I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to call you out on something. There is no "Debate," it's been proven very conclusively that sexual education is far more effective at preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies than abstinence only programs which more often than not make things worse. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fucking idiot. Debate implies something is still up for discussion rather than the argument being conclusively won by science and statistics. But, then again you do know that, so you're going to have to forgive me, i can't find humor in those idiots anymore. It's rather depressing that stupidity seems to reign in this nation.
Lil devils x: ow many times do I have to say it for you to understand? The purpose of sexual education is to "PROVIDE THE STUDENTS WITH ALL TOOLS AND INFORMATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ABSTINENCE".
This is not "either/or". It should include both or you are not properly educating them with all available options and information. They should be provided with everything, not just pick and choose what options they have for them.
Except abstinence is not a contraceptive, but a behavioural norm, and more specifically a religious one. One message also contradicts the other. If you're going to drag the church into the classroom and preach to students to not have sex, they won't use contraceptives, but it doesn't cancel out the fact that people have sex no matter what.
It's like saying "You must realise all people, are equal, except [insert any racist message]", and it greatly reduces the effect of the education. What happens is people start to hide their sexual contacts, and not bring or use contraceptives because that makes it 'more official'. The result is a higher level of std infection, teenage pregnancy and what not. I've seen it happen myself; girls feared their parents would find out they're on the pill, so they don't use one. Drama ensues as nature takes it's course and they end up scrambling for the morning after pill, or even worse, doing nothing and waiting to see if she's pregnant. That's what's being promoted if you preach abstinence and monogamy to students, and merely for those negative consequences, it has no place in any classroom.
I found a really clear site from the Dutch Union for Sexuologists, which explains some of the arguments here. Some translations:
"So why do people connect promiscuity and std's? And not just superstitious folks without an education, who really believe you can get a disease from adultery, but also doctors, vicars, educators and journalists? The most important reason is people are opposed to promiscuity."
So the only reason to want to educate on it, has nothing to do with education, but imposing one's (religious) values onto other people.
They conclude with: "From the previous follows that sex education aimed at monogamy and reducing promiscuity is in itself an important factor that contributes to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases"
Oh please. Religion has nothing to do with advising a teen to wait until they are financially and emotionally ready for sexual penetration. Personally, I took on the crusade to promote good sexual education at a young age because I wanted more of my peers to go to college rather than to " pick a father for the baby they plan to have.".
I meant the If you break up then it's only loss of companionship thing. Just seems that you're missing out on intimacy for in my mind an odd reason.
Just because I dont have sex means I am missing out on intimacy. Me and my girlfriend cuddle often when we are at one of our houses (and we arent watching a military movie, because that would be weird), and I would absolutly love to just have her fall asleep in my arms, while I sleep with her (IN THE LITERAL SENSE, NOT THE SEXUAL SENSE). I can deal with a little less intimacy right now and save it for after we get married (we both realise it is only a matter of time until that happens, barring something completely crazy).
And on the sexist thing? lolwut.. How is it sexist towards women? My girlfriend likes sex just as much and as frequent as I do. I'm not sure where the sexist angle comes in.
It allows men to view women as nothing more than sacks of flesh that they can stick thier (bleep) into...if it means anything, I push Chivalry and Knightly Virtues pretty hard.
Oh please. Religion has nothing to do with advising a teen to wait until they are financially and emotionally ready for sexual penetration. Personally, I took on the crusade to promote good sexual education at a young age because I wanted more of my peers to go to college rather than to " pick a father for the baby they plan to have.".
The problem is that the organisations that want to promote abstinence as an exclusive remedy are almost entirely faith-based.
RedBird: Preserving horrible ideas in the name of tradition? What is good enough for the catholic church should be good enough for you.
Don't even get me going on the catholic church. Their idea of educating children by placing a board over their arms and telling the to read a bible and that they are evil and going to hell if they do not repent for being born a "barbarian" is far from my idea of " good for anyone".
RedBird: Preserving horrible ideas in the name of tradition? What is good enough for the catholic church should be good enough for you.
Don't even get me going on the catholic church. Their idea of educating children by placing a board over their arms and telling the to read a bible and that they are evil and going to hell if they do not repent for being born a "barbarian" is far from my idea of " good for anyone".
I look at it this way: Pull all the best bits of various religions together as guidelines for life. Or just worship Cthulu. At least you know where you stand with Cthulu.
