Condoms vs abstinence, how to handle the debate.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Certain fringe religious groups with disproportionate political power are pushing for abstinence over condom use all over the Western world, and no more so then in the good old US of A.
Their reasons are flimsy at best, if you ask me, and if someone ever claims that abstinence is a better way for teenagers to reduce teen pregnancy and STD's then the use of a condom, there is only one thing you can do:

Laugh in their face.

Maybe these people don't understand that teenagers are human beings and not machines, but the argument for abstinence makes no sense to me.
It seems logical; teens that don't have sex have no risks in that department.
It is also completely insane as we all know teens have and will have sex. Promoting abstinence over condoms is criminal, vulgar and unrealistic, and we all should laugh in it's hideous face.

CAPTCHA: ding-dong.

Nice.

Anyone who looks at the evidence knows this already.

Anyone who disagrees is likely to do so regardless of what you say.

You know, there's this funny thing about figures with regards to condoms and the pill. The "failure" figure almost always contains two different causes: the first is "the item itself fails", and the second is, "the person in question applies it incorrectly". People who try to push Abstinence as a "contraceptive" only ever bring up the first statistic, without doing the honest thing and mentioning the second one, which matters just as much - if a contraceptive is impossible to use effectively and accurate, then it's still useless. Coitus Interruptus and calculating your period, neither of which are considered even remotely useful, are both 100% effective if you calculate the success rate the same way as the people pushing abstinence only do.

It's called "creaming the data"; effectively only taking the subset that you want to take by some irrelevant criteria. Prison Fellowship Ministries has a similar trick in their "rehabilitation through Christ" program - they boast absolutely ridiculous success rates in their programs. What they fail to mention, however, is that if you don't find a job after leaving prison, they act as though you never took the program at all. They're taking only the subset of data which they want to use; when you compare their data without the skimming, it shows essentially no improvement. And it's similar with Abstinence: apparently, only people who use Abstinence 100% correctly "count". Which is, of course, absolutely ridiculous.

teens want to have sex.

primarily because that's when they are most fertile.

oh we can just round the issue and say that's not true, point to evidence that people can suppress those urges (ye that sounds healthy right?) and claim that all that kinda thinking is somehow "out of date" but the simple fact is...nope...teens want to have sex.

telling them not to doesn't work.

i would hate to live a society where it actually did because it would have to be enforced.

Teens: Sex or No Sex?

This isn't rocket science people...

From a technical point of view abstinence does prevent all STIs and pregnancy, the problem being that it as about as enforceable as a diet in a cake shop.

Since very few human beings have full control over their primal desires, condoms (and gastric bands) exist. I really admired the Pope for trying to advocate condom use to prevent the spread of HIV...pity that one fell through.

People are actually discussing the benefits of using abstience as a form of "birth control"? Fuck no, I don't believe it. No one is that fucking stupid.

I think that image has a decent way of getting the point across. Abstinence just can't be enforced, even when your parents are heavily pro-life. If you were on a construction site and were feeling sensible, you'd wear a hard-hat...the same thing applies to condoms.

Esotera:

I think that image has a decent way of getting the point across. Abstinence just can't be enforced, even when your parents are heavily pro-life. If you were on a construction site and were feeling sensible, you'd wear a hard-hat...the same thing applies to condoms.

Basically this.

However, I'm not against abstinence personally (I am against it's exclusivity as a social policy). I really can't say that I'm totally against a policy that ends up encouraging girls to give blowjobs.

Esotera:

I think that image has a decent way of getting the point across. Abstinence just can't be enforced, even when your parents are heavily pro-life. If you were on a construction site and were feeling sensible, you'd wear a hard-hat...the same thing applies to condoms.

What the hell is that thing down in front?

OT: If they do ban condoms, then they would see a rapid rise in the teenage pregnancy rate. To be honest I doubt it would be long before the ban was revoked, the public shitstorm about it would be huge.

