anally no
Then get some new in' "peers".
ANd put me down as another person blaming the church and religion.
re ed
I concur.
It is simply another "say one thing, but mean another" way of introducing theology into public schools by evangelicals.
You do realize that there are people who abstain who have no religious basis for their decision.
For once I agree with you.
I think without the cultural support system behind a person to reinforce the values behind sexual abstinence, abstinence-only education does more harm than good.
Sure I do.
But they are in a vanishingly small minority.
I would be willing to bet a semi-important organ/appendage that the majority of those who took the pledge would self-identify themselves as "good Christians".
I think without the cultural support system behind a person to reinforce the value of accurate information and access to that information, abstinence-only education does more harm than good.
Would abstinence be a more or less effective method for controlling the spread of STDs?
Obviously more effective...
Clearly, there are some areligious reasons for choosing to remain abstinent until marriage.
Faulty programs do not negate the truth of the underlying concept.
That's like saying being a vegetarian is an effective way for controlling cholesterol and heart disease. Neither works, because humans have instincts that make them want sex and dead animals on their plates. The abstinence movement is akin to PETA calling meat-eaters evil.
While clever, the analogy doesn't really hold water.
You are confusing Abstinence with Celibacy (and Celibacy clearly isn't for everyone).
According to the Bible (since you claim to have read it) sex is a gift from GOD. Sex is not a curse. Those who practice abstinence understand that their chas y will one day be a gift to their spouse. Patience is a virtue.
So whether or not you buy the 'religious' overtones, that is obviously much better than getting a case of herpes, gonhorrea, or syphylis from your loved one because they failed to show restraint.
To each their own.
Besides, many teens just aren't prepared to carry around the emotional luggage that comes from sexually active lifestyles.
I don't see where you think I confuse abstinence and celibacy. How does the analogy fail? There is an incredibly strong instinct to have sex in your teenage years, because that trait has been selected for the species' survival. Besides, those who practice abstinence are going to give a pretty lousy gift to their spouse when they have no idea how to please each other on their honeymoon.
This is true, because this culture has demonized sex to the point a woman is considered a or a for doing what she was programmed by her genes to do. Also, our society badly fails in delivering the message about condom use and how well it works in protecting one from STDs. All the condoms don't work myths do is make people expose themselves much further to STDs and unwanted pregnancies by going in bareback. There is nothing anyone can do to stop people from having sex after puberty, and marriage at 16 is a recipe for a miserable life in most cases.
I think this is the main different between the female/male view on a lot of things...including this.
For me, as a teenager, and even now. There's a lot of emotion involved in relationships. If there is no emotion involved I'm not even going to pursue it.
And this doesn't even just go for teenagers and sex, this goes for adults as well....
Guys can be in and out very quickly with no emotional involvement.
Whereas...
from:
Some website
The majority of women -- according to most studies, at least 70% -- do not and will not reach orgasm....
In that abstinence is a transitionary period prior to marriage. Celibacy is more of a permanent decision. I would not consider a vegetarian's choice to refrain from eating meat as transitionary.
My point, however, stands. What better way to prevent the contraction of an STD than by deffering sexual intercourse (abstinence) for a later time?
Self-restraint is a virtue, why are most here trying to villify the attribute? Imagine if everyone could simply justify their actions by suggesting they were simply acting on their hormonal impulses? For that matter imagine how many 9, 10, 11 and 12 year olds would become pregnant if we as a society simply brushed off the act of sex as a biological directive (regardless of birth control since you seem to be arguing your point from a biological perspective).
Look, I understand the effects that hormones have on our youth. Clearly, however, most would agree that children cannot shoulder the responsibility of parenthood at such young ages, even if they are physically capable of conceiving (though that could be said for many adults as well). It doesn't follow that just because someone is capable of having sex that they should go ahead and do so. Direction is required as to when sex is 'OK'.