Oh please. Religion has nothing to do with advising a teen to wait until they are financially and emotionally ready for sexual penetration. Personally, I took on the crusade to promote good sexual education at a young age because I wanted more of my peers to go to college rather than to " pick a father for the baby they plan to have.".
The problem is that the organisations that want to promote abstinence as an exclusive remedy are almost entirely faith-based.
I strongly disagree in "Abstinence only solutions" Abstinence should be taught along with all available information in combination with/not a replacement for. ALL alternatives to vaginal penetration should be taught as well, even if the church disagrees with those methods.
I am Hopi. Our maternal civilization promotes sex and fertility. Hell we even had fertility festivals and children were taught how to self pleasure to ensure better fertility when they are older. We do not view sex as " bad or sinful" however, we did promote responsiblity, and taught girls not to wrestle, or have " too much contact" with boys until they were older.
I meant the If you break up then it's only loss of companionship thing. Just seems that you're missing out on intimacy for in my mind an odd reason.
Just because I dont have sex means I am missing out on intimacy. Me and my girlfriend cuddle often when we are at one of our houses (and we arent watching a military movie, because that would be weird), and I would absolutly love to just have her fall asleep in my arms, while I sleep with her (IN THE LITERAL SENSE, NOT THE SEXUAL SENSE). I can deal with a little less intimacy right now and save it for after we get married (we both realise it is only a matter of time until that happens, barring something completely crazy).
And on the sexist thing? lolwut.. How is it sexist towards women? My girlfriend likes sex just as much and as frequent as I do. I'm not sure where the sexist angle comes in.
It allows men to view women as nothing more than sacks of flesh that they can stick thier (bleep) into...if it means anything, I push Chivalry and Knightly Virtues pretty hard.
But you said yourself that you're missing the intimacy from not having sex, that its the companionship aspect that would be taking a knock. Also if you both know you're going to get married why aren't you fooling around? Seems odd that if you know she's "the one" then why can't you have what you'll be having eventually anyway?
It also allows women to think of men as sacks of flesh with a boner attached.. I'm not seeing your point. Women can be just as promiscuous as man and there is not a thing wrong with that.
Also although chivalry is a nice enough thing to some people, its pretty sexist in it's own right. Weak little women needing a knight in shining armour and all that, a lot of my female friends would take offense to that sort of mindset and rightly so.
RedBird: Preserving horrible ideas in the name of tradition? What is good enough for the catholic church should be good enough for you.
Don't even get me going on the catholic church. Their idea of educating children by placing a board over their arms and telling the to read a bible and that they are evil and going to hell if they do not repent for being born a "barbarian" is far from my idea of " good for anyone".
My dad literally had the Catholicism beaten out of him by priests and nuns.
RedBird: Preserving horrible ideas in the name of tradition? What is good enough for the catholic church should be good enough for you.
Don't even get me going on the catholic church. Their idea of educating children by placing a board over their arms and telling the to read a bible and that they are evil and going to hell if they do not repent for being born a "barbarian" is far from my idea of " good for anyone".
My dad literally had the Catholicism beaten out of him by priests and nuns.
They have done far worse than that to the tribes they have been trying to convert for a long time now. How anyone can do that to another human being in " the name of god" is beyond me. The worst part is the government forced the children into these catholic schools. They actually took the children by force from their homes, the Parents had no choice or say in the matter.
Also if you both know you're going to get married why aren't you fooling around? Seems odd that if you know she's "the one" then why can't you have what you'll be having eventually anyway?
Because if something goes wrong, I am not in a position to care for a child yet? Because it goes against my morals, as well as hers? Because I dont want to ruin the bond we have? Because I believe sex is only something you do to have children? How about E) All of the above.
It also allows women to think of men as sacks of flesh with a boner attached.. I'm not seeing your point. Women can be just as promiscuous as man and there is not a thing wrong with that.
But from what I have seen, the amount of what I would describe as "loose" men is significantly higher than "loose" women. Also, there is something wrong with that, but apparently I am the only one here who sees it.
Also although chivalry is a nice enough thing to some people, its pretty sexist in it's own right. Weak little women needing a knight in shining armour and all that, a lot of my female friends would take offense to that sort of mindset and rightly so.