Bassik:
Certain fringe religious groups with disproportionate political power are pushing for abstinence over condom use all over the Western world, and no more so then in the good old US of A.
Their reasons are flimsy at best, if you ask me, and if someone ever claims that abstinence is a better way for teenagers to reduce teen pregnancy and STD's then the use of a condom, there is only one thing you can do:

Laugh in their face.

Maybe these people don't understand that teenagers are human beings and not machines, but the argument for abstinence makes no sense to me.
It seems logical; teens that don't have sex have no risks in that department.
It is also completely insane as we all know teens have and will have sex. Promoting abstinence over condoms is criminal, vulgar and unrealistic, and we all should laugh in it's hideous face.

Yes, because encouraging our youth to think with their heads and not their pelvic region is such an awful idea.

Abstinence does have the advantage of being foolproof in regards to stds and pregnancy, while condoms cannot remotely claim the same, whether due to human error or simple functional failure. The fact that not all of our youth are willing to listen to advice that would deprive them of a quick emotional fix cannot change that simple fact.

The problem occurs when one encourages abstinence at the expense of condoms and similar contraceptives, or vice versa. People seem to forget that it is entirely possible to do both.

Heronblade:

Bassik:
Certain fringe religious groups with disproportionate political power are pushing for abstinence over condom use all over the Western world, and no more so then in the good old US of A.
Their reasons are flimsy at best, if you ask me, and if someone ever claims that abstinence is a better way for teenagers to reduce teen pregnancy and STD's then the use of a condom, there is only one thing you can do:

Laugh in their face.

Maybe these people don't understand that teenagers are human beings and not machines, but the argument for abstinence makes no sense to me.
It seems logical; teens that don't have sex have no risks in that department.
It is also completely insane as we all know teens have and will have sex. Promoting abstinence over condoms is criminal, vulgar and unrealistic, and we all should laugh in it's hideous face.

Yes, because encouraging our youth to think with their heads and not their pelvic region is such an awful idea.

Abstinence does have the advantage of being foolproof in regards to stds and pregnancy, while condoms cannot remotely claim the same, whether due to human error or simple functional failure. The fact that not all of our youth are willing to listen to advice that would deprive them of a quick emotional fix cannot change that simple fact.

The problem occurs when one encourages abstinence at the expense of condoms and similar contraceptives, or vice versa. People seem to forget that it is entirely possible to do both.

they are "thinking with their heads" its just their heads are saying "you really wanna find out what this sex thing is all about".

as for stds off the top of my head you can contract thush, hpv and herpes without having sex.

edit - hang on...i'd just like to point out you cannot contract thush, hpv and herpes from my head...

It is true that there is nothing evil about sex, however I cannot agree with all of the things claimed by the people who think that teenagers should have everything they want in regards to sex.

One problem is how you define a teenager. I agree that 16 year old's and older will always have sex and that it can't be helped, but 15 year old's and younger are more or less just children, and children should not have sex because they lack the needed understanding and maturity.

I also think it is bullshit that some people think condoms should be handed out for free. If people want to have sex then that is ok and all, but condoms are consumer products and should be treated as such. Condoms aren't THAT expensive, so if a person can't even afford to buy a condom then that person probably isn't old enough to have sex yet anyways.

In addition, while expecting young people to abstain from sex until they get married is obviously unrealistic I fail to see what is wrong with expecting them from abstaining until they are at least old enough to have a proper understanding of the responsibilities that come with having a sex life. It makes me want to claw my eyes out every time I hear someone claim that having a responsible sex life is just a matter of knowing how to use a condom and that's it.

Sleekit:
they are "thinking with their heads" its just their heads are saying "you really wanna find out what this sex thing is all about".

as for stds off the top of my head you can contract both thush, hpv and herpes without having sex.

edit - hang on...i'd just like to point out you cannot contract thush, hpv and herpes from my head...