The onset of the physical capability to perform sexually doesn't necessarily suggest that it is OK for pubescent children/teens to have sex with each other at that point. They must learn the consequences of this act. This is especially poignant for humans because unlike most animals the act of sex transcends beyond the physical realm - sex unleashes a spiritual and an emotional connection between the two partners. Sex is more than just an act of 'physical pleasure' even though most are oblivious to that fact.
A mature marriage provides the necessary confines for all those connections to be explored at their fullest extent while providing the necessary setting for parenthood to succeed responsibly.
They will have a lifetime to learn how to please each other... Why hasten the process, what's the rush? Besides communication is key in that process, not some arbitrary measure of 'experience.' Furthermore, having all the experience in the world won't necessarily guarantee that the experienced partner will please the other. One still has to learn the personal idiosyncrasies of their partners if they truly desire to please them - and this isn't some 'in-and-out' job (pun intended).
I would consider the once-in-a-lifetime uniqueness of a sexual encounter between two abstinent marriage partners, as cause enough for heightened sexual excitement. It certainly beats the Hollywood-esque first-timer scenarios that many of us are familiar with: losing your virginity in back seat of a car, or losing 'it' at some random party, or while drunk, or worse still from having been raped or abused etc... The union of two 'virgins' would be considered a sexual fantasy in most cultures...
I don't mind that condoms, or other sane forms of birth control exist. Or that proper sexual education be conducted for that matter. I do, however, mind when students are handed out condoms and told to "have at it" - as was the case in my cousin's school last year. I found that to be disrespectful, reprehensible and utterly irresponsible. Now, I realize that this particular case was the proverbial exception. Even so, our society is shifting towards recklessly empowering our youth; the more they allow biological imperatives to serve as a free-wheeling justification for their sexual impulses without adequately promoting self-restraint is a recipe for disaster.
It's not right to punish teenagers and tell them they're doing wrong when they pursue something almost everyone wants. The abstinence movement reeks of "do as I say and not as I do", and teens can pretty easily see through that. I don't understand why kids are always given such little credit in their reasoning skills.
Doing what feels good and being open minded towards other people's happiness is a better virtue IMO, considering we all have a very short time on this planet. As for 9 years olds having sex, you gotta be kidding me. I'm not trying to be nasty, but that's a massive strawman. From 11 to 13-14 kids may like to french kiss or pull down their pants and flash their bf/gf, but I don't buy that a lot of kids are getting horny enough to go all the way at 12, unless they're being manipulated by older people (that's a whole other argument). It sounds like you watch too much sensationalist tv. The pregnancy angle doesn't belong in this discussion, because it is clearly and effectively addressed by teaching condom use.Self-restraint is a virtue, why are most here trying to villify the attribute? Imagine if everyone could simply justify their actions by suggesting they were simply acting on their hormonal impulses? For that matter imagine how many 9, 10, 11 and 12 year olds would become pregnant if we as a society simply brushed off the act of sex as a biological directive (regardless of birth control since you seem to be arguing your point from a biological perspective).
The abstinence movement would have a better leg to stand on if it didn't fill teens' heads with lies and hide information from them. Abstinence seems to try to always be the one answer. I really don't know where you're going with this point, as condom education answers the unwanted pregnancies issue far more effectively than anything else. You can't push values onto people and expect them to ignore who they are to be who you say they should be.Look, I understand the effects that hormones have on our youth. Clearly, however, most would agree that children cannot shoulder the responsibility of parenthood at such young ages, even if they are physically capable of conceiving (though that could be said for many adults as well). It doesn't follow that just because someone is capable of having sex that they should go ahead and do so. Direction is required as to when sex is 'OK'.
One thing I also never understood is why sex-ed never teaches how dangerous unprotected anal sex is, and how condom use is especially important then. It's like to with women and to with gays; I had a class on HIV in college, and it was horrifying to hear HIV-positive women and men who came up and told how they never knew receiving anal put them at a much higher risk than anything else short of sharing needles or getting a bad transfusion. But the abstinence movement considers it sexually deviant behavior, and it almost seems like they'd rather these gays and s get the disease as some sick judgment from god. To me, our society has failed these people by being too concerned about taboos (in the best case).
As for when sex is OK, it's ok when all participants want it and no one is being conned.