Wierd....one of my female teachers constantly facepalms about how "chivalry is dead." And most of the girls in school know know I proclaim nothing but abstainance and chivalry. And with that, I have 4 close guy friends but about 20 close female friend, so apparently I am doing something right (maybe its because I treat them like humans equal, or in some cases superior, to men). Really, I dont see how chivarly can be sexist. Here is chivarly code in a nutshell: "An honorable gentlemans role is to follow Knightly Virtues at all times, in the service of first, his lord, second, his lady, and third, all women." And from what I have seen, most women push abstainance, while it is men who try to break it.
RedBird: Preserving horrible ideas in the name of tradition? What is good enough for the catholic church should be good enough for you.
I assume you are talking to me? Well, I guess horrible is in the eyes of the beholder. And what you call "horrible." I call "making sure I am disiplined."
Lil devils x: The rate is 80%- 90% effectiveness, scroll up to the medical sites above. That does not take into account the many who do not even bother to report these things.
The reasons given for the 80/90% statistic is improper condom usage so if used correctly it goes back up to 97%. Besides, a single website does not invalidate the numerous studies that show otherwise.
Also, I think Blahb addressed your abstinence claims quite succintly and since you didn't even bother to counter his arguments I can safely say you've lost this one.
Lil devils x: Much of medicine is still considered " barbaric"
I was wondering whether you had no idea what you're talking about or were just misinformed but frankly, after this, you're pretty much both at the same time.
Okay, how about this: teach kids abstinence is better, and then teach them about condoms and other contraceptives because we all know, lets be honest here, that humans gotta sex.
I agree with the abstinence doctrine, I think it is a great idea. I tried it for a few years, but you'll always find someone you really want to be with, in every meaning of the word. But to teach it in favour of real birth control is not only misguided, it can do a lot of damage on a lot of people's lives. People who keep pushing for abstinence are usually of a more religious type, but when it comes to the lives of our fellow human beings, can't you just look past your ideology and face the facts?
Lil devils x: The rate is 80%- 90% effectiveness, scroll up to the medical sites above. That does not take into account the many who do not even bother to report these things.
The reasons given for the 80/90% statistic is improper condom usage so if used correctly it goes back up to 97%. Besides, a single website does not invalidate the numerous studies that show otherwise.
Also, I think Blahb addressed your abstinence claims quite succintly and since you didn't even bother to counter his arguments I can safely say you've lost this one.
Lil devils x: Much of medicine is still considered " barbaric"
I was wondering whether you had no idea what you're talking about or were just misinformed but frankly, after this, you're pretty much both at the same time.
Really? That's your peer reviewed scientific evidence that condoms don't work? A google search?
What part of NORMAL SEX IS IMPROPER CONDOM USAGE do you not understand?
Our current medical practices are still barbaric in the eyes of physicians mind you. You may like to think we have all the answers, but the truth is we do not. We can do the best with the tools we have avaialbe, but that is all we can do. We want better tools to do a better job. That is why we need much more research to help us get there. If you think that we are "highly advanced" in regards to medicine, you have much to learn.
Oh please, I was not giving them peer reviewed scientific evidence. Just all of the people on the internet seeking answers for why their condom came off. When you have so many people asking you this on a daily basis, it is more than obvious there is a problem with this. Unless of course you think that every single one of these people would be seeking advice in this area are just doing so because they are not really concerned.
Lil devils x: What part of NORMAL SEX IS IMPROPER CONDOM USAGE do you not understand?
And what part of "modern studies take condom slippage into account" do you not understand?
Lil devils x: Our current medical practices are still barbaric in the eyes of physicians mind you. You may like to think we have all the answers, but the truth is we do not. We can do the best with the tools we have avaialbe, but that is all we can do. We want better tools to do a better job. That is why we need much more research to help us get there. If you think that we are "highly advanced" in regards to medicine, you have much to learn.
Please don't bother me with your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Lil devils x: Oh please, I was not giving them peer reviewed scientific evidence. Just all of the people on the internet seeking answers for why their condom came off. When you have so many people asking you this on a daily basis, it is more than obvious there is a problem with this. Unless of course you think that every single one of these people would be seeking advice in this area are just doing so because they are not really concerned.
You do realize there are numerous problems with relying on "Google" to prove that condom slippage is a huge problem as opposed to data provided to us by actual scientists doing actual science, right?