If their heads aren't also saying "well, there are apparently some possible consequences to this sex thing, particularly while young, so maybe I should think about it before jumping in groin first", they are not actually thinking with their heads. I'm not suggesting that everyone who has sex as a minor didn't think about it first, or that they even necessarily made a bad decision, just that I doubt the percentage rates of those who did seriously consider the risks to begin with are any higher than single digits.

Assuming you mean thrush, you can get all three of those without any kind of physical contact with a carrier, sexual or otherwise. They're only identified as STDs because it is several orders of magnitude more likely to occur with sexual contact. You could say the same for things like the flu virus or the bubonic plague, it doesn't invalidate the point that abstinence completely shuts down at least one avenue of getting sick with something serious.

everybody thinks with their heads. there is just a difference between conscious and subconscious thought that few people seem to grasp nor do they even want to think about what drives subconscious thought because of the idea "we're better than that" (imo sexual activity and the desire for sexual activity in teenagers is entirely natural and for that matter "naturally" driven as i've already indicated in the thread).

as for the std thing well ye perhaps you could explain that to the people who don't want their daughters getting the hpv vaccination to protect them against cervical cancer on sexual morality grounds and you did state "Abstinence does have the advantage of being foolproof in regards to stds" (with no qualifier or caveats) which given you now reveal you know that isn't a true statement is...

besides given abstinence education classes are offered up as the alternative to icky heathen amoral sex education by those who promote it i doubt many of those who undergo it even find out about the reality of diseases mentioned.

and another thing: anyone who carrys and/or uses a condom HAS "considered the risks"

Hardcore_gamer:
One problem is how you define a teenager. I agree that 16 year old's and older will always have sex and that it can't be helped, but 15 year old's and younger are more or less just children, and children should not have sex because they lack the needed understanding and maturity.

What's the difference between a sixteen year old and a fifteen year old? There isn't a magical age that when you reach makes you mature and smart.

Hardcore_gamer:
I also think it is bullshit that some people think condoms should be handed out for free.

Would you rather teens not buy condoms because of shame/fear/whatever and end up having sex without protection?

Hardcore_gamer:
In addition, while expecting young people to abstain from sex until they get married is obviously unrealistic I fail to see what is wrong with expecting them from abstaining until they are at least old enough to have a proper understanding of the responsibilities that come with having a sex life.

Because they won't wait?

Heronblade:
If their heads aren't also saying "well, there are apparently some possible consequences to this sex thing, particularly while young, so maybe I should think about it before jumping in groin first", they are not actually thinking with their heads.

So what are your proposed solutions to dealing with teenagers who have sex? Lock them in a prison cell 'til they're eighteen? Get a cop to escort them at all times? Teenagers have sex, deal with it. Our job isn't to prevent them from doing so, we've already tried that and failed miserably, it's to teach them about safe sexual practices.

Heronblade:
Yes, because encouraging our youth to think with their heads and not their pelvic region is such an awful idea.

Abstinence does have the advantage of being foolproof in regards to stds and pregnancy, while condoms cannot remotely claim the same, whether due to human error or simple functional failure. The fact that not all of our youth are willing to listen to advice that would deprive them of a quick emotional fix cannot change that simple fact.

The problem occurs when one encourages abstinence at the expense of condoms and similar contraceptives, or vice versa. People seem to forget that it is entirely possible to do both.

Hey, buddy? Read my post.

Stagnant:
You know, there's this funny thing about figures with regards to condoms and the pill. The "failure" figure almost always contains two different causes: the first is "the item itself fails", and the second is, "the person in question applies it incorrectly". People who try to push Abstinence as a "contraceptive" only ever bring up the first statistic, without doing the honest thing and mentioning the second one, which matters just as much - if a contraceptive is impossible to use effectively and accurate, then it's still useless. Coitus Interruptus and calculating your period, neither of which are considered even remotely useful, are both 100% effective if you calculate the success rate the same way as the people pushing abstinence only do.