You're making this way too complicated. Sometimes sex is just getting off. You're projecting your sexual preferences onto everyone, and that just isn't the case a lot of the time. Many times sex is purely an act of physical pleasure; there's a huge difference from having sex with someone because you think they're hot or you're really horny and having sex with someone you care about and are in a long-term relationship with. There's nothing wrong with having sex for a quick high between one or more willing partners.The onset of the physical capability to perform sexually doesn't necessarily suggest that it is OK for pubescent children/teens to have sex with each other at that point. They must learn the consequences of this act. This is especially poignant for humans because unlike most animals the act of sex transcends beyond the physical realm - sex unleashes a spiritual and an emotional connection between the two partners. Sex is more than just an act of 'physical pleasure' even though most are oblivious to that fact.
For the spiritual angle, you're making a huge assumption there. Not everyone believes in ghosts, souls, crying Mary statues, and the like. As for sex always being emotional, it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Girl is told sex is bad (while the boy is congratulated by everyone). Girl has sex because she wants to get laid. Girl feels like a because she thinks sex is bad.
It's no stretch of the imagination to see that sex need not be emotional for men, and that's a pretty big assumption to make that women only engage in sex to satisfy a maternal instinct. If female sex was only about that you wouldn't see women buying vibrators and dildos and the like.
Anyways, relax... it's just sex.
You're pigeonholing sex into an extremely narrow subset that coincides with your preferences.A mature marriage provides the necessary confines for all those connections to be explored at their fullest extent while providing the necessary setting for parenthood to succeed responsibly.
This just clearly isn't an idea for everyone. Your hypothetical has every couple re-inventing the wheel, and disregards three-ways, swapping, gang-bangs, and all kinds of other things people have done to get themselves and each other off since the beginning of time. There's such a huge difference between sex and a relationship.They will have a lifetime to learn how to please each other... Why hasten the process, what's the rush? Besides communication is key in that process, not some arbitrary measure of 'experience.' Furthermore, having all the experience in the world won't necessarily guarantee that the experienced partner will please the other. One still has to learn the personal idiosyncrasies of their partners if they truly desire to please them - and this isn't some 'in-and-out' job (pun intended).
Not to mention that sexual chemistry seems like something a lot of people would like to verify before making a commitment. If I like hitting it from the back and my wife considers that degrading, then how are either of us ever going to be satisfied? I smell a divorce, and a good sex life is way too important to write off as something that could be looked past if you really cared about the other person.
Not really for me. Also, I don't get why you bring rape and abuse into this equation.I would consider the once-in-a-lifetime uniqueness of a sexual encounter between two abstinent marriage partners, as cause enough for heightened sexual excitement. It certainly beats the Hollywood-esque first-timer scenarios that many of us are familiar with: losing your virginity in back seat of a car, or losing 'it' at some random party, or while drunk, or worse still from having been raped or abused etc... The union of two 'virgins' would be considered a sexual fantasy in most cultures...
Sounds like hyperbole. Of course no one's asking for the teacher to get up on the desk and jack off all over himself or to tell the students to go out and anything that walks.I don't mind that condoms, or other sane forms of birth control exist. Or that proper sexual education be conducted for that matter. I do, however, mind when students are handed out condoms and told to "have at it" - as was the case in my cousin's school last year. I found that to be disrespectful, reprehensible and utterly irresponsible. Now, I realize that this particular case was the proverbial exception. Even so, our society is shifting towards recklessly empowering our youth; the more they allow biological imperatives to serve as a free-wheeling justification for their sexual impulses without adequately promoting self-restraint is a recipe for disaster.
I think marriage is a financial liability for a man, so I'm never getting married anyway, but when I was a kid my mom told me that my future wife would thank me OH SO MUCH for waiting to have sex... But when the person who tells you this is in her third marriage and left your father because he wasn't enough of a bad boy for her, cheated on him, got caught, and then divorced him... Yeah, that went in one ear and out the other faster than Ginobili gets a steal and goes coast to coast for an uncontested layup.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