Bassik: Okay, how about this: teach kids abstinence is better, and then teach them about condoms and other contraceptives because we all know, lets be honest here, that humans gotta sex.
I agree with the abstinence doctrine, I think it is a great idea. I tried it for a few years, but you'll always find someone you really want to be with, in every meaning of the word. But to teach it in favour of real birth control is not only misguided, it can do a lot of damage on a lot of people's lives. People who keep pushing for abstinence are usually of a more religious type, but when it comes to the lives of our fellow human beings, can't you just look past your ideology and face the facts?
There is one thing I have gotten from this topic overall.
Those who have never had a normal, healthy, sexual relationship seem to be pushing for abstinence more than those who have had one (who tend to push for information and contraception).
Bassik: Okay, how about this: teach kids abstinence is better, and then teach them about condoms and other contraceptives because we all know, lets be honest here, that humans gotta sex.
I agree with the abstinence doctrine, I think it is a great idea. I tried it for a few years, but you'll always find someone you really want to be with, in every meaning of the word. But to teach it in favour of real birth control is not only misguided, it can do a lot of damage on a lot of people's lives. People who keep pushing for abstinence are usually of a more religious type, but when it comes to the lives of our fellow human beings, can't you just look past your ideology and face the facts?
Look, I have done all sorts of crazy things, but I, and my past partners, found that vaginal penetration is the most satisfying of them all. And please note that not every women is into anal sex, unfortunately. And a person can only have oral sex so many times until he/she wants something more.
You have to be realistic about these things. Why, why is advocating the use of condoms such a terrible issue with some people?
Lil devils x: What part of NORMAL SEX IS IMPROPER CONDOM USAGE do you not understand?
And what part of "modern studies take condom slippage into account" do you not understand?
Lil devils x: Our current medical practices are still barbaric in the eyes of physicians mind you. You may like to think we have all the answers, but the truth is we do not. We can do the best with the tools we have avaialbe, but that is all we can do. We want better tools to do a better job. That is why we need much more research to help us get there. If you think that we are "highly advanced" in regards to medicine, you have much to learn.
Please don't bother me with your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Lil devils x: Oh please, I was not giving them peer reviewed scientific evidence. Just all of the people on the internet seeking answers for why their condom came off. When you have so many people asking you this on a daily basis, it is more than obvious there is a problem with this. Unless of course you think that every single one of these people would be seeking advice in this area are just doing so because they are not really concerned.
You do realize there are numerous problems with relying on "Google" to prove that condom slippage is a huge problem as opposed to data provided to us by actual scientists doing actual science, right?
pseudo-intellectual my ass. I did not bust my ass to put myself through school and accumulate a lifetime in student loan debt just to listen to you misinform people as to the very real risks involved with the birth control methods we have available at this time.
This happens much more than we like to think it does. The alternative though is to not have enough funding to do our research, so we do take the good with the bad. We want them to make the condoms, they pay for the research, and we receive the products. You do have to take that research with a grain of salt however and see what happens in implementation to have a better gage of the actual percentages. We estimate condoms currently to be 80-90% effective, and yes, they can come off during normal sex.
Bassik: Okay, how about this: teach kids abstinence is better, and then teach them about condoms and other contraceptives because we all know, lets be honest here, that humans gotta sex.
I agree with the abstinence doctrine, I think it is a great idea. I tried it for a few years, but you'll always find someone you really want to be with, in every meaning of the word. But to teach it in favour of real birth control is not only misguided, it can do a lot of damage on a lot of people's lives. People who keep pushing for abstinence are usually of a more religious type, but when it comes to the lives of our fellow human beings, can't you just look past your ideology and face the facts?
Look, I have done all sorts of crazy things, but I, and my past partners, found that vaginal penetration is the most satisfying of them all. And please note that not every women is into anal sex, unfortunately. And a person can only have oral sex so many times until he/she wants something more.
You have to be realistic about these things. Why, why is advocating the use of condoms such a terrible issue with some people?
I am not advocating against the use of condoms, I am stating they are not guaranteed, and that you still need to be prepared if things do not turn out as planned because something went wrong. I am stressing that the idea they are somehow a " magic solution" to remove all risks is a falsehood and only promotes a false sense of security. I would much rather people use condoms than not, but I also want them to understand that things can and still do happen as well. My goal is for people to be properly educated and fully understand all options in order to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
Rkiver: There is one thing I have gotten from this topic overall.