It's called "creaming the data"; effectively only taking the subset that you want to take by some irrelevant criteria. Prison Fellowship Ministries has a similar trick in their "rehabilitation through Christ" program - they boast absolutely ridiculous success rates in their programs. What they fail to mention, however, is that if you don't find a job after leaving prison, they act as though you never took the program at all. They're taking only the subset of data which they want to use; when you compare their data without the skimming, it shows essentially no improvement. And it's similar with Abstinence: apparently, only people who use Abstinence 100% correctly "count". Which is, of course, absolutely ridiculous.

Guess what: whether or not a form of contraception works is not only dependent on "is it functional". It also depends on whether or not it can actually be used effectively, as you yourself admit in your post. Abstinence, in a significant percentage of cases, cannot. Yes, we should not be encouraging teenage promiscuity. We should be telling them of the consequences, but informing them on how to do it well, because if we don't, they're going to do it carelessly anyways.

Attempting to enforce abstinence in an individualist society on an age group which actively desires to rebel against their parents is something that would appear unlikely to succeed, and it has been demonstrated to be so. From the age of 12-13 onwards nature is whipping people onwards and commanding that they breed, simply ignoring it is not going to solve the issue. We have the tools to ensure that the process is without issues, not using them is senseless.

PercyBoleyn:

Heronblade:
If their heads aren't also saying "well, there are apparently some possible consequences to this sex thing, particularly while young, so maybe I should think about it before jumping in groin first", they are not actually thinking with their heads.

So what are your proposed solutions to dealing with teenagers who have sex? Lock them in a prison cell 'til they're eighteen? Get a cop to escort them at all times? Teenagers have sex, deal with it. Our job isn't to prevent them from doing so, we've already tried that and failed miserably, it's to teach them about safe sexual practices.

Apparently you missed the part where I suggested that encouraging abstinence and teaching the proper use of contraceptives can go hand in hand. I have no intention or desire to try and enforce an actual policy/rule/law of abstinence, just to reinforce rational thought and a reasonable level of caution.

Sleekit:
everybody thinks with their heads. there is just a difference between conscious and subconscious thought that few people seem to grasp nor do they even want to think about what drives subconscious thought because of the idea "we're better than that" (imo sexual activity and the desire for sexual activity in teenagers is entirely natural and for that matter "naturally" driven as i've already indicated in the thread).

as for the std thing well ye perhaps you could explain that to the people who don't want their daughters getting the hpv vaccination to protect them against cervical cancer on sexual morality grounds and you did state "Abstinence does have the advantage of being foolproof in regards to stds" (with no qualifier or caveats) which given you now reveal you know that isn't a true statement is...

Going on the basis of subconscious thoughts and impulses, it is "natural" do do quite a few things. From enforcing a pecking order, to taking resources from others, to belittling a rival, to aggressive action up to and including murder. If we aren't "better than that" why the hell bother with society at all? Our present state of civilization requires that people suppress many of our instinctive desires in favor of rational thought on whether that desire is appropriate to act upon. My suggestion that sexual contact needs to be among them is hardly out of place.

The idiots who prevent their kids from a reasonable precaution on such a basis deserve scorn, that is true. Still doesn't change my point.

I don't understand what's wrong with promoting abstinence. It is the most effective contraceptive of all times after all. What is wrong is when people promote abstinence while demonizing the use of contraceptives such as condoms. We should do both. Ensure teenagers understand there are risks related to sex and that the only way to reduce those to 0 is by not having sex and that if they cannot resist they should use contraceptives to at least minimize said risks. And we also need to promote the reduction of promiscuity which also doesn't help the reduction of the spread of STD's. You are less likely to get STD's if you stick to one partner which you trust and know isn't infected.

Sometimes i think this whole hatred towards abstinence stems from a hate towards religion and automatic villification of anything remotely related to it.

Heronblade:
Apparently you missed the part where I suggested that encouraging abstinence and teaching the proper use of contraceptives can go hand in hand. I have no intention or desire to try and enforce an actual policy/rule/law of abstinence, just to reinforce rational thought and a reasonable level of caution.

