-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What has Sarah Palin actually done?
- Thread starter T-Dawg
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
I would be interested in a poll result.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Then what's you argument then?
There's no way for you or anyone to control teens and young adults. Abstinence doesn't work the way you think it does or want it too (see articles I previously provided). STDs don't always come from sexual intercourse by vaginal penetration. As one article showed...those that tend to take the abstinence pledge engage in oral and anal sex which can lead to STDs as well.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Guess what - not all teenagers are having sex.
Just thought I'd point that out. It's not impossible to live without sex - permanently or temporarily. There are times when it's not prudent to be having sex, and there's nothing weird about encouraging people to use good judgment about sex. Abstinence is sometimes the best option - and it's also a viable option.
Just thought I'd point that out. It's not impossible to live without sex - permanently or temporarily. There are times when it's not prudent to be having sex, and there's nothing weird about encouraging people to use good judgment about sex. Abstinence is sometimes the best option - and it's also a viable option.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Oh, I see your point completely, but might I remind you that most teenagers are stupid and also have no control over their hormones?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
*humps fire hydrant*
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Some don't. But I don't think anyone here is generalizing by stating "all" though. Statistics show that a high percentage of teenagers have engaged in sex (of some kind). Some used protection and some didn't. Some that chose the abstinence route engaged in oral and/pr anal sex as a means to stay sexually pure thus adhering to the pledge.
I agree that it is a viable option but what is meant by..."Abstinence is sometimes the best option"......?
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Guess what? A large majority of teenagers is having sex.
Just thought I'd point that out. It's not impossible to live without sex - permanently or temporarily, but there's really no point in living without it, and there are many thing which aren't impossible but aren't very likely either. There are times when it's not prudent to be having sex, and there's nothing weird about encouraging people to use good judgement about sex, which is why that's what they do when teaching about safe sex. Abstinence is sometimes the best option - and it's also a viable option sometimes, but not always, and for those other times, safe sex is essential.
There. That fixes it for you. This way it's much more accurate.
It is like neither side can acknowledge the other may have a valid point.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yeah, I can definitely see making this comment. Well, at least if you haven't actually read any of the thread, I can see making this comment.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Contentius,
I am aware that sex education is not the same everyplace. I could by wrong (and somebody hopefully can correct me if I am wrong) but I don't think public schools in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are teaching abstinence education. And STDs among teens are on the rise (the study I posted before). I think I am making the rather uncontroversial statement that many of these teens that were taught 'safe' sex practices were infected by an STD.
I am also making another rather uncontroversial statement that 40 and 50 years ago not as many children were taught these 'safe' sex practices and they were infected by an STD at a lower rate.
I am aware that sex education is not the same everyplace. I could by wrong (and somebody hopefully can correct me if I am wrong) but I don't think public schools in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are teaching abstinence education. And STDs among teens are on the rise (the study I posted before). I think I am making the rather uncontroversial statement that many of these teens that were taught 'safe' sex practices were infected by an STD.
I am also making another rather uncontroversial statement that 40 and 50 years ago not as many children were taught these 'safe' sex practices and they were infected by an STD at a lower rate.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi mball,
It's better if you want to have a family and children. If you want to be promiscuous, then go right ahead if that's what you call 'better.' I wouldn't call that having a better life.
It's better if you want to have a family and children. If you want to be promiscuous, then go right ahead if that's what you call 'better.' I wouldn't call that having a better life.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
But maybe it's not the subject matter rather the individual decisions. Just like the information on abstinence I posted. Some that took the pledge and signed contracts still engaged in anal and oral sex and others had sex before marriage and without protection. It may not have anything to do with what they were taught rather they rationalized in their mind anal and oral sex was not the same as vaginal sex.......
Smoke
Done here.
There was probably a higher proportion of abstinent teens in the 1950s than now, and nobody denies that abstinence is a pretty effective preventative.
However, the question is, what should we do in light of the facts that most teens are not abstinent and that abstinence programs demonstrably do not work?
Why does the United States have a higher rate of STD infection than any other advanced country? What are they doing that's different?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yeah, and? They're teens. A lot of them aren't going to listen. We teach them what they need to know. It's up to them to put it into practice.
Well, you can claim it's uncontroversial all you want, but that doesn't make it so. As I already told you, STDs weren't as widespread at that time and there weren't as many of them, but mainly people didn't talk about such things as much. Sex and anything associated with it was still fairly taboo 40-50 years ago, and so wasn't in the mainstream conversation.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
First, you're using a false dichotomy. It's not between having sex with only one person in your life and being promiscuous. There are many levels in between. That's why I brought up the real dichotomy between having sex with one person and having sex with several people. Being promiscuous would require having sex with more than several people.
So, that kind of shoots this idea of yours out of the water. Several of my friends have had sex with at least several people in their lives and they now have families with kids.
So, I'll ask again:
Why is having sex with only one person your whole life better than having sex with several people?
And this time I'd prefer a real answer, please.
I read the threads mball. Are you implying I do not? This is just another feeble attempt on your part to accuse anyone that disagrees with you is uneducated, stupid or ignorant.
It is as if there is only one true way to think on every issue the smart way and the dumb.
Don't you think your boiled down version is simplistic to say the least?
I said both sides had valid points. Do you refuse to acknowledge this possibility?
Typical Liberal tactics, attack when you lack a valid point.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You sure do love your exaggerations, huh? The point of the comment was that if you had read this thread, there's no way you'd make that comment, especially considering my last post where I agreed with some of Kathryn's points. I guess you have the ability to read without seeing the things you don't want to.
Please explain my "simplistic version". It seems to me you don't even know what I'm saying.
I already acknowledged it, which is why I made the comment you're responding to. That's the whole point. If you had actually read, you'd have seen that your comment was wrong, since I and others have agreed to some of "the other side's" points.
Yup, you got it.
Now, could you get back to reading the thread so that you don't make ignorant comments, please?
If I remember my social statistics correctly, the 1950s saw the highest rate of teenage pregnancy this country has ever recorded. However, when teens got pregnant in the 1950s they tended quite strongly to get married. So the high rate of teen pregnancy in the 1950s was followed closely by a high rate of teen marriage. This meant there were not so many out of wedlock births as in later years.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Im not trying to "boss you' around but you need to stop calling people "contesnious" unless you are willign to take that label unto yoru self.YOu are quite "argumentative".
And I think YOU are missing the point..TEENS in MASSES do NOT practice "abstinenece no MATTER what you WISH.
No matter WHAT you say or do TEENS are having SEX.And your SCARE tactics affect them for LIFE.
Our brains are more "elastic" in youth..
Then I suppose you expect young people to stop relating sex to DEATH and DISEASE and unwanted babies on the "honeymoon"?
Re check your self.
Love
Dallas