Those who have never had a normal, healthy, sexual relationship seem to be pushing for abstinence more than those who have had one (who tend to push for information and contraception).
Just saying.
I am in a normal, healthy, sexual relationship and my choice of birth control was to have portions of my tubes removed. This should not be an either/or question, as I see the issue of unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs as a serious issue that needs to have all resources available utilized in order to help solve the problem.
Bassik: Okay, how about this: teach kids abstinence is better, and then teach them about condoms and other contraceptives because we all know, lets be honest here, that humans gotta sex.
Except that is basically what me and Seeksteer have been saying the whole time. In sex ed tell kids about contraceptives but say "Remember, money can be saved and trouble avoided by abstaining" and then people like PercyBoleyn keep saying "NO, that is like telling potential drives it is safer to not drive." -__-
Really, what Seeksteer said earlier in here was right. I do view condoms as the enabler to do things we shouldnt, and that they are helping to destroy the moraltiy of this country, BUT, they are a lesser evil than abortion, teen pregnacy, the whole nine yards.
Bassik: Okay, how about this: teach kids abstinence is better, and then teach them about condoms and other contraceptives because we all know, lets be honest here, that humans gotta sex.
Except that is basically what me and Seeksteer have been saying the whole time. In sex ed tell kids about contraceptives but say "Remember, money can be saved and trouble avoided by abstaining" and then people like PercyBoleyn keep saying "NO, that is like telling potential drives it is safer to not drive." -__-
Really, what Seeksteer said earlier in here was right. I do view condoms as the enabler to do things we shouldnt, and that they are helping to destroy the moraltiy of this country, BUT, they are a lesser evil than abortion, teen pregnacy, the whole nine yards.
While I definitely do not agree that the morality of your nation is in jeopardy because of sex, I do agree with everything else Seekster and you said in this thread. And Lil Devils X also made a good point. So yeah, good debate folks.
So in summary, we should advocate the use of condoms but also warn that they are not foolproof, and we should advocate abstinence but also warn that it's not for everyone. Can we all agree on that?
Exactly, They SHOULD BE!! is what I am saying. Even more so than women IMO.
How about just as much as women? What a person does with another (consenting) person should not matter at all, but I do dislike the double standard that a woman who has lots of sexual partners is a slut, but a man is a "hero". We need to get rid of that.
Lil devils x: Oh please. Religion has nothing to do with advising a teen to wait until they are financially and emotionally ready for sexual penetration.
Hold on, that's not what it was about. It was about preaching abstinence, not about picking the right age to start such things.
And the problem you described is one which can also be fixed with contraceptives. Wanting to be sexually active doesn't mean having to quit school, become some total stranger's financially dependant wife and have babies.
Preaching abstinence enhances that problem even.
BOOM headshot65: Except that is basically what me and Seeksteer have been saying the whole time. In sex ed tell kids about contraceptives but say "Remember, money can be saved and trouble avoided by abstaining" and then people like PercyBoleyn keep saying "NO, that is like telling potential drives it is safer to not drive." -__-
Really, what Seeksteer said earlier in here was right. I do view condoms as the enabler to do things we shouldnt, and that they are helping to destroy the moraltiy of this country, BUT, they are a lesser evil than abortion, teen pregnacy, the whole nine yards.
This is just your religious views, which are utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Just because you want to control other people's sex life doesn't mean you're either entitled, or it changes the fact that abstinence is nonsense, and contraceptives should be both educated about and available for free in at least many cases.
Lil devils x: pseudo-intellectual my ass. I did not bust my ass to put myself through school and accumulate a lifetime in student loan debt just to listen to you misinform people as to the very real risks involved with the birth control methods we have available at this time.
Before you start spouting off clinical trial information provided by the companies producing these products, you should understand that has been a controversial issue within the industry for quite a while now. Those trials do not produce same results of actual implentation.
Okay, so now proof that a condom will kill you? I mean, all you did was make an unfounded claim against which there are clinical trials showing it to be untrue, and all you respond with are allegations that there is a slight bias in those studies. That is a really weak argument, it's just seeding a little doubt about the proof of it working, and nothing more.