Most sex ed programs already teach abstinence. They don't encourage it but they do present it as an option. Either way, the focus of sex ed is mainly safe sexual practices and that's what it should be about. Teenagers have sex, you can either accept that and teach them how to do it safely or leave them be and let teen pregnancy rates go up.

Heronblade:
Our present state of civilization requires that people suppress many of our instinctive desires in favor of rational thought on whether that desire is appropriate to act upon. My suggestion that sexual contact needs to be among them is hardly out of place.

Did you just compare sex to murder? Because I think you just did. Guess what? Sex hurts nobody. Oh sure, there are consequences but that's what sex ed is for. You can't expect teenagers to abstain from sex because that's simply not going to happen. Besides, how would you even go about enforcing abstienence?

generals3:
And we also need to promote the reduction of promiscuity.

And what's wrong with promiscuity? We live in the 21st century. Condoms are widely available at every corner drug store. You don't need to encourage or discourage anything, that's not the point of sex ed. Sex ed is there to teach teens about safe sexual practices and that's it. If you want to instil particular values in your child then feel free to do so, though I doubt they'll actually give a shit. Schools don't exist to push your or anyone else's agenda on everyone.

PercyBoleyn:

Heronblade:
Apparently you missed the part where I suggested that encouraging abstinence and teaching the proper use of contraceptives can go hand in hand. I have no intention or desire to try and enforce an actual policy/rule/law of abstinence, just to reinforce rational thought and a reasonable level of caution.

Most sex ed programs already teach abstinence. They don't encourage it but they do present it as an option. Either way, the focus of sex ed is mainly safe sexual practices and that's what it should be about. Teenagers have sex, you can either accept that and teach them how to do it safely or leave them be and let teen pregnancy rates go up.

Heronblade:
Our present state of civilization requires that people suppress many of our instinctive desires in favor of rational thought on whether that desire is appropriate to act upon. My suggestion that sexual contact needs to be among them is hardly out of place.

Did you just compare sex to murder? Because I think you just did. Guess what? Sex hurts nobody. Oh sure, there are consequences but that's what sex ed is for. You can't expect teenagers to abstain from sex because that's simply not going to happen. Besides, how would you even go about enforcing abstienence?

I have yet to see or hear about a sex ed program that came close to effectively encouraging either abstinence or proper contraceptive use.

I mentioned murder and sex as both being part of a long list of impulses that need to be at least partly suppressed rather than acted out without thinking about it, not in terms of comparing the two things in regards to severity. I also wanted to put to rest the notion that something considered to be "natural" is inherently good or right.

Sex can and does hurt plenty of people, whether via disease or unwanted pregnancy. Our current sexual education so far as I can tell has had almost no effect on encouraging our youth to prevent either.

P.S. You just finished quoting me saying that I have no desire to enforce abstinence, then ask how I intend to enforce abstinence... random mental disconnect, or is this a common issue?

generals3:
I don't understand what's wrong with promoting abstinence. It is the most effective contraceptive of all times after all.

ASODUFIJ$(Z$(GHG

STOP. FUCKING. PERPETUATING. THIS. MYTH.

There are two parts to the effectiveness of a contraceptive. The first is "does it work". Condoms have around 99.8% success rate, only .2% worse than abstinence. Same with the pill. The second factor: "will it be used correctly". I'm willing to bet that the statistic for that in regards to abstinence is somewhere between 10% and 50%. Abstinence is NOT an effective contraceptive simply because we're not robots, and you always have to consider the human influence.

Sometimes i think this whole hatred towards abstinence stems from a hate towards religion and automatic villification of anything remotely related to it.

No, it's based on the fact that teaching abstinence is demonstrably a huge waste of time, and the fact that religious nutjobs pushing it does demonstrable harm to people.

Heronblade:
I have yet to see or hear about a sex ed program that came close to effectively encouraging either abstinence or proper contraceptive use.

