikipedia consists of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of individual articles, and I would be stunned if the US Government itself, should it drop the business of state and concentrate soley on correcting Wikipedia mistakes (with all the individual experts it has at its command), could inspect every line of each one and correct every wrong entry.

No one says otherwise. The same is true of the Encyclopedia Britannica. However comparisons have shown that Wikipedia compares favorably with sources like Britannica.

And in this particular case, the non-Wikipedia sources said much the same thing as Wikipedia, again demonstrating its reliability.

 

[BigJim]

I'm not always completely sure of your facts, BJ. But if you've corrected them with proper citations then you're making my point.

You strike me as almost always being certain that they're complete bollocks actually. Perhaps you were just being polite?

I made no citations at all, I just edited the text. The originals made none either. Example: In the Wikipedia article on Rocky II the original said Rocky went down twice in the first round, which wasn't true. He went down once in the first and once in the second. I corrected it. No citation used, or probably necessary. One could just watch the film.

No one says otherwise. The same is true of the Encyclopedia Britannica. However comparisons have shown that Wikipedia compares favorably with sources like Britannica.

And in this particular case, the non-Wikipedia sources said much the same thing as Wikipedia, again demonstrating its reliability.

I don't disagree with Wikipedia's definition of coitus whippadickouticus. I wasn't actually making a specific comment in respect of this particular thread. I was commenting on my habit of semi-regularly finding wrong things (and the occasional fatuous remark more designed to ammuse) in Wikipedia articles.

 

[isabeau]

I don't disagree with Wikipedia's definition of coitus whippadickouticus. I wasn't actually making a specific comment in respect of this particular thread. I was commenting on my habit of semi-regularly finding wrong things (and the occasional fatuous remark more designed to ammuse) in Wikipedia articles.

'
lol.....is there really such a definition????

 

[Redmage]

You strike me as almost always being certain that they're complete bollocks actually. Perhaps you were just being polite?

LOL No, I'm just less likely to reply to anyone just to say "Yes, you're right." It's probably just me, but I don't usually see much point to doing that, though I'll still do it occasionally. In this case I wasn't even replying to you specifically (that is, I wasn't replying to your point just because it was your point). Rather yours was the second post I saw about the alleged unreliability of Wikipedia. I decided to let the first go by, but when I saw the second (which happened to be yours) I decided to speak up.

I made no citations at all, I just edited the text. The originals made none either. Example: In the Wikipedia article on Rocky II the original said Rocky went down twice in the first round, which wasn't true. He went down once in the first and once in the second. I corrected it. No citation used, or probably necessary. One could just watch the film.

OK. In a case like that you both are making a citation: you're citing the film as an independent source that can be checked to verify what you're saying. The first poster cited the film incorrectly, apparently, and you came along and put the correct citation in.

That's how Wikipedia works: people putting up citable information and others correcting errors where they occur. Because Wikipedia requires all such information to go back to independent sources (in this case the actual movie), it's harder for people to get away with factually wrong information or unsupported opinion. So over time errors are weeded out and any given article becomes more and more reliable.

The common criticism of Wikipedia is "Well anyone can write anything they want to," and that's true, but it's not really a criticism. More people are interested in accurate information than aren't, so over time the fact that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article makes it more reliable, not less. Wikipedia is more reliable today than it has ever been, and it will be still more so tomorrow.

I wasn't actually making a specific comment in respect of this particular thread. I was commenting on my habit of semi-regularly finding wrong things (and the occasional fatuous remark more designed to ammuse) in Wikipedia articles.

If you find yourself correcting minor errors of fact, then that's not really a condemnation of Wikipedia. That's just the sort of thing that editors are supposed to do (and we're all editors of Wikipedia). I spoke up just because I write for Wikipedia myself and I know how people hunt down and correct even trivial errors when they find them. So I sometimes have to say something when someone trots out the old "Anyone can write for Wikipedia so you can't trust it" argument.

 

[BigJim]

I spoke up just because I write for Wikipedia myself

I remember.

and I know how people hunt down and correct even trivial errors when they find them. So I sometimes have to say something when someone trots out the old "Anyone can write for Wikipedia so you can't trust it" argument.

To quote myself exactly...

Wikipedia is an authority on nothing squared, because the sources are nearly always people who just log on and type. Most times any corrections are done because the person doing it disagrees, not because they're right and the first was wrong.

The variety of contributors is more varied than EB or something technical, like a medical dictionary. There was one famous case cited on this forum about a film whose name escapes me now. One of the facts in the list after the definition was "is a piece of crap", rather hillariously. I haven't checked it for a long time and can't even remember what the title was (although I suspect you do, if you didn't actually remove it yourself) but it lasted some time as I recall.

 

[BigJim]

If you find yourself correcting minor errors of fact, then that's not really a condemnation of Wikipedia. That's just the sort of thing that editors are supposed to do (and we're all editors of Wikipedia).

The fact that anyone can be an editor of Wiki is precisely the point I thought... before the voices started... that I was making. "Condemnation" is not the correct word I feel. But I feel it is an indication that opinions expressed on some subjects in Wikipedia are not as factually correct as the human race knows how to make them, and they can spend some time before being corrected.

 

[Tickle Fiend]

The fact that anyone can be an editor of Wiki is precisely the point I thought... before the voices started... that I was making. "Condemnation" is not the correct word I feel. But I feel it is an indication that opinions expressed on some subjects in Wikipedia are not as factually correct as the human race knows how to make them, and they can spend some time before being corrected.

Through my experiences with Wiki, I have found it to be a very reliable source. I've never used it as my only source and I've found that it agrees with other things that I read. They also lock certain pages after they have been filled with misinformation repeatedly. That's the risk you take with a site like that, but I think it's more reliable than some of you seem to feel.

 

[BigJim]

Through my experiences with Wiki, I have found it to be a very reliable source. I've never used it as my only source and I've found that it agrees with other things that I read. They also lock certain pages after they have been filled with misinformation repeatedly. That's the risk you take with a site like that, but I think it's more reliable than some of you seem to feel.

Oh I don't think the site is full of bullshit or anything, I just wanted to say it isn't the bastion of total accuracy many people assume it is (because of its inherant nature).

 

[drew70]

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?

haha. I make no insistence whatsoever, merely recommendations based on years of personal observation and experience which as always I urge one and all to take with a grain of salt. Nor was I bragging. That was a long time ago and at that time and place, literally any guy could get laid over there. There were scads and scads of beautiful Oriental babes to go around, and for whatever reason they seemed to love American guys. So it wasn't like any great accomplishment or anything. Hell, even Michael Moore could have had his choice.

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.

The thing I find horrifying is the notion that someone with such a complete lack of values has any business teaching young people at all.

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.

Now there you have a point. That would be as bad as a child growing up to be a spoiled, shrewish, nymphomaniacal *****, which I'm sure you'd agree would be a bad thing.

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

Thanks for your concern, but between you and your boy toys, the shallow end is a tad crowded for this ticklish guy. I prefer a little more depth.

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

Asian is a little less specific. The babes to whom I was referring were definitely of The Orient.