Yes there is, this is commonly known. Which is why people look at a margin when judging those studies, and after that still prescribe contraceptives. Besides, many of those factors are not inherently due to contraceptives. The pill nearly killed my wife through pulmonary embolisms, that "Oh, hi, I'm in the intensive care unit and I almost died" was some scary shit to hear as I was sitting in Afghanistan, but at the same time, the pill is not the root cause there. The cause is her tendency to develop embolisms at a certain application of hormone levels.
It's much like in the same way that the possibility of drowning in water doesn't make water considered a poisonous substance. You can't just attack contraceptives like that, fail to show their use ineffective (good luck with that, lol) and then prescribe doing nothing at all, and all it's disastrous consequences like some kind of alternative.
Lil devils x: Oh please. Religion has nothing to do with advising a teen to wait until they are financially and emotionally ready for sexual penetration.
Hold on, that's not what it was about. It was about preaching abstinence, not about picking the right age to start such things.
And the problem you described is one which can also be fixed with contraceptives. Wanting to be sexually active doesn't mean having to quit school, become some total stranger's financially dependant wife and have babies.
Preaching abstinence enhances that problem even.
BOOM headshot65: Except that is basically what me and Seeksteer have been saying the whole time. In sex ed tell kids about contraceptives but say "Remember, money can be saved and trouble avoided by abstaining" and then people like PercyBoleyn keep saying "NO, that is like telling potential drives it is safer to not drive." -__-
Really, what Seeksteer said earlier in here was right. I do view condoms as the enabler to do things we shouldnt, and that they are helping to destroy the moraltiy of this country, BUT, they are a lesser evil than abortion, teen pregnacy, the whole nine yards.
This is just your religious views, which are utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Just because you want to control other people's sex life doesn't mean you're either entitled, or it changes the fact that abstinence is nonsense, and contraceptives should be both educated about and available for free in at least many cases.
Lil devils x: pseudo-intellectual my ass. I did not bust my ass to put myself through school and accumulate a lifetime in student loan debt just to listen to you misinform people as to the very real risks involved with the birth control methods we have available at this time.
Before you start spouting off clinical trial information provided by the companies producing these products, you should understand that has been a controversial issue within the industry for quite a while now. Those trials do not produce same results of actual implentation.
Okay, so now proof that a condom will kill you? I mean, all you did was make an unfounded claim against which there are clinical trials showing it to be untrue, and all you respond with are allegations that there is a slight bias in those studies. That is a really weak argument, it's just seeding a little doubt about the proof of it working, and nothing more.
Yes there is, this is commonly known. Which is why people look at a margin when judging those studies, and after that still prescribe contraceptives. Besides, many of those factors are not inherently due to contraceptives. The pill nearly killed my wife through pulmonary embolisms, that "Oh, hi, I'm in the intensive care unit and I almost died" was some scary shit to hear as I was sitting in Afghanistan, but at the same time, the pill is not the root cause there. The cause is her tendency to develop embolisms at a certain application of hormone levels.
It's much like in the same way that the possibility of drowning in water doesn't make water considered a poisonous substance. You can't just attack contraceptives like that, fail to show their use ineffective (good luck with that, lol) and then prescribe doing nothing at all, and all it's disastrous consequences like some kind of alternative.
The issue is about whether abstinence should be taught at all. Long term abstinence is not the only form of abstinence. Waiting until you are financially and/or emotionally prepared are also a form of abstinence.
From what I can tell, we are in agreement on what should be taught. I think that everything we have available should be taught, and ultimately allow them to make an educated decision.
I do not endorse teaching falsehoods and giving people a false sense of security, as they also need to be informed at the risks and benefits from what we have available.
Of course I am not saying condoms will kill you. Quit being silly. The truth is, since they are not even regulated as a medication would be, you have even more issues in regards to the accuracy of the trials due to the lack of regulation in that department. It is not illegal to seed trials, even for medication, but is "frowned upon" by Physicians. As long as they are footing the bill and providing us with better tools than we had before, it is the best we have at this time so we cannot really complain all that much. Yes, many consider it unethical, but that doesn't stop it from happening.
Don't get me wrong, I WANT people to use condoms, I also want them to fully understand they are not guaranteed, and they should not be promoted as such. Promoting them in that manner also allows for people to not be prepared "just in case" something goes wrong.
As for the Pill, it almost killed me as well. In regards to pill usage, women really need to watch for the warning signs and not hesitate to get to an ER if they think there is a possibility of a problem. I am not advocating removing the pill, unwanted pregnancy is a very serious issue that needs to have more options available. I do promote proper understanding of the possible side effects/ complications/ and drug interactions and what they should do if they suspect there is a problem.
People should always take the risks seriously regardless of what choice they make.
Bassik: Okay, how about this: teach kids abstinence is better, and then teach them about condoms and other contraceptives because we all know, lets be honest here, that humans gotta sex.
Except that is basically what me and Seeksteer have been saying the whole time. In sex ed tell kids about contraceptives but say "Remember, money can be saved and trouble avoided by abstaining" and then people like PercyBoleyn keep saying "NO, that is like telling potential drives it is safer to not drive." -__-
Really, what Seeksteer said earlier in here was right. I do view condoms as the enabler to do things we shouldnt, and that they are helping to destroy the moraltiy of this country, BUT, they are a lesser evil than abortion, teen pregnacy, the whole nine yards.
While I definitely do not agree that the morality of your nation is in jeopardy because of sex, I do agree with everything else Seekster and you said in this thread. And Lil Devils X also made a good point. So yeah, good debate folks.
So in summary, we should advocate the use of condoms but also warn that they are not foolproof, and we should advocate abstinence but also warn that it's not for everyone. Can we all agree on that?
Exactly, They SHOULD BE!! is what I am saying. Even more so than women IMO.
How about just as much as women? What a person does with another (consenting) person should not matter at all, but I do dislike the double standard that a woman who has lots of sexual partners is a slut, but a man is a "hero". We need to get rid of that.
Yes, we are in agreement. I also agree that men are just as much sluts as women. In fact, I know more man whores than I do women. :)
Rkiver: There is one thing I have gotten from this topic overall.
Those who have never had a normal, healthy, sexual relationship seem to be pushing for abstinence more than those who have had one (who tend to push for information and contraception).
Just saying.
I am in a normal, healthy, sexual relationship and my choice of birth control was to have portions of my tubes removed. This should not be an either/or question, as I see the issue of unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs as a serious issue that needs to have all resources available utilized in order to help solve the problem.
Quite so, all the resources should be available, no question asked there, and people should be then able to make up their own mind. However quite a few people who are very much pro-abstinence seem to come from a background with no sexual relationships as of yet. It's just something I've noticed on here, and also in America in general.
BOOM headshot65: and that they are helping to destroy the moraltiy of this country.
And with that you fail. Your morality does not equal my morality, or anyone elses. What two consenting people choose to do is none of your bloody business. Sexual "morality" is no ones business bar those who are having sex.
Lil devils x: I do not endorse teaching falsehoods and giving people a false sense of security, as they also need to be informed at the risks and benefits from what we have available.
Which is why my driving teacher told me that if I'm going to drive a car there's a chance I might kill someone and that the best option to not kill someone is to not drive a car. Except he didn't do that, he taught me how to drive safely.
Lil devils x: Of course I am not saying condoms will kill you. Quit being silly. The truth is, since they are not even regulated as a medication would be, you have even more issues in regards to the accuracy of the trials due to the lack of regulation in that department. It is not illegal to seed trials, even for medication, but is "frowned upon" by Physicians. As long as they are footing the bill and providing us with better tools than we had before, it is the best we have at this time so we cannot really complain all that much. Yes, many consider it unethical, but that doesn't stop it from happening.
More bullshit. Honestly, do you ever stop spouting conspiracy theories?
Lil devils x: Don't get me wrong, I WANT people to use condoms, I also want them to fully understand they are not guaranteed, and they should not be promoted as such. Promoting them in that manner also allows for people to not be prepared "just in case" something goes wrong.
--- Don't get me wrong, I WANT people to use seatbelts, I also want them to fully understand they are not guaranteed, and they should not be promoted as such. Promoting them in that manner also allows for people to not be prepared "just in case" something goes wrong. ---
Lil devils x: People should always take the risks seriously regardless of what choice they make.
Now that's just idiotic. There are inherent risks for virtually anything you do. The solution isn't to stop doing shit, it's to learn how to limit those risks. You learn how to drive safely, you learn how to eat properly and you learn how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's whilst having sex.
Lil devils x: I do not endorse teaching falsehoods and giving people a false sense of security, as they also need to be informed at the risks and benefits from what we have available.
Which is why my driving teacher told me that if I'm going to drive a car there's a chance I might kill someone and that the best option to not kill someone is to not drive a car. Except he didn't do that, he taught me how to drive safely.
Lil devils x: Of course I am not saying condoms will kill you. Quit being silly. The truth is, since they are not even regulated as a medication would be, you have even more issues in regards to the accuracy of the trials due to the lack of regulation in that department. It is not illegal to seed trials, even for medication, but is "frowned upon" by Physicians. As long as they are footing the bill and providing us with better tools than we had before, it is the best we have at this time so we cannot really complain all that much. Yes, many consider it unethical, but that doesn't stop it from happening.
More bullshit. Honestly, do you ever stop spouting conspiracy theories?
Lil devils x: Don't get me wrong, I WANT people to use condoms, I also want them to fully understand they are not guaranteed, and they should not be promoted as such. Promoting them in that manner also allows for people to not be prepared "just in case" something goes wrong.
--- Don't get me wrong, I WANT people to use seatbelts, I also want them to fully understand they are not guaranteed, and they should not be promoted as such. Promoting them in that manner also allows for people to not be prepared "just in case" something goes wrong. ---
Lil devils x: People should always take the risks seriously regardless of what choice they make.
Now that's just idiotic. There are inherent risks for virtually anything you do. The solution isn't to stop doing shit, it's to learn how to limit those risks. You learn how to drive safely, you learn how to eat properly and you learn how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's whilst having sex.
If you are not even going to bother to address the information you have been provided in regards to the issues with Clinical trials, there is no point in continuing this conversation. That is no conspiracy theory, it is a serious issue that has been repeatedly been addressed, but it usually takes deaths to garner much attention. If you had bothered to read the information you were provided, you would see this is an industry wide problem.
The only thing idotic here is your idea that "condoms are guaranteed". But Trojan says they are! Trojan also says their new vibrating twister will blow your hair back. Why don't you go try that and get back with me on your results. :)
You can argue till your blue in the face that they are guaranteed, that does not change the fact that they are not.
Also if you both know you're going to get married why aren't you fooling around? Seems odd that if you know she's "the one" then why can't you have what you'll be having eventually anyway?
Because if something goes wrong, I am not in a position to care for a child yet? Because it goes against my morals, as well as hers? Because I dont want to ruin the bond we have? Because I believe sex is only something you do to have children? How about E) All of the above.
It also allows women to think of men as sacks of flesh with a boner attached.. I'm not seeing your point. Women can be just as promiscuous as man and there is not a thing wrong with that.
But from what I have seen, the amount of what I would describe as "loose" men is significantly higher than "loose" women. Also, there is something wrong with that, but apparently I am the only one here who sees it.
Also although chivalry is a nice enough thing to some people, its pretty sexist in it's own right. Weak little women needing a knight in shining armour and all that, a lot of my female friends would take offense to that sort of mindset and rightly so.
Wierd....one of my female teachers constantly facepalms about how "chivalry is dead." And most of the girls in school know know I proclaim nothing but abstainance and chivalry. And with that, I have 4 close guy friends but about 20 close female friend, so apparently I am doing something right (maybe its because I treat them like humans equal, or in some cases superior, to men). Really, I dont see how chivarly can be sexist. Here is chivarly code in a nutshell: "An honorable gentlemans role is to follow Knightly Virtues at all times, in the service of first, his lord, second, his lady, and third, all women." And from what I have seen, most women push abstainance, while it is men who try to break it.
RedBird: Preserving horrible ideas in the name of tradition? What is good enough for the catholic church should be good enough for you.
I assume you are talking to me? Well, I guess horrible is in the eyes of the beholder. And what you call "horrible." I call "making sure I am disiplined."
Actually I hadn't read a thing you'd said previously, if I was talking to you I'd have quoted you. But if you don't believe in the use of condoms to prevent unwanted pregnancy or the spread of LIFE TAKING STD's, then fuck you, and I might as well have been talking to you.
I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to call you out on something. There is no "Debate," it's been proven very conclusively that sexual education is far more effective at preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies than abstinence only programs which more often than not make things worse. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fucking idiot. Debate implies something is still up for discussion rather than the argument being conclusively won by science and statistics. But, then again you do know that, so you're going to have to forgive me, i can't find humor in those idiots anymore. It's rather depressing that stupidity seems to reign in this nation.