The Netherlands handles it pretty well. So does Planned Parenthood. These are only from the top of my head, I'm sure there are other examples.

Heronblade:
I mentioned murder and sex as both being part of a long list of impulses that need to be at least partly suppressed rather than acted out without thinking about it, not in terms of comparing the two things in regards to severity.

The US already tried to "supress" sexual impulses in teenagers by trying to encourage abstinence and it has failed miserably. Also, sex is not comparable to murder. Please don't go there. The fact of the matter is, a comprehensive sexual education that focuses on safe sexual practices is the only way to reduce teen pregnancy rates. "Encouraging" abstinence does jack shit. You don't get to push your own agenda on everyone else just because you think your view on this particular issue is the correct one. The purpose of sex ed should be information, nothing more and nothing less. It's up to each individual parent to instil whatever value they want into their children, provided those values are not batshit insane.

Heronblade:
Sex can and does hurt plenty of people

Of course it can, that's why we need to teach teens safe sexual practices to prevent those things from happening.

Stagnant:

generals3:
I don't understand what's wrong with promoting abstinence. It is the most effective contraceptive of all times after all.

ASODUFIJ$(Z$(GHG

STOP. FUCKING. PERPETUATING. THIS. MYTH.

There are two parts to the effectiveness of a contraceptive. The first is "does it work". Condoms have around 99.8% success rate, only .2% worse than abstinence. Same with the pill. The second factor: "will it be used correctly". I'm willing to bet that the statistic for that in regards to abstinence is somewhere between 10% and 50%. Abstinence is NOT an effective contraceptive simply because we're not robots, and you always have to consider the human influence.

-Decent quality condoms have such a high success rate if and only if correctly used, just like you yourself stated. People don't tend to care about proper usage, and quite a few only use condoms at all if their partners insist.
-Human beings, even while in the tadpole stage, are quite capable of controlling themselves, in terms of sexual desire and otherwise. We don't have to be robots, just to be willing to use that brain power which is our only semi-unique advantage over the other animals on this planet.
-What I'm curious about is why you are taking this so negatively. I could understand if those suggesting abstinence in this thread were doing so from the standpoint of sex being somehow inherently wrong, or at the expense of allowing for safe sexual practices, both viewpoints are after all annoyingly ignorant. Instead you're faced with people suggesting that maybe, just maybe, we don't have to blindly act on impulses left over from our days as tribal huntsmen, and simply think for ourselves before making a decision. Is that really such a bad thing?

Heronblade:
Decent quality condoms have such a high success rate if and only if correctly used, just like you yourself stated. People don't tend to care about proper usage, and quite a few only use condoms at all if their partners insist.

Yes, because properly applying a condom on your cock is such a hard ordeal. Also, do you have some hard data to support those claims?

Heronblade:
-Human beings, even while in the tadpole stage, are quite capable of controlling themselves, in terms of sexual desire and otherwise. We don't have to be robots, just to be willing to use that brain power which is our only semi-unique advantage over the other animals on this planet.

Aha, which is why abstinence has done wonders for the US. What do you suppose we do to "encourage" abstinence in teens? We tried telling them they should abstain from sex, they didn't listen. We tried lying to them about sex, they didn't give a shit. The only thing left to do is to imprison them but I'm assuming you're not insane enough to suggest such a thing.

Heronblade:
What I'm curious about is why you are taking this so negatively. I could understand if those suggesting abstinence in this thread were doing so from the standpoint of sex being somehow inherently wrong, or at the expense of allowing for safe sexual practices, both viewpoints are after all annoyingly ignorant. Instead you're faced with people suggesting that maybe, just maybe, we don't have to blindly act on impulses left over from our days as tribal huntsmen, and simply think for ourselves before making a decision. Is that really such a bad thing?

Because abstinence doesn't work. If you have any idea as to how we might get teens to give a crap about it then feel free to share.

