What has Sarah Palin actually done?

[Magic Man]

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".

He was talking to Contentius Maximus.

 

[DallasApple]

He was talking to Contentius Maximus.

Oh..:sorry1:

Love

Dallas

 

[Vile Atheist]

Oh..:sorry1:

Love

Dallas

Hahahaha! Thanks for rushing to my defence, though, if that was your intention

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh..:sorry1:

Love

Dallas

Don't worry. The rest of your comment to him was spot on.....:yes:

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Dirty,

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.......

I understand your point, but their individual actions are informed by something, right? I would say, if it is not the sex education it is the culture at large telling them that promiscuous behavior is okay and here is how you can be 'safe' doing it.

And 25% of teens having an STD is a pretty sorry track record for 'safe' sex education.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

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?

Well of course you know where a conservative goes from here. First, the families should be informing their children about their values concerning sexual behavior. For those children that do not have strong family support systems I would advocate that the schools teach that promiscuous behavior will lead to many more problems in your life than a loving monogamous relationship not based on sex. And yes, they should be teaching kids to wait.

The track record of 'safe' sex education is pretty sorry (25% teens with an STD).

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

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.

Look at what happens when we teach them how to have 'safe' sex. 25% of teens get STDs. Is this a good social outcome?

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.

It looks like in that crazy backward time teens got a lot less STDs. I think, maybe, they knew what they were doing and maybe now that we are so enlightened and 25% teens have STDs we may have lost our way.

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.

Do you really want to discuss the Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony? We could start another thread about that.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

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.

It looks like people were a lot more repsonsible back then.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Dallas,

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

Teaching kids to have 'safe' sex has led to 25% teens being infected with an STD. Sounds like a great strategy.

 

[T-Dawg]

Hi Dallas,



Teaching kids to have 'safe' sex has led to 25% teens being infected with an STD. Sounds like a great strategy.

Seeing that in America, many schools refuse to teach "safe sex" and those that do make the course optional, I highly doubt that the 25% is due to the teaching of safe sex. The 25% are the ones that AREN'T taught safe sex, and therefore end up spreading diseases with their sexual activities.

It seems to me that you're relying on the completly and utterly false hypothesis that teenagers will become promiscuous if taught safe sex.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Sunstone,



It looks like people were a lot more repsonsible back then.

Entering into a loveless marriage was responsible?

 

[Sunstone]

There is sufficient scientific evidence both for the notion that abstinence only doesn't work and for the notion that comprehensive sex education reduces the incidence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. All you have to do it google a bit.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

Seeing that in America, many schools refuse to teach "safe sex" and those that do make the course optional, I highly doubt that the 25% is due to the teaching of safe sex. The 25% are the ones that AREN'T taught safe sex, and therefore end up spreading diseases with their sexual activities.

It seems to me that you're relying on the completly and utterly false hypothesis that teenagers will become promiscuous if taught safe sex.

I would like to see where abstinence-only is taught around the country to see if you are correct.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

Entering into a loveless marriage was responsible?

For the sake of raising a child with two parents. Yes. It's called sacrifice and not always thinking about yourself.

There is sufficient scientific evidence both for the notion that abstinence only doesn't work and for the notion that comprehensive sex education reduces the incidence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. All you have to do it google a bit.

So, the 25% of teens with an STD is a product of what now?

 

[Sunstone]

For the sake of raising a child with two parents. Yes. It's called sacrifice and not always thinking about yourself.

Fascinating. What is sacrifice and not always thinking about yourself called when it results in support for government social programs?

So, the 25% of teens with an STD is a product of what now?

Google the subject, Joe. Look at the research. No one is stopping you from becoming informed.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
Look at what happens when we teach them how to have 'safe' sex. 25% of teens get STDs. Is this a good social outcome?

Look what happens when we teach them abstinence. They still have sex at the same rate as teens who don't have the education, and they are less likely to practice safe sex. That means, the same number of kids out of 100 are having sex, but less of those who do have sex are protecting themselves when doing it, meaning they're at higher risk for STDs.

It looks like in that crazy backward time teens got a lot less STDs. I think, maybe, they knew what they were doing and maybe now that we are so enlightened and 25% teens have STDs we may have lost our way.

That may be true. However, I have yet to see anything that points to it being true. They didn't have AIDS 50 years ago, for one thing. Plus, again, you still have to show that they had sex less back then.

Do you really want to discuss the Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony? We could start another thread about that.

No, I just want you to answer the question:

Why is having sex with only one person your whole life better than having sex with several people?

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Sunstone,

It looks like people were a lot more repsonsible back then.

No, it doesn't.

For the sake of raising a child with two parents. Yes. It's called sacrifice and not always thinking about yourself.

Why? So that the child can learn how to go through life without love? No, thanks.

So, the 25% of teens with an STD is a product of what now?

It's a product of more teens having sex these days, coupled with the fact that many of them have no education on safe sex or sex, for that matter.

As I already said, abstinence-only education produces the same rate of teens having sex as no education at all, and it produces a higher rate of unprotected sex.

 

[JMorris]

i love it when people talk about "the good old days".

back when there was segregation. an abundance of violent racism. no mixing of the races. an abundance of violent homophobia. no women's lib. a social acceptability of domestic violence. ect

but hey, at least teenagers (supposedly) didnt have sex!

 

[Vile Atheist]

i love it when people talk about "the good old days".

back when there was segregation. an abundance of violent racism. no mixing of the races. an abundance of violent homophobia. no women's lib. a social acceptability of domestic violence. ect

but hey, at least teenagers (supposedly) didnt have sex!

Well as long as they didn't have sex...

 

[rojse]

i love it when people talk about "the good old days".

back when there was segregation. an abundance of violent racism. no mixing of the races. an abundance of violent homophobia. no women's lib. a social acceptability of domestic violence. ect

but hey, at least teenagers (supposedly) didnt have sex!

We didn't talk about teenagers having sex. We swept it all under the rug, like paedophilia and spouse abuse.