Rather than telling teens what to do, you supply them with all the knowledge and tools so they can make an educated decision. Showing the responsibilities that accompany sex, the possible outcomes good and bad, discussing what kind of life they want to live, how pregancy and STDs can affect their future, and openly discussing the importance of making good choices is a far better alternative than telling a kid "yes or no". When I handed out birth control to teens, I didn't just toss out condoms like candy, I at least attempted to get through to them in a way they could understand and relate to. I strongly believe that they will make more responsible choices, given all the right tools to make that decision. Most teens do not desire to be broke and supporting kids during the prime years of their life. That is not a very attractive alternative to what all the other kids are able to do during the years from 16- 22. Showing them the good, the bad and the ugly of it all is far more effective.

Honestly, to me, prefering abstinence over condoms is like prefering your own hands over a shovel. There is a better, more efficient and less harmful solution to a problem, but Zog-ok the Lord of Thunder doesn't like shovels.

Honestly, I'd like to know exactly where christianity's whole sex-complex began. Was there some sort of equivolent to a corporate party or teambuilding thing that went off the rails somewhere and things just got astronomically awkward or something?

Muspelheim:
Honestly, to me, prefering abstinence over condoms is like prefering your own hands over a shovel. There is a better, more efficient and less harmful solution to a problem, but Zog-ok the Lord of Thunder doesn't like shovels.

Honestly, I'd like to know exactly where christianity's whole sex-complex began. Was there some sort of equivolent to a corporate party or teambuilding thing that went off the rails somewhere and things just got astronomically awkward or something?

Of course abstinence should be taught in combination with all other information we have available, but not by itself. Mutual masturbation and other " non penetrating" sexual activites should be taught as well. The key here is to reduce teenage pregnancies and the spread of STD's, and that includes all possibilities, including but not limited to abstinence.

Teens should be educated beforehand of all possible outcomes, as there is no Birth control that does not involve surgery that is 100%. They should be taught they should be prepared before engaging in a certain activity for all possible outcomes, as they still do exist.

Abstinence is free and carries zero risks. If you want to take lets say 5% risk with a condom then fine go ahead but its not free.

Seekster:
Abstinence is free and carries zero risks. If you want to take lets say 5% risk with a condom then fine go ahead but its not free.

Abstinence is not free, it costs you intimacy, sex, happyness and relationships altogether.

I think abstinence being taught hand in hand with correct sexual safety precautions is best, as plenty of others have already said.

There will be some who choose abstinence over contraceptives and the others will choose the alternative.

I guess I have a problem with completely giving up at least trying to discourage a teenager/young adult/ what-have-you from practicing abstinence at least until they feel that they are informed enough.

But it would be ignorant of us to not accept that just trying to enforce abstinence has failed miserably.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
Abstinence is free and carries zero risks. If you want to take lets say 5% risk with a condom then fine go ahead but its not free.

Abstinence is not free, it costs you intimacy, sex, happyness and relationships altogether.

And how much is sex worth to you (intimacy and happiness can be had with absinence though I will grant you sex obviously cant be)? I am not saying sex is evil, good heavens no. I am just saying that while we need to teach people about safe sex the only way to be 100% certain that you will not face any consequences from sexual behavior is to not have sex or at least do not have it until you are ready to handle those consequences. Young people often are not ready for the emotional and phyiscal consequences of sex.

I'm not here to push my views on others but I will express my views. In my view sex is the most intimate expression of love and should therefore only be engaged in with your significant other. Thats my philosophy and I stick by it. If you disagree thats fine.

One day, I will wake up and realize that people quit poking noses into other people's bedrooms (or wherever they're going to get up to it), that everyone has a clear understanding and utter respect of the SSC rule, and that all the sex talk is going to stop because people will just enjoy their own intimate lives the way they enjoy them.

Oh and nobody would shove said lives into other people's faces, did I mention that? Because people who slam their business on the table and go "NOTICE THIS!" at everyone present really are in no position to complain about others poking their noses into said